Synesthesia is on audio! In a major milestone for Blueberry Lane Books we are proud to announce that Wade of Aquitaine Book One is narrated by the amazing Nathan Chatelier.
Try a listen here:
Wade of Aquitaine Audiobook One U.S.

Since the second in the series, Kreindia of Amorium features our female lead, we went for a marvelous female narrator, Rebecca McKernan.
Kreindia of Amorium Audiobook U.S. (Wade of Aquitaine Book Two)

Let us know if you need UK codes.
info [at] blueberrylanebooks.com

As soon as it gets out of ACX quality assurance (expected at the top of February) the amazing first audiobook for Wade of Aquitaine will be available from Audible on Amazon.

By Ben Parris

In this most-difficult month in the most-difficult year in modern history to mail something out, I’m told that the round trip for my three autographed first edition copies of Amynta of Anatolia will make it to the winners of the November 2020 Goodreads Giveaway Contest by end of the one month deadline.

Amidst what we’ve all come to call “covid problems,” including the happy problem of working around the vaccine shipments (leave Fedex and UPS to do their thing), it took an unusually long time to print the copies and mail them to me for signature, then machine breakdowns at the local USPS where we were also told “USPS is experiencing unprecedented volume increases and limited employee availability due to the impacts of COVID-19, we appreciate your patience and remain committed to delivering the holidays to you,” our book company spared no expense to make sure everything went priority mail, tracked and insured.

Therefore, winners please sound off when you get your copies and let us know if you don’t get your copies by December 29. Thank you!

by Ben Parris

To me, a manuscript is to be respected as a pristine document, so it must be constrained with the utmost precision. If you’re a writer, you’ll know what I mean.

I’m okay now, but my original procedure for going over my manuscript drafts was to have no one see the first draft for nine months while it soaked in olive oil. If that came out all right, I had a really trusted friend submit her comments over tea, followed by two people from a writer’s group who would have a violent disagreement over what direction it should take.

This could only be resolved by a group of 6 beta readers who read it while they hung upside down like bats. Then I would use a device called a sawzall to cut the first 75,000 words, and feed the remainder to a grammar software program called Usuck.

From there it went to a modest twelve member church choir who would add spiritual gusto. They would pass it off to team of 25 self-styled “Oompa Loompahs” who would test it for sweetness and then package it in an unnatural positon. Thus primed, it would go to a team of 535 people to be brow beaten in a procedure we called “a Congressional hearing.”

Lastly, a firefighter would hit the smoking wreck with a hose, and a circus performer would fire it out of a cannon as it was tracked by satellite.
Then I found out that you actually have to publish it.

Right now I am following the process I employ when I’m between books, which is to go to a writing seminar on H.G. Wells’ Island of Dr. Moreau where I sit with other frustrated half-men and learn such rules as “Do not go on all-fours,” and “Do not claw the bark of trees.”

When people that I meet find out that I am a writer they always ask, “What kind of books do you write?”

I never know what to tell them because we’ve just met and I have no idea what level of detail they are looking for or would understand. As I start to explain, some will say, “Wait. Which type of book is fiction and what is non-fiction?”

If I’m really on the ball that day, I might say, “Well, it’s urban fantasy and historical fantasy time travel with a large number of characters and multiple arcs on the cusp of YA level but with an SAT vocabulary.”

And increasingly, I’ll find myself speaking to a scholar who knows much more than I do, and she’ll reply, “Ah, I know that mix. It’s just like so and so.” (It’s always someone I never heard of because my TBR pile reaches the sky). Then she’ll read my work and ferret out similarities for every passage. “Ah, that’s Bradbury, that’s Gaiman, that’s Whedon, it’s like Dresden, and Scalzi…” And so on.

But the most curious response of all is when someone reads my Wade of Aquitaine series, and before they know it, find themselves immersed in historical fiction and then go either one way or another. Some completely ignore it and just enjoy the emotional experience while others grab hold of history books or Google it to learn even more.

