Post by Aedh on Nov 9, 2008 2:27:52 GMT -5
Is "Queen City"--I've been asked--really an homage to the movie "Equilibrium?" (Which if you haven't seen, you must.) Sure it is. It has, or will have, many of the ingredients of EQ's formula. I'll give a baker's dozen of them.
1. Both glorify violence, but also have their reflective moments.
2. Both have a future setting after a disastrous war, in a society where freedom of expression has been restricted by the government, and this is vigorously enforced.
3. Both have a sexy, untouchable protagonist who possesses unrivalled street-fighting skills, and who can take you and any army you care to bring.
4. In both, said protagonist doesn't show or feel emotion at first. However, this protagonist must learn to deal with and own emotion.
5. In both, there's a Big Authority Figure whom--we all know--is breaking the law.
6 (three parts). In both, protagonist is partnered with someone who may possibly be out to use and betray them for their own ends--I'm not saying just yet. In both, there is, or will be, a climactic battle between the BAF of #5 and protagonist. Also in both, there is, or will be, a puppy.
7. In both, said BAF is fronting for someone who's unseen and whose very existence is questionable.
8. I won't exclude the possibility that after said battle of #6, a revolution and new order comes into being.
9. In both, there is a small elite of superperformers who constitute a more or less closed caste, backed by an organized force that supports them. They are hailed by some and reviled by others. Protagonist turns against the forces of support.
10. In both, there is a Resistance.
11. Finally, in both, there is a small elite of ass-kicking black-clad agents who work for the BAF.
That being said, there are a number of obvious differences as well.
A. Libria resembles the present-day USA very little, in my opinion. (I'm open to correction and education.) The society of "Queen City" is a readily recognizable evolution of our own present-day one, since the preceding disastrous war--while disastrous--wasn't the Apocalypse and didn't come close to wiping out all humanity. There is no Prozium or other drug that inhibits or otherwise prevents freedom. I don't believe we need it. This is America, and we can do things on our own.
Let me digress. I'm not the oldest person on the planet, but I have a sentient memory long enough to reach back to a time when things that were big concerns for people, individually and socially, and would have elicited very emotional reactions, are now greeted with a shrug. And there are things now that simply were unknown then, or were not as of much concern.
I'm lucky enough to have had, and lived with, grandparents who grew up during the Late Victorian era, from which we are now removed as far as the date of "Queen City" is from us, and I had parents old enough to remember the Great Depression and the problems of the 1930s as adults, and I spent many, many hours while they were alive talking to them and asking them a million questions, mining their memories for 'how it used to be.' What goes for me now goes double and triple for them.
I think it's safe to say that if someone were lifted from 1902--when my grandfather had already grown and left home--and plopped into our society circa 2009, he might very well wonder what sort of weird drug we'd taken that so affected our minds. I suspect it would be at least as much of a shock as us watching EQ and marveling at those under the 'dose.' We have no reason to suppose that the world of 2116 will be any less different from this one, or that we would be any less shocked than our hypothetical time-traveler of my grandfather's generation. It may be more different, in many more ways than I can imagine.
This is also true when we look back at history. Centuries ago, perfectly nice communities suddenly picked out someone as a witch and put her or him to death, sometimes with revolting cruelty. A starving child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread to feed herself with. Further back still, you could lose your head for wearing a garment of the wrong color, or face prison time and a fine for wearing shoes that were too pointy, or publicly omitting to specify that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Even today, in some places, possession of a lock of someone else's hair or a certain kind of forked stick can get you a merciless beating, even to death. Yet these people were not of some other species. They were human as we are. We just don't really understand how they got to think how they did.
So, with this point made, I'm setting out the idea that originality, freedom, creativity, religious thought, etc., will be different then--more restricted in some ways and subject to baffling changes in others--not because of some Prozium-like dose, but because we will have done it to ourselves without the assistance of any drug. Our 'Clerics' will be faceless, taking the form of friends, neighbors, family, co-workers, fellow-students--even residing within our own instincts. It will have been more gradual, more insidious, and there will be no obvious, iconic 'dose' to rebel against. You would, with no very clear idea of exactly what you're against, have to rebel against society as a whole--which is just what my various protagonists and their little community have been doing.
