Before I launch into this week's Heinlein Friday (previewed here), let's quickly review what has gone before.
- Last week was Aliens, Combatants, and the Other.
- The week before, I presented Getting to Justice.
- The second substantive HF was Lawyers Beyond Stereotypes.
- The first HF post was on Courts.
- And, of course, there was the post when I announced the idea in the first place.
Many of these posts have been rather diffuse, as far as talking about any individual Heinlein work; usually I discuss at least three, and sometimes half a dozen different books or short stories.
This isn't the only way to do it - rather than talking about a common theme or a recurring feature, I could be doing in-depth book analyses or reviews. I plan to do at least one rather less superficial post on a single story, "Jerry Was a Man," as I mentioned last week and once before that. We'll let that wait for at least another week, though.
Now: on to Superman!
HF: Science in Superman?
What do I mean by that? Well, now that I think about it, this whole Heinlein Friday project begs the question: is looking for Law in Heinlein like seeking science in the Superman comic books or movies? Am I looking for Law in all the wrong places?
I think I'm not, just as there's some science in Superman - even if it is super-science. Where some comic books are pure fantasy, both X-Men and Superman have a veneer of science - the word "mutation" in the case of the former, and the extraterrestrial origin and explanation for Superman and his powers in the latter. Still, it's mostly surface, not real science.
Superman Returns is a wonderful movie. I'll put my overall comments in hidden text for those who want to avoid detailed reviews, but first I'll urge all of you who like That Kind of Thing to go see it. (some spoilerish reviews)
How's the science? Well, like Spider-Man 2, both movies contain a fantastic image of the sun - for SM2, in the depiction of the "fusion reaction" which Doc Ock has created, and for Superman Returns, when depicting the death of the planet Krypton. I presume both derive directly from SOHO images - check out the Image search results, but the links are great too.
Neither movie is about fusion or about stellar evolution, though.
One movie (Spider-Man) nominally is about mutation. I'll let that one go - the idea that being bitten by something radioactive can alter your DNA is ridiculous enough, but far enough beyond my competence, that I'll just note that it's not exactly scientific. Pseudo-scientific, perhaps.
Superman, as we all presumably know, isn't just Super-strong, Super-fast, and Super-good-looking. He can actually defy gravity - float in midair, fly faster than the speed of sound - indeed, perhaps fly "nearly as fast as the speed of light." He's practically magical. As I said before, super-science.
Is it a waste of time to look for Science in Superman?
I'd say no, it's not a waste. The physics of Superman are amazing. Eye-popping. Watch for the scene involving the next generation space shuttle - a timely feature, considering that countdown is ongoing for Shuttle Discovery's planned launch on Saturday! Check out the news for the latest. See also spaceflight dot nasa dot gov. As longtime readers know, I'm way excited about human spaceflight.
What's the movie got? Flying, with mass and momentum. When Superman flies fast, he's not just floating as if on a magic carpet, he's moving fast - but he is invulnerable. He can fly through buildings - but he's not omnipotent. When he saves someone's life, he has to take care not to injure them. The magnificent rescue scene involves a real flight emergency, with metal that shears, dangerous fires, acceleration forces, and a very scary ride for those lucky enough to be saved. It feels *real,* a touchstone for good physics in special-effects design, and in Superman, to quote the show Seinfeld from a rather different context, "They're real, and they're spectacular." - Sidra Holland, "The Implant." [Sidra, of course, was played by Teri Hatcher, who co-starred on the t.v. show Lois & Clark as Lois Lane, alongside Dean Cain.]
By the way, what's bad about Superman? Well, the law is terrible.
Law in Superman
What's wrong with movies nowadays? Why do they have to get basic legal stuff so badly wrong?
Lex Luthor is free in the movie, out of jail despite Superman's prior efforts to put him away. Why's he out? Because, quote, "the appellate court called Superman as a witness, and he didn't show up." Do I even have to point out how poor that law-writing is? I don't insist that they get relativity right (Superman was traveling for 5 years, ages along with the rest of the planet, but has gone light-years? Let it pass, let it pass), or anything tricky, but that's just nonsensical. If there was a retrial ordered, then Superman's absence would not set Luthor free. It would just require that his prior testimony be brought in some other way. In any case, there would have been so much evidence from other sources that the idea that Lex was out because Superman wasn't around is ludicrous.
Next, (spoiler warning)
What's the connection to Heinlein?
Is Heinlein a comic book? Is he just telling a socko adventure story, and the law's a sideshow? As I think I've been showing in these posts, sometimes the law is itself the point.
Heinlein traded in ideas, at least as much as in adventure per se. His starting point was "What if...?", and one of the ways to play with ideas is to imagine the legal system under a new strain, either technological or otherwise.
What if aliens were the subject of a lawsuit? What if there was new truth-determining technology in court? What if there was a different set of laws, morals, or customs in play?
Looking for Law in Heinlein, then, is like looking for the science in Superman - it's not the main point, but it's a rich source of teachable moments.
Heinlein was often showing law in operation, rather than telling us how law works - and the difference was that you sometimes had to work as a reader, actively turning dialogue by characters not necessarily interested in lecturing into a meaningful picture of what the society depicted is like. As prior posts have shown, some of the legal stuff is shallow or perfunctory. Other bits, however, have insightful or provocative views of and proposals for the law, usually told in an interesting and plot-relevant way. But watch out for For Us, the Living - it doesn't get more didactic and less interesting than that. I mean, you'd have to look to Ayn Rand to find writing as wooden and poorly executed.
Heinlein and movies
A brief note about Heinlein's work in the medium of film: Heinlein was the source of material for three distinct movies (or movie franchises).
Thanks for stopping by. Next week: TBD. Reader feedback, not to mention input on future topics, is welcomed.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Heinlein Friday: Gender and Change
- HF: Inventions
- Heinlein Friday on Thursday: Judge Jones (M.D. Pa.)...
- HF: "Jerry Was a Man" (1947)
- HF: Science in Superman?
- Heinlein Friday: Aliens, Combatants, and the Other...
- Heinlein Friday: Lawyers Beyond Stereotypes
- Heinlein Friday: Courts
- New recurring feature: Heinlein Fridays
*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.