These latter types make it all worthwhile for me. I will spend years reading every dry history book I can get my hands on, and I find these amazing historical figures under amazing circumstances, but with huge gaps in the record and sometimes a vast amount of confusion in the mind of the historian. As a result, I’m forced to become a “better” historian, which to me is one who reconciles the differences based on human nature and everything that’s known about the technology, economics, and culture of those or similar peoples. So the writing is an adventure in sociology and psychology, exploring how prejudices, jealousies and financial gain are the real drivers of history. No one has yet realized that my most deeply rooted influences are scholars such as financial historians Charles and Mary Beard.

This is how I end up devoting so much of Amynta of Anatolia to Princess Euphrosyne who was exiled to an island prison as a little child and spent her life restoring her dignity. She is one of the most astonishing, least known people who ever lived and she belongs to the time period I’m writing about. In the past year I’ve taught entire courses to all ages of students based on my writing about her. Her story arc is, and probably will always be, my favorite part of the whole book.

–Ben Parris
Enter the Goodreads Giveaway here:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55815885-amynta-of-anatolia

Review of Star Trek: Discovery, Season One

Hannah Dewhurst

In 2017, when the CBS exclusive show Star Trek: Discovery (a.k.a. Discovery) premiered, many fans were skeptical, fearing that it was too much of a departure from previous Star Trek series to be any good. However, as the first season of Discovery progressed, both old fans and new realized how fantastic it was – not only because of the things that stayed the same, but because of the things that it did differently.

Discovery’s plot revolves around Michael Burnham, played by actress Sonequa Martin-Green, an orphaned human who was raised on the planet Vulcan by Sarek and Amanda. For those familiar with Stark Trek, yes, they are the same Sarek and Amanda who parented Spock. This show is set in between Star Trek: Enterprise and The Original Series, occurring approximately ten years before Kirk takes command of the Enterprise. In the first two episodes, Commander Burnham discovers a Klingon Warship in Federation Space and, directly disobeying the orders of her captain, provokes the Klingons, as they are known to be a warmongering species. Her action eventually results in both the beginning of a war and the death of Burnham’s captain, Phillipa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh). Burnham is sentenced to life in prison for mutiny.

While on the way to the prison colony, Burnham’s ship is met by the USS Discovery, a science vessel under the command of Captain Gabriel Lorca (Jason Isaacs). Onboard the Discovery, Michael finds out that the ship has been experimenting with a new form of space travel through what is called “the mycelial network,” that allows them to get anywhere in the universe in an instant. Despite her life sentence, Burnham is invited by Lorca to become a part of the crew. She accepts the offer, and the series kicks off.

The second half of the season brings even more twists and turns as the crew of the USS Discovery are thrown into a parallel universe. In this mirror universe, humans (known as “Terrans”) are a cruel, xenophobic people, and the crew must adapt to this new world or risk being found out and killed. Because the characters are forced so far out of their comfort zones, the actors are given the opportunity to truly show their prowess. The show’s beautiful design is also given a chance to shine in the second season, as new sets and costumes are introduced. From the gold-armored Terran uniforms to the Imperial Palace, each element is simultaneously foreign and familiar.

In the second half of the season, Michael discovers that her deceased former captain, Phillipa Georgiou, is not only alive in the mirror universe, but is the emperor of the Terran Empire. Though Georigou is initially present only in the first two episodes, she returns in the second half of the season, completely different than before. Mirror Georgiou, a kick-butt, no-nonsense, bad girl, is another fan favorite character who adds life and interest to the story any time she is on screen. And, as if Discovery didn’t already have enough great antagonists, it is revealed that Captain Lorca is secretly a criminal from the mirror universe, who fled to the main universe after killing Mirror Burnham.

One of the best parts of Discovery is just how stunningly beautiful it is. From the design of the ship itself, to the detailed makeup of the aliens, to the beauty of the planets they explore – whether they be real locations or computer-generated – nearly every episode brings something new to marvel at. In particular, the design of the Klingons is astounding. So much care, love, and attention were poured into these characters, which is especially important because Klingons play a massive role throughout the series. There are twenty-four different houses of Klingons, and the members of each of these houses is designed with different physical features and costumes. Three-million dollars was spent creating the Klingon burial ship, the main location where we see Klingons throughout the series. Other sets, such as the USS Discovery itself and the Imperial Palace in the mirror universe are equally incredible. Even more delicate areas of design, such as costumes and makeup, are done beautifully, with details hiding in every centimeter.