Just because they're the rebels doesn't mean everything they're doing is to be cheered for, any more than what the larger society is doing is to be condemned out of hand. To pick an example, the Central American civil conflicts of the late twentieth century furnished plenty of bad thinking on the sides of rebels and government both. To put it bluntly, this ain't the comfortably-titled, family-friendly 'Star Wars,' set 'long ago in a galaxy far, far away. This is "Queen City," it contains much that is disturbing, and it's set in a neighborhood very much like yours in a time your grandchildren will live to see. In fact, it's already been set in motion around us.
B. "Queen City" isn't quite as somber as EQ. It has satirical and humorous moments. I like to laugh once in a while and see others do likewise.
C. My sexy, untouchable protagonist is female, that is, my main protagonist. There are actually several protagonists who share out protagonistic roles between them. Her lack of emotion is caused by brain programming, not a drug. She's part machine.
F. In "Queen City" there's not one, but two top-dog authority figures whom we all know are breaking the law, both in their own ways, and the two of them are to a certain extent pitted against each other as well as the protagonist, and partner, who too assumes a protagonistic role to a certain degree.
G. Comment on 7 reserved just now, except to note that the figure being fronted isn't a public icon, but a grey eminence. Comment on 6 and 8 also reserved just now, but for 6, maybe there might not be much difference after all.
I. The most obvious difference of all is, of course, all the sex. The superperformers of 10 are fertility athletes, not special police, and the force that supports them isn't another police group but rather a network of citizens with whom they have a mutually beneficial relationship. As far as just which protagonist turns, and how, I'll reserve comment, but it does happen in a very visible way. Why I went with sex as a major theme: it's understandable to everyone; it reflects real trends going on today that will be there in the future in which this takes place; it affords ready opportunities for humor and pathos; and, of course, it sells.
J. The Resistance: there are also--as with protagonists and BAFs--multiple Resistances in "Queen City." One "Resistance" constitutes a minority of the citizens, as in EQ, resisting the larger government represented by the bad guys, but in this case this "Resistance" is the protagonists' side. The other "Resistance" constitutes a numerical majority of citizens who are resistant to the protagonists' efforts. Ironically, the numerically larger "Resistance #2" likes to view itself as smaller, more aggrieved, and more embattled than the actually far smaller and far more immediately embattled "Resistance #1."
K. About 11, they are there, but don't take a dominant role as the Clerics did in EQ.
In this way I get to do much of what EQ does in a different form which isn't a direct ripoff, as well as enlarging, exploring, and wandering. That's why I call "Queen City" an homage, and why I think it will have some appeal to those who like EQ.
1. Both glorify violence, but also have their reflective moments.
2. Both have a future setting after a disastrous war, in a society where freedom of expression has been restricted by the government, and this is vigorously enforced.
3. Both have a sexy, untouchable protagonist who possesses unrivalled street-fighting skills, and who can take you and any army you care to bring.
4. In both, said protagonist doesn't show or feel emotion at first. However, this protagonist must learn to deal with and own emotion.
5. In both, there's a Big Authority Figure whom--we all know--is breaking the law.
6 (three parts). In both, protagonist is partnered with someone who may possibly be out to use and betray them for their own ends--I'm not saying just yet. In both, there is, or will be, a climactic battle between the BAF of #5 and protagonist. Also in both, there is, or will be, a puppy.
7. In both, said BAF is fronting for someone who's unseen and whose very existence is questionable.
8. I won't exclude the possibility that after said battle of #6, a revolution and new order comes into being.
9. In both, there is a small elite of superperformers who constitute a more or less closed caste, backed by an organized force that supports them. They are hailed by some and reviled by others. Protagonist turns against the forces of support.
10. In both, there is a Resistance.
11. Finally, in both, there is a small elite of ass-kicking black-clad agents who work for the BAF.
That being said, there are a number of obvious differences as well.
A. Libria resembles the present-day USA very little, in my opinion. (I'm open to correction and education.) The society of "Queen City" is a readily recognizable evolution of our own present-day one, since the preceding disastrous war--while disastrous--wasn't the Apocalypse and didn't come close to wiping out all humanity. There is no Prozium or other drug that inhibits or otherwise prevents freedom. I don't believe we need it. This is America, and we can do things on our own.
Let me digress. I'm not the oldest person on the planet, but I have a sentient memory long enough to reach back to a time when things that were big concerns for people, individually and socially, and would have elicited very emotional reactions, are now greeted with a shrug. And there are things now that simply were unknown then, or were not as of much concern.
