* First and foremost - go and see Laila Lalami this evening at Book Soup, where she'll read from the paperback release of Secret Son. (She's interviewed here at African Writing Online.)
* Second and ... secondmost? ... congratulations to Lorin Stein, new editor of The Paris Review. (Stein is doubly represented in my sidebar as translator of The Mystery Guest and editor of Home Land.)
* The National looks at recent non-fiction efforts from Eggers, Chabon and Foer.
* A report of Margaret Atwood's appearance at Davidson College.
* The inevitable press juggernaut surrounding Solar, the new McEwan novel, is creaking to life. One of the more amusing bits has to do with how McEwan lampooned fellow participants on an environmental cruise, reinforcing that indispensable life lesson: never, ever admit a writer in your midst, it will only come to sorrow.
McEwan, who received his MA degree in English literature at the University of East Anglia, the same institution which was immersed in the “climategate” scandal of alleged manipulated figures, saves his best satire for the scientists.
He had plenty of raw material. Tom Wakeford, a biologist who was part of the expedition, told his fellow adventurers in a blog: “Today you will have almost certainly inhaled an atom of carbon exhaled by Julius Caesar when he uttered the question ‘Et tu Brute?’.”
* I haven't had a chance yet to read Steve Wasserman's lengthy essay on The Fate of Books but I intend to, and he is always worth your time, so I comfortably recommend it, sight unseen.
* And, finally, the always superb Daniel Mendelsohn weighs in on the Avatar question.


I found Mendelsohn's take on Cameron's oeuvre disappointing. Just a couple of points:
The themes of humanity vs. machines, and the transcendance of the human condition, are foundational themes of science fiction. That they appear in Cameron's scifi films, therefore, is not really a comment on Cameron's aesthetic. He is just plundering scifi for its most popular tropes.
There's no way the idea for "Terminator" came to Cameron "in a dream", unless he was dreaming about reading Harlan Ellison's "Demon With a Glass Hand", and Philip K. Dick's "Second Variety". In other words, the stories from which he stole the idea for Terminator (Ellison later won a lawsuit against Cameron on this very point). This has been well known for decades, so it's odd Mendelsohn is unaware of this. The true provenance of Terminator also supports my point about Cameron's themes being taken from the wider concerns of science fiction as such.
Avatar is not based on or a reflection of The Wizard of Oz. As everyone else has seen, it's a remake of Dances With Wolves.
Reducing Cameron's aesthetic to the triumph of the mechanical just doesn't work. Aliens was not about the triumph of the mechanical, but about the triumph of the human over the alien. The movie is based on the contrast between two concepts of motherhood: The nurturing human form, and the parasitic travesty of that love embodied by the aliens. Ripley's whole fixation on Newt in the movie comes from the fact that she knows her own daughter died 60 years before she was rescued from cryo-sleep (a crucial piece of information that was not in the original theatrical release of the movie. You can see the scene in the re-release version).
This theme continues in Avatar, where "the mechanical" is given an entirely negative meaning, where the conflict is precisely between the mechanical and the organic, with the organic being the big winner.
Cameron is not a deep thinker, and his persistent themese are not that complicated or subtle, so it's odd that Mendelsohn got so lost in trying to analyze them and their significance.
Posted by: Niall | March 08, 2010 at 07:58 AM
I'm with Mendelsohn in this: Cameron's story's would seem, often, to be about humanity's triumph over the mechanical (Alien, Avatar, Terminator) but the experience of the movie is all about selling us on how cool and superior the mechanical is. In the same way that Cameron believes Titanic to be a "communist" movie about the superior humanity of those in steerage, but the the experience of the movie is all about how cool the big opulent ship is -- and even more so, how really cool the big expensive movie-making machine is, that can recreate this drowned behemoth. In Avatar, I think the movie works slightly better, because the movie is about the triumph of Cameron, again, as visionary film creator, and in that role he is a better mix of the mechanical humans and the digital, web-based world the film purports to be celebrating.
Posted by: WNC | March 08, 2010 at 09:28 AM
I think that this argument confuses two very different concepts: "technology" and "the mechanical". They overlap, but are two different things. Avatar capability is definitely technology, but the result isn't something mechanical. This is a distinction that Mendelsohn also seems to ignore.
Posted by: Niall | March 08, 2010 at 10:11 AM
There's no way the idea for "Terminator" came to Cameron "in a dream", unless he was dreaming about reading Harlan Ellison's "Demon With a Glass Hand", and Philip K. Dick's "Second Variety". In other words, the stories from which he stole the idea for Terminator [url=http://www.pandorabeadsjewellerymall.com/]pandora[/url](Ellison later won a lawsuit against Cameron on this very point). This has been well known for decades, so it's odd Mendelsohn is unaware of this. The true provenance of Terminator also supports my point about Cameron's themes being taken from the wider concerns of science fiction as such
Posted by: pandora | October 27, 2010 at 06:16 PM