Yet for how incredible the design is, the actors and characters manage to top them. One of the best characters in the entire series is Ensign Sylvia Tilly (Mary Wiseman), Michael’s cheerful, outspoken, and innocent roommate. From the moment she is introduced in episode three, Tilly’s naive smiles and nervous giggles capture the audience’s heart and never lets go. Tilly is especially heartwarming when put next to the cold, blunt Michael Burnham. When Ensign Tilly first meets Michael Burnham, she comments, “The only female Michael I’ve ever heard of is Michael Burnham the mutineer. You’re not that Michael, are you?” only to realize that her new roommate is indeed that Michael. Mary Wiseman’s expression perfectly displays just how horrifying this realization is to Tilly.

Along with Wiseman, other outstanding actors include Anthony Rapp, Michelle Yeoh, and Jason Isaacs — who is best known for his role as Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies — as Captain Lorca. For the role of Lorca, Isaacs won an Empire Award for Best TV Actor. Shazad Latif also delivers an incredible performance as both Lieutenant Ash Tyler – Burnham’s charming love interest – and as (SPOILER!!) Voq, the Klingon “Torchbearer” who has his body reconstructed in order to appear human.

Without a doubt, it is Shazad Latif’s character(s) that form my personal favorite part of Discovery’s first season. When first introduced, Ash Tyler is explained to be a Starfleet officer who has been kept by the Klingons as a prisoner of war. He is rescued by Captain Lorca and Burnham, joins the crew, and soon develops a relationship with Michael. Throughout this, Tyler begins to have flashbacks of his torture while onboard the Klingon ships. Not only are the flashbacks themselves shot and lit in the most terrifying way possible, with shaky cameras, dim lighting, whirling machines, and endless screaming, but Latif’s expressions coming out of them are amazing. There is never a moment when his terror (and he spends a lot of time being terrified) feels forced. However, as the season progresses, Tyler’s flashbacks become more extreme and debilitating, especially while around a Klingon named L’Rell (Mary Chieffo). Following an attempt by the ship’s doctor, Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz), to explain the odd scar tissue around Tyler’s organs, Tyler lashes out, kills Culber with his bare hands, and walks away to join Burnham on an away mission. When it is finally revealed that Ash Tyler is, in fact, Voq, Latif’s acting sells every bit of this reveal. In an instant, he goes from a kind-hearted lieutenant, struggling to accept the fact that he is not who he believed he was, to a violent, hateful Klingon warrior with a lust for blood. Every time he is on screen, whether it be as Tyler or as Voq, Latif delivers incredibly.

Unfortunately, Discovery is not without its flaws. As previously mentioned, the design of the Klingon ships, costumes, and makeup is phenomenal; however, almost all the scenes with Klingons have their words translated by subtitles at the bottom of the screen. Discovery’s failure to translate alien languages into English for the audience greatly detracts from the enjoyability of these scenes. It is frustrating to be unable to focus on the actors and stunning visuals due to the concentration that must be put on the subtitles. While it is interesting to hear the Klingons speak in their native tongue, the subtitles are far overused throughout the first season.

Sonequa Martin-Green’s range of expressions as Michael Burnham, though they improve throughout the season, leave something to be desired. While her character was raised by Vulcans, a species that greatly suppresses their emotions, Martin-Green expresses so little that it’s genuinely frustrating. The audience has no insight into her thoughts, her process, or her opinions. She just stands there like a blank slate. Even Data, an android devoid of emotions from Star Trek: The Next Generation, was more expressive than Burnham. Thankfully, Martin-Green and Burnham both grow throughout the season and quickly work their way into the audience’s heart.