I'm lucky enough to have had, and lived with, grandparents who grew up during the Late Victorian era, from which we are now removed as far as the date of "Queen City" is from us, and I had parents old enough to remember the Great Depression and the problems of the 1930s as adults, and I spent many, many hours while they were alive talking to them and asking them a million questions, mining their memories for 'how it used to be.' What goes for me now goes double and triple for them.
I think it's safe to say that if someone were lifted from 1902--when my grandfather had already grown and left home--and plopped into our society circa 2009, he might very well wonder what sort of weird drug we'd taken that so affected our minds. I suspect it would be at least as much of a shock as us watching EQ and marveling at those under the 'dose.' We have no reason to suppose that the world of 2116 will be any less different from this one, or that we would be any less shocked than our hypothetical time-traveler of my grandfather's generation. It may be more different, in many more ways than I can imagine.
This is also true when we look back at history. Centuries ago, perfectly nice communities suddenly picked out someone as a witch and put her or him to death, sometimes with revolting cruelty. A starving child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread to feed herself with. Further back still, you could lose your head for wearing a garment of the wrong color, or face prison time and a fine for wearing shoes that were too pointy, or publicly omitting to specify that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Even today, in some places, possession of a lock of someone else's hair or a certain kind of forked stick can get you a merciless beating, even to death. Yet these people were not of some other species. They were human as we are. We just don't really understand how they got to think how they did.
So, with this point made, I'm setting out the idea that originality, freedom, creativity, religious thought, etc., will be different then--more restricted in some ways and subject to baffling changes in others--not because of some Prozium-like dose, but because we will have done it to ourselves without the assistance of any drug. Our 'Clerics' will be faceless, taking the form of friends, neighbors, family, co-workers, fellow-students--even residing within our own instincts. It will have been more gradual, more insidious, and there will be no obvious, iconic 'dose' to rebel against. You would, with no very clear idea of exactly what you're against, have to rebel against society as a whole--which is just what my various protagonists and their little community have been doing.
Just because they're the rebels doesn't mean everything they're doing is to be cheered for, any more than what the larger society is doing is to be condemned out of hand. To pick an example, the Central American civil conflicts of the late twentieth century furnished plenty of bad thinking on the sides of rebels and government both. To put it bluntly, this ain't the comfortably-titled, family-friendly 'Star Wars,' set 'long ago in a galaxy far, far away. This is "Queen City," it contains much that is disturbing, and it's set in a neighborhood very much like yours in a time your grandchildren will live to see. In fact, it's already been set in motion around us.
B. "Queen City" isn't quite as somber as EQ. It has satirical and humorous moments. I like to laugh once in a while and see others do likewise.
C. My sexy, untouchable protagonist is female, that is, my main protagonist. There are actually several protagonists who share out protagonistic roles between them. Her lack of emotion is caused by brain programming, not a drug. She's part machine.
F. In "Queen City" there's not one, but two top-dog authority figures whom we all know are breaking the law, both in their own ways, and the two of them are to a certain extent pitted against each other as well as the protagonist, and partner, who too assumes a protagonistic role to a certain degree.
G. Comment on 7 reserved just now, except to note that the figure being fronted isn't a public icon, but a grey eminence. Comment on 6 and 8 also reserved just now, but for 6, maybe there might not be much difference after all.
I. The most obvious difference of all is, of course, all the sex. The superperformers of 10 are fertility athletes, not special police, and the force that supports them isn't another police group but rather a network of citizens with whom they have a mutually beneficial relationship. As far as just which protagonist turns, and how, I'll reserve comment, but it does happen in a very visible way. Why I went with sex as a major theme: it's understandable to everyone; it reflects real trends going on today that will be there in the future in which this takes place; it affords ready opportunities for humor and pathos; and, of course, it sells.
J. The Resistance: there are also--as with protagonists and BAFs--multiple Resistances in "Queen City." One "Resistance" constitutes a minority of the citizens, as in EQ, resisting the larger government represented by the bad guys, but in this case this "Resistance" is the protagonists' side. The other "Resistance" constitutes a numerical majority of citizens who are resistant to the protagonists' efforts. Ironically, the numerically larger "Resistance #2" likes to view itself as smaller, more aggrieved, and more embattled than the actually far smaller and far more immediately embattled "Resistance #1."
K. About 11, they are there, but don't take a dominant role as the Clerics did in EQ.
In this way I get to do much of what EQ does in a different form which isn't a direct ripoff, as well as enlarging, exploring, and wandering. That's why I call "Queen City" an homage, and why I think it will have some appeal to those who like EQ.
