speculative fiction – Page 3

Page 3 of 7

May 21, 2020

Raunch Review: True Blood

Raunch Reviews is a series about profanity. Not real profanity, but speculative swearing. Authors often try to incorporate original, innovative forms of profanity into our own fantastical works as a way to expand the worlds we build. Sometimes we’re successful. Often we’re not. In this series, I examine the faux-profanity from various works of sci-fi and fantasy, judge their effectiveness, and rate them on an unscientific and purely subjective scale. This is Raunch Reviews, welcome.

The Author: Charlaine Harris (Books), Alan Ball (HBO Show)

Work in Question: True Blood

The Profanity: “Fangbanger”

True Blood is the HBO series born from the pages of Charlene Harris’ The Southern Vampire Mysteries. The series follows the adventures and romances of Sookie Stackhouse. The story takes place in a Louisiana where, thanks to the invention of synthetic blood, everyone has recently discovered that vampires (among other things) are real, and they move freely among humans. As a result, awkward and sometimes violent situations arise from these two formerly adversarial communities now interacting.

In the novels, the term “fangbanger” comes across as a self-prescribed moniker, not unlike headbanger or hippie. Cult-like followers of people who allow vampires to drink from them. In the HBO series—which we’re focused on today—the term often used as a sort of derogatory expression calling out one’s proclivities regarding vampires. If you have sex with a vampire, you get called a “fangbanger” by those with an anti-vampire prejudice.

And look, I understand the intent here, but the term is just so downright ridiculous I can’t get behind it—especially in the intended use of the television series. I could see it being much stronger if “fang” was used as a slur, but it’s not. As a result, the phrase comes across as goofy and unintentionally injects odd comedic moments into dialog. It’s not the worst I’ve seen, but it ain’t great.

Score: (2.0)

🤬 Previous Raunch Reviews

Have a suggestion for Raunch Reviews? It can be any made-up slang word from a book, television show, or movie. You can email me directly with your recommendation or leave a comment below. I’ll need to spend time with the property before I’ll feel confident reviewing it, so give me a little time. I have a lot of books to read.

April 29, 2020

Raunch Review: Stargate SG-1

The Author: Brad Wright & Jonathan Glassner

Work in Question: Stargate SG-1

The Profanity: “Mit’ka”

Science fiction television has always struggled with representing alien languages. Often times, we see the challenge of creating them subverted by a universal translator trope allowing the actors to speak so the audience can understand. It saves time and prevents every episode from becoming a rehash of Arrival. (And let’s face it, few shows can achieve a Darmok.) As a plot device, it’s handy. But the introduction of a translator always means there’s a bit of a plot hole, and it usually comes in the form of a faux-profanity.

Aris Boch: The System Lords think that you are a pain in the mit’ka.

Col. Jack O’Neill: Neck?

Teal’c: No.

Season 3, Episode 7, Dead Man’s Switch

Even played for laughs, it’s reasonably clear what “mit’ka” is replacing. As far as an alien language goes—in this case, Goa’uld—it’s a sufficiently decent direction feeling unique and obscure enough to come across as natural. But it’s not really accentuating parlance in any unique way—it’s a one-to-one replacement. And, since Goa’uld is supposed to be a precursor to Demotic/Coptic/Egyptian, that’s fine. It works even if it’s not doing something unique. Funny enough, Stargate SG-1 never thoroughly explains how all the aliens or ancient humans speak English, even taking this into account, I do find it interesting that the “universal translator” of SG-1 can transpose everything butt (👀) “mit’ka.”

Score: (3.0)

🤬 Previous Raunch Reviews

March 23, 2020

Raunch Review: Harry Potter

Quick Note: I wrote this post ages ago, before COVID-19, shelter-in-place, and social distancing was a thing. I debated posting it, but eventually decided it should go live. I want to help foster a sense of normalcy during these difficult times. So, with that as a goal, let’s side-eye some of the faux-profanity from J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter, eh?

The Author: J. K. Rowling

Work in Question: The Harry Potter Series

The Profanity: “Merlin’s Beard”

Within the Harry Potter series, there is one example of faux-profanity that is a bit of a conundrum for me. Partly because it’s played for laughs, but mostly because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. “Merlin’s Beard” desperately wants to be profanity. It reads like a pejorative. It follows typical stylings of oaths evoking a name and pairing it with a physical feature. We don’t see these often today, but many oaths of this kind were popular in the Middle Ages, and later due to semantic drift, they became the mild-minced oaths popular in the 20th century.

But even in the magic-filled world of the Potter series, Merlin remains little more than a historical figure. He’s not worshiped or viewed as a deity, he was merely a respected wizard of antiquity, so evoking his name carries little weight. It’s not blasphemous, and this makes it odd to see his name employed in this manner, with no reason for its usage given. Oaths are rooted in a rebellion toward authority, and there’s no rebelling here. It’d be like an American swearing by Martin Luther King, Jr. or Abraham Lincoln. It wouldn’t carry any punch. So, while Harry Potter has done well in the past, it stumbles here, leaving us with a pseudo-oath more befuddled than anything else.