Star Trek as a franchise is well known for attempting to start discussions about important topics, and Discovery is no exception. In the first episode, the Klingon leader, T’Kuvma (Chris Obi), asserts that the Federation is not, as most believe, a peaceful group that only wants to preserve peace in the galaxy. Instead, he claims, they destroy the cultures of those they assimilate and try to make the rest of the galaxy act human. This poses an interesting question for the viewers: “Are our heroes as good as they seem?” It is not difficult to draw parallels between Starfleet and many modern nations. While attempting to make everyone else conform to their Federation ideals, both often fail to acknowledge their own short comings. While this idea is not explored in detail throughout the season, the writers present a warning to both Starfleet and our own civilization, in the form of the Terran Empire. The Terrans are the epitome of human wickedness, and their evil nature shows what may occur if hatred, racism, and prejudice get out of hand. This frightening look at the dark side of humanity serves as grim warning to people across the world.

While many classic Star Trek series have primarily plot-driven stories, focusing on all the fun new aliens and how the crew will deal with new situations, Discovery, much like Enterprise takes a more character-driven approach to sci-fi. Instead of facing constant external conflict, Discovery builds up enjoyable, relatable characters and allows the audience to see them grow throughout the season. Not one of the crew members is the same by the end as they are in the pilot, and that’s one of the best things about this show. Tilly, though initially uncertain of herself, evolves into a woman who is unafraid to express her opinions and trust her gut. The aloof, emotionless Burnham learns to open up and trust others. Though it deals with many of the same themes as previous Star Treks – war, hatred, prejudice, humanity, etc. – Discovery attempts to bring the same conversations into modern culture. Overall, it is an incredible show, well worth the time for both old and new fans of Star Trek. Though it appears radically different from the Star Trek of the 1960s, Discovery is, instead, a new, interesting, enjoyable translation of a classic Star Trek message.

Elizabeth Vierkant

Into the Void, the first episode of one of Netflix’s newest original series, Chambers, is a slow start to what originally appeared to be a compelling concept. Created by Leah Rachel, a relatively unknown producer, this show boasts several big names such as Uma Thurman—as both an actor and producer—and Scandal’s Tony Goldwyn; because of this, Chambers seemed promising. Unfortunately, Netflix missed the mark on the first episode.

The horror show follows Sasha Yazzie (Sivan Alyra Rose), a seventeen-year-old high school student, as she suffers a heart attack while enjoying a romantic evening with her boyfriend, TJ (Griffin Powell-Arcand). Following this unfortunate event, Sasha receives a heart transplant courtesy of the late Becky LeFevre (Lilliya Scarlett Reid), who died under mysterious circumstances.

Several months after these events, we see Sasha return to school with the help of her friend, Yvonne (Kianna Simone Simpson), though this doesn’t last for long. Becky LeFevre’s father, Ben, played by Tony Goldwyn, visits Sasha’s Uncle Frank’s (Marcus LaVoi) fish shop, and asks that the two come over for dinner. It is here we learn that LeFevre’s parents (Goldwyn and Thurman) wish to grant Sasha a scholarship to attend Becky’s old, prestigious high school, Crystal Valley.

This exposition feels ordinary, slow, and unimportant to the overarching plot of the series. This overload of information makes the plot seem as far from relevancy as possible. From the trailers for this series, it is clear that the series deals with Sasha experiencing visions and committing actions related to Becky’s mysterious passing, likely due to the heart transplant. However, when Chambers plays with this horror concept, it begins to shine through the mundane vibes emanating from the majority of the pilot episode.
Between Sasha’s original meeting with Ben and her dinner at the LeFevre household, she experiences her first vision of Becky lying beside her in bed. Sasha’s heart begins to race, much as it did prior to her heart attack, growing louder and louder as tears fill her eyes. As a viewer, this intense moment of fear resonates. Is Sasha having another heart attack? Is she just afraid? The use of sound effects and Sivan Alyra Rose’s intense acting abilities help sell the scene, yet this amazing moment, only proves how ineffective the rest of the episode’s writing is.

