Last night, I finally watched Creed, the latest in the Rocky saga. I love sports movies. There are very few that don't choke me up and thrill me. They're usually cheesy, over the top and melodramatic in a way that is right in my wheelhouse.
I didn't like Creed.
It was slow, predictable and forty minutes too long.
I saw the first three Rocky movies decades ago and loved them all. I saw the last two Rocky movies (I don't even know how many there are) and thoroughly enjoyed them. So maybe that was the problem: I know the formula too well.
Despite not having seen this iteration before, I was able to recite whole scenes along with the characters and predict whole strings of plot developments and 'twists' just before they appeared on the screen.
So I guess if you haven't seen any of the others, or if you don't remember them, you might think Creed is okay. I was bored.
I just finished a series of sci-fi books that I didn't like either. I only stuck with the series, hoping that something would tie all the disparate threads together and that some of the glaring issues within the story would be addressed but they never were. The premise behind the books is very cool but the potential of the set up is not just wasted, it's completely ignored.
The Long Earth is by "Sci-fi giants" Terry Pratchett and Steven Baxter. Well, sorry dudes but the two of you couldn't write your way out of a paper bag. Dull stories, ploddingly told is not my cup of tea.
I like Sci-fi. I love good sci-fi.
I've read a handful of Isaac Asimov and while his tales are very dated ( he never saw digital coming) at least they're well told.
I've read two of Orson Scott Card's series and couldn't put a single one of his books down. He's a brilliant story teller.
The Long Earth is built upon the idea that in the near future, man discovers the ability to step sideways into an alternate universe planet earth, exactly like the original but untouched by man. And if one 'steps' again, one discovers that there's actually an infinite chain of alternate earths. Think of the possibilities! No more worries about a lack of resources, overpopulation or hunger! In the first year after Step Day, 20% of humanity 'disappears' from datum (original) earth to be pioneers of the Long Earth.
The authors waste no time at all delving into human nature. I don't mean they get right to it, I mean they never get to it.
Instead of pondering the question of who would actually take the step, who would stay behind, what real challenges would face the long earth pioneers, what would it take to transport civilization to a new earth, what socio/political/industrial/economical ramifications would such a discovery have on existing cultures etc. the book is nothing but a series of adventures taken by two dimensional characters, none of whom ever have an original or interesting thought.
The authors own viewpoints are so narrow and absolute (everyone in the book, including an Anglican cleric and a Catholic nun are atheists) that I'm puzzled as to what would draw two such unimaginative minds to science fiction?
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is less about the creation of a humanoid monster as it is about the monstrous behavior of abandoning the life one creates.
Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park is less about dinosaurs than it is about the hubris of believing we have a right to do a thing just because we have the technology to do it.
The Long Earth, despite a premise that is ripe with philosophical possibilities, is about nothing more than a handful of self centered assholes running around accomplishing nothing.
The main character is an orphan who can step naturally. He's famous despite the fact that he never does anything that would actually gain a person more than a blip in the crawl in today's society. One of the first pioneer families steps out into the long earth, abandoning their 12 year old son who is one of the small percentage of humans who can't step. So they leave him.
They leave him.
These shit stains just leave their son behind because they want to go.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be plenty of selfish boobs who would desert their kids in a heartbeat: I'm saying isn't that an issue we should explore??
Nope.
The only time this poor kid is remembered is when he detonated a nuke on the datum for some undetermined reason. Yeah, he's anti social but we needn't spent a paragraph looking into how he got that way.
Another of the main characters is a gal who's been stepping naturally since she was a kid. Her dad invented the tech that allows everyone else to do so. She hasn't seen him in decades. They spend a brief time together in the third book but their relationship is mercenary.
Two more of the main characters adopt a kid in the forth book and before he's ten have split up and left him.
I get that both authors have daddy issues but someone should have pointed out to them that paternal abandonment is a problem, not the norm.
Maybe all these generations of willfully orphaned kids are a metaphor for a God that created the cosmos then left his creatures to deal with it on their own but that's really stretching it. Nothing in these books suggests that either author is capable of such allegorical thinking.
Oh, yeah: there's a race of super geniuses called the Next. Not one of them ever does or says anything remotely intelligent.
In the end, The Long Earth is a long disappointment of unrealized potential.
There is a fifth book coming soon but I've already spent too much wasted time on this dull endeavor. I'll skip the Long Cosmos.