Score: (2.0)

🤬 Previous Raunch Reviews

February 17, 2020

Raunch Review: Judge Dredd

The Author: John Wagner & Carlos Ezquerra

Work in Question: Judge Dredd

The Profanity: “Drokk”

With instances of censor-slips, we usually see creators go the easy route. Spellings or pronunciations are changed just enough to trigger a memory in the audience, so they connect the slip with the profanity it’s replacing. Generally, these sorts of faux-profanity don’t score very high around here. They’re lazy, typically unoriginal, and often hold back worldbuilding rather than enhance it. At first glance, it’s easy to see Judge Dredd’s “drokk” as a slip, but one must view the word in the context of the world it inhabits.

On the streets of Mega-City One, there are plenty of faux-profanities. In most cases, they’re excellent examples of linguistic and cultural drift. That is to be expected in a future setting, since language changes continuously, and Wagner took this into account when writing the series. There are plenty of fantastic examples of plausible drift within a language: “God” becomes “Grud,” “Jesus” becomes “Jovus,” “Elders” are “Eldsters,” “Gasolene” is “Guzzalene,” and “Scavengers” are called “Scavvers.” So it’d make sense to see other words develop as well. While the usage is familiar, there’s a pedigree that points to this being more than just a simple censor-slip. “Drokk” emerges as something wholly its own blending in with the semantic argot of Mega-City One. A solid bit of fictional profanity.

Score: (4.0)

🤬 Previous Raunch Reviews

January 8, 2020

Raunch Review: Blade Runner

The Author: Hampton Fancher & David Peoples

Work in Question: Blade Runner

The Profanity: “Skin job”

Dehumanizing or bigoted slurs have been prevalent throughout history. And they’re still with us today. Even in recent dialog, we’ve seen the powerful employing precise language in a manner to strip away someone’s value. It’s not a new phenomenon. I believe the best fiction serves as a mirror forcing those engaging with it to confront some of the uglier sides of humankind.

Blade Runner’s existential questions surrounding life and humanity and its fundamental question of “what makes us human” is why the faux-profanity “skin job” works so well. In concept, it combines that existentialist question with the bigoted language and aims it at the android replicants in the story.

Like “prawn” from District 9, “skin job” is born from fear and designed to dehumanize. This is why we see it wielded by the powerful to imply that replicants are less than human. Language is a powerful factor in creating “the other.” It allows our brains to trigger differently. It’s why we nickname enemies; it’s easier to kill a nickname than it is to kill a human with thoughts, dreams, and desires. By calling replicants “skin jobs,” one can logically make the leap that they’re disposable and easily replaceable.

Abusive language quickly leads to dehumanization, and dehumanization leads to atrocities. We see that in Blade Runner as much as we do in the world at large. It’s why “skin job” works so well, and it’s why it stings to hear it spoken out loud.

Score: (4.5)

🤬 Previous Raunch Reviews

December 5, 2019

Raunch Review: Babylon 5

Raunch Reviews is a series about profanity. Not real profanity, but speculative swearing. Authors often try to incorporate original, innovative forms of profanity into our own fantastical works as a way to expand the worlds we build. Sometimes we’re successful. Often we’re not. In this series, I examine the faux-profanity from various works of sci-fi and fantasy, judge their effectiveness, and rate them on an unscientific and purely subjective scale. This is Raunch Reviews, welcome.

The Author: J. Michael Straczynski

Work in Question: Babylon 5

The Profanity: “Frag”

Look, it gives me no great pleasure in going after an incredible and beloved science fiction show for faux-profanity related gaffs. And it’s no secret that censor-slips aren’t looked at too kindly around here. But they’re familiar, and if I have to deal with them, you do as well. It’s in the rules or something. Babylon 5’s “frag” is yet one more embarrassment in a long-running tradition among television, so we all knew it’d eventually have its day.

We all know what’s implied. It’s not cute, nor is it all that clever. With one notable exception (“Shazbot”), censor-slips tend to be unimaginative and lazy, and we see that here as well. Four letter word, starts with “f,” you get the idea—nudge nudge, wink wink.

But, “Frag” is worse. Since the Vietnam War, it has become common military slang—and because this is a show with a substantial military theme, we see it used as both a censor slip and in its traditional sense. Which only makes it weirder and adds in awkwardness. It’s easy to see the ingredients that lead to it, but in the end, it does little to enhance the universe of Babylon 5—if anything, its mishmash use takes something away, and that’s the worst disservice dialog can perform within a story.

Score: (0.5)

🤬 Previous Raunch Reviews

Have a suggestion for Raunch Reviews? It can be any made-up slang word from a book, television show, or movie. You can email me directly with your recommendation or leave a comment below. I’ll need to spend time with the property before I’ll feel confident reviewing it, so it’ll take a little while before it ends up here. I have a lot of books to read.