Following Sasha’s choice to attend Crystal Valley High School, she and TJ spend another romantic evening with one another, something that also feels ultimately inconsequential to the overarching plot of Sasha’s visions and actions. When she attends her first day at Crystal Valley, she begins to discover and experience the life of a much richer girl than the one that she grew up as in her lower-income community. The episode ends with Sasha and Yvonne spending time together, followed by a shot of TJ skateboarding down a street, which doesn’t seem to correlate to the plot in any way.

In all fairness, pilot episodes are often messy. There is a lot of exposition to cover, and that can come off as boring and unimportant. Luckily, Into the Void did have a few saving graces. Much like Sasha’s first vision of Becky lying in the bed beside her, the other “visions” and odd occurrences that Sasha experiences as just as powerful. Much of this is thanks to Sivan Alyra Rose’s acting skills. While staying in the LeFevre’s house, Sasha finds a camera hidden within Becky’s room, and the fear radiating off the actress feelsA realistic and (no pun intended) heart-stopping. Sasha has another vision, seeing herself sleeping with a man she has never met. As a smile peels onto her face, Rose’s haunting acting sends chills down the viewer’s spine.

Another standout actress, the well-known Uma Thurman, helped improve the lackluster writing with her heart-wrenching acting abilities. Having just lost her daughter, her character, Nancy LeFevre, spends great amount of time in emotional pain, and shines through in Thurman’s acting. It is felt. The first time we see Nancy, she is crying alone, attempting to pull herself together for company. She attempts a smile, but it fades. This scene seems private and poignant, and Thurman makes a viewer feel as though they are witnessing a private moment. When Nancy hugs Sasha for the first time, she listens to Sasha’s heart and doesn’t let go, agonizing over the death of her daughter. Her feelings aren’t verbalized, yet the audience is able to gauge just exactly how she is thinking and feeling.

Unfortunately, the script doesn’t quite live up to Rose’s and Thurman’s acting abilities. The exposition that took the entirety of Into the Void to set up could have been done so within a span of about twenty minutes, rather than fifty. When the plot is introduced slowly, viewers’ attentions will be lost. If nothing else , the pilot could have intermingled the exposition along with Sasha’s foreboding challenges with Becky’s heart, other than a few visions. Instead, we are left uncertain of what Sasha is going to experience throughout the show, which is crucial to set up in the first episode.

There are a few effective techniques used within the script, but it wasn’t enough to distract from the other issues presented. The dialogue was realistic, and it felt as though the characters were real people living in the real world. Each of the actors helped bring the dialogue to life. It didn’t feel forced or fake, which is crucial if the audience is to relate to the characters on screen. Teenagers in television are often written specifically to seem like teenagers, yet the teens of Chambers feel like people, apart from their age, which allows audiences of all ages to connect with them.

Another appropriately used technique was the repetition of mice. Sasha encounters them several times throughout the episode: twice in her own home and once in the LeFevre’s. Sasha is kind to mice, as we see with her first interaction with one. The second time, that same mouse bites her. The third time, she just happens to find one within the LeFevre’s household. This repetition tells the audience that something important will occur with the mice, and most of the viewers will remember this odd occurrence.

Overall, there were strong parts of Chamber’s first episode, Into the Void. Unfortunately, those well-done pieces were not enough to save the show from writing that was slow, clunky, and, frankly, a bit boring. While pilot episodes may be incredibly difficult to write and produce, they are also crucial for drawing in audiences. If the main point of the show is not clear within the pilot, viewers will feel that they are wasting their time. Though Into the Void failed to draw me in, hopefully the next episode will be a little more fast-paced and intriguing.

Donald Seburn

Congratulations are in order. You’ve finished your manuscript, polished it to a shine, and you are eager to submit it to agents and publishers. It is a long process, but you are ready to get started, but there’s one final piece you need before you can start querying; you need a synopsis, and not just any synopsis, but one that really shows how great your manuscript is.

Your synopsis is like a handshake—it is your best tool for making a good first impression. A synopsis lands a story in the wastebasket or on the editor’s desk. But synopses are hard, and chances are, yours needs work. Here are some common mistakes authors make when writing synopses, and how to fix them.

DO Tell us the Story

We’ve all heard the axiom “Show, don’t tell.” It is good advice to follow, but not here. Synopses are all about telling. Avoid using descriptive phrases or language. Don’t attempt to create nuance. Upend that iceberg and write it plainly.

DON’T Use Too Much Detail

Your synopsis is not your novel. It is your novel distilled into the briefest, purest form. Focus on the most important characters and events and write them in the simplest way possible. Do not include details that aren’t necessary.

An example of an overly wordy introduction would be: “Theodore is a billionaire with a love of exotic animals, a passion for photography, and a mansion filled with oddities. His life changes when he encounters Jennifer, a young and attractive journalist, who is investigating the death of his cousin, Albert. His cousin supposedly died in a plane accident ten years ago, but Jennifer believes he may be alive. Jennifer and Theodore take his private jet to a remote, tropical island in the pacific to investigate.”

A condensed and improved version: “Theodore, an eccentric billionaire, meets Jennifer, a journalist. Jennifer has evidence suggesting his cousin Albert, believed to have died in a plane crash, may have survived. They investigate, traveling to a remote island.”

Similarly, any unimportant characters and subplots should be removed. For the average novel, your summary should be no longer than a single page.

DO Summarize your Plot

Your synopsis should read as a blow-by-blow of your story’s plot, without any of the fluff. Often synopses tend to be vague about what happens or leave out important events. Make sure your synopsis is as linear as possible. Consider creating a list of the main events of your story and transcribing those exactly. Do not omit any major events, but do not include any non-essential moments. Your synopsis should mimic and demonstrate the pacing of your story. It should have the same structure of beginning, middle, and end.

Note that if your story isn’t linear, or if your structure is irregular, your synopsis should reflect this. Just don’t make it too confusing. If the editor doesn’t understand your story, she isn’t likely to select if for publication.

DO Focus on Character

Books are about characters doing these. If your story is large in scale or fantastical in setting, you may be putting too much emphasis on those elements and neglecting your characters. Your synopsis is a tool for showcasing your character arcs. Make sure that they are introduced properly, their motivations are clear, and their development is on display. After writing your plot, make sure that you have included these character elements in your synopsis.

DO Include the Ending

Unlike a blurb or an Amazon description, your synopsis should include the ending. We as publishers and editors need to know how it all ties up. This is another moment for you to showcase your ability to write a convincing character arc by writing where the character ends up.

DON’T Tell us the Themes

While your story may have a message or moral, it isn’t important at this stage. Your synopsis’s purpose is to showcase your ability to write the big picture—plot, pacing, and character arcs. Themes and motifs are not relevant to this and should not be included.

DO Format it Properly!

Regardless of what tense or perspective you use in your story, your synopsis should always be in third person present tense. “He walks to the store.”

Any important names, including the names of characters, places, organizations, or important objects, should be in Bold or ALLCAPS in their first instance. This helps the editors to parse through and find that information easily.

Do a quick spellcheck on your synopsis. Your synopsis is short; there should be zero errors.

Concluding Thoughts

Your synopsis is one of the most important parts of your story, besides the story itself. It’s difficult to boil down tens of thousands of words into what amounts to a single page. Your synopsis showcases your ability to paint the bigger picture, and it should reflect your story’s arc, momentum, and development. Written well, it can become your best ally in querying. Written poorly, and even the best manuscript will be overlooked.

Jim Hohenbary

We have been a “Netflix only” family for multiple years but we recently added Hulu.  This suddenly re-introduced us to a number of shows that we had not seen since parting ways with the cable company.  I was delighted to see Ancient Aliens from the History Channel among those possibilities.

If you have not seen an episode, the show has spent nearly a decade exploring the idea that nearly all recorded human history, all archaeological ruins, and all unexplained phenomenon (including Sasquatch) are best explained by the intervention of visitors from outer space and/or visitors from other dimensions and/or visitors from the future, sometimes all in the same episode.   Ancient Aliens first aired in 2010.  I remember very much enjoying some of those early episodes, which is not surprising considering that the Stargate franchise has been a longtime family favorite.

If you like speculative fiction, conspiracy theories, alternative histories and the like, it is a fun show for many reasons.  First, scientists doubt that we are alone in the universe, so the basic premise seems plausible.  Second, there really are enigmatic artifacts and strange narratives out there; some of them practically throw themselves at an extraterrestrial explanation.  Third, its continuous stream of “what if” conjecture is a veritable buffet of potential movie plots.  Does it get any better than a CGI clip of a flying saucer attacking a herd of dinosaurs?  And fourth, it is a great travel show.  Ancient Aliens tours some fantastic archaeological and historical sites from around the world, including some that are off the beaten path, places I will surely never visit.

However, as I tuned back into Ancient Aliens in 2019 — Hulu offering up the fourth season for my viewing pleasure – I suddenly found myself feeling uneasy.  It was no longer 2010; and as the nation currently wrestles with the issue of fake news, as conspiracy theories suddenly seem to have consequences, and as disentangling truth from BS seems more urgent than ever, I found myself wondering if Ancient Aliens was part of the problem, part of the sickness, an alluring but essentially toxic cocktail of bad logic, omitted facts, and outright nonsense stirred together with real places, real historical details, and an inability to disprove the unprovable.  By exploiting the fun of believing in aliens, by scintillating our basic bias towards wanting to believe, are they damaging our ability to think critically?  Have they, in fact, made viewers worse at evaluating claims and evidence?

By the way, if you are familiar with the show, please imagine its narrator reading those last two sentences aloud.

Thinking on my newfound unease, I see two responsible options for those who (like me) continue to watch Ancient Aliens.  First, if you think of the entire series as an experimental, multi-author, faux documentary exercise in speculative fiction, it holds up pretty well.  It spins a great yarn and has some memorable recurring characters.  Second, if you choose to watch it as a documentary series, one that you will give serious consideration as a vessel of truth, then I believe that you should, at least, watch with your deflector shields at full strength.  With that in mind, here are a few tips for viewing Ancient Aliens in a clear-headed manner.

First, note that the boys down in legal have been involved.  All narration is framed as a series of hypothetical questions, and the History Channel lawyers have clearly banned the narrator from making literally any declarative statements.  If this does not concern you, imagine what you might think if you ask your teenager where he had been, and he replied: “But isn’t it possible that I was in the garage?”

Second, acknowledge that wish fulfillment is an important function of myth and storytelling.  In other words, one of the reasons myths are important is because they have the capacity to offer something we wish for, something we want.  If men and women fly in various mythologies, it might be because men and women have always wanted to fly.  Flying aliens are simply not necessary to explain this.  To express this idea another way, does anybody believe that Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby needed to see some guy shrink down to the size of an eyelash before they created Ant Man?

Third, the Egyptian gods Osiris and Isis, frequently mentioned on Ancient Aliens, were brother and sister; they were also husband and wife.  On another continent, Tezcatlipoca, the Aztec god of divination, was usually depicted with a mirror for a foot, or a bone, or sometimes a snake.  And like most Aztec gods, he demanded human sacrifice.  My science-trained, monotheistic, incest-is-bad, how-do-you-put-any-weight-on-a-mirror brain has trouble conjuring a really solid feel for how such religious beliefs shaped the reality of believers.  In other words, our 21^st century perspective is a highly distorted lens for viewing and understanding the mindset of ancient religions, especially if you are only presented with a few details.  You should probably assume that you do not actually know enough to fully or accurately interpret the meaning of their myths and/or the iconography of their art and architecture.

Fourth, once or twice per episode, the position of “mainstream science” is usually invoked and then dismissed in one to three sentences.  It is important to notice that “equal time” is not observed in Ancient Aliens.  Realistically, we cannot read a book every time we watch a TV show, but we should probably remind ourselves that many folks have spent their entire lives studying civilizations such as the Mayans, Celts, Khmer, and Anasazi without seeing any need to invoke super-terrestrial explanations for their accomplishments and traditions.  Real arguments allow both sides to be fully heard.  It also seems worth mentioning here that scientists do sometimes admit that there are things they do not understand.  Admitting that you don’t know where your teenager was does not actually constitute proof that he was, in fact, in the garage.

Fifth, multiple discovery (also known as simultaneous invention) is a thing.  There are many documented instances of inventions or ideas arising in several different places around the same time because the time was right, the technological pre-conditions were met, etc.  Occam’s razor might argue that the existence of similarities in architectural designs, inventions, and/or mythologies around the world can more easily be ascribed to multiple discovery than to alien visitation.  This relates to my next point.

Sixth, much is made of the existence of pyramids in multiple ancient cultures.  Having played with blocks as a kid, and having played in the sandbox and in the dirt, I want to confidently assert that pyramids are pretty much the mathematical formalization of making a pile.  With no wish to diminish the accomplishment of their construction, or the interest inherent to their celestial alignment, it still seems important to declare that a square plot starting big and getting smaller as it rises is a pretty intuitive direction for monumental design, an idea that easily falls within the credible possibilities for multiple discovery.

Seventh, and finally, I would argue that you should watch Ancient Aliens with the pre-set assumption that humans are clever and industriousness, and always have been.  The theories of alien visitation are intriguing, but Ancient Aliens displays an unappealing eagerness to explain away the accomplishments and insights of our ancestors.  Why is believing that aliens imparted astronomical knowledge to the Mayans more attractive than believing that they watched the night sky and figured it out?  As fun as it is to imagine ancient alien visitors, and as much as there are enigmatic pieces in the archaeological puzzle, Ancient Aliens, unfortunately, does a disservice when it refuses to seriously credit human ingenuity, human imagination, and human determination as the wellspring for the ancient world.  It diminishes our connection to those who came before us.  In other words, the fundamental premise of the show too often contains a kind of pessimism about the potential of humanity that should be noted and met with skepticism, even in the face of weird paintings, oddly precise masonry, and a global obsession with Orion’s belt.

To conclude, I will simply re-purpose a line from the alcohol industry.  What we consume influences how we think.  Please watch responsibly.

Jim Hohenbary lives in Manhattan, KS, where he currently serves as the Associate Director of the University Honors Program at Kansas State University.  His debut novel, Before the Ruins, will be published by Blueberry Lane Books in late spring of 2019.

 

 

 

Manifest Dead Reckoning S1E9: So Bad, So Sad

Spoiler Alert: We examine this episode in detail for those already familiar with the series. Why this episode when we didn’t cover the others? It’s a turning point in the show and its writers need help. Also, it’s so bad that it’s hilarious.

Pantsing is seat-of-your pants writing, renowned for the excitement it can generate, but sometimes reviled for its inability to make story-ends meet. The Pantser King was the television show Lost, where eventually, the plot itself was lost. The surprises were strong because its authors surprised themselves—until the show mired in its own confusion. That was nevertheless a much-envied success, so it should not come as a surprise that TV is clearly not done with pantsing. In fact, some have made it their religion. The problem is that the new shows have gotten “lost” early. (Look at Riverdale, e.g., which is now in some shaky territory itself).

Manifest, in only its ninth episode, is beset with poor writing compounded by stunningly bad directing. Looking a lot like The 4400, it was not a highly original concept to begin with and its creators obviously felt it needed a freewheeling approach.

At this point in the story, Team Calling has to rescue the missing plane travelers who are being held illegally at a particular location. NSA supervisor Vance, now their friend, insists that they do everything right to run a proper law enforcement operation. It’s ironic, then, that he knows the victims are being tortured in experiments yet he orders no ambulances to the scene. Hmm, I guess that’s covered under the idea that he doesn’t want to tip anyone off and blow the raid, but the two soldiers he posts outside could have called it in when the trap was sprung (along with, maybe, the bomb squad?)

After they raid the wrong building, Ben Stone’s son shows up and tells them how to find the real entrance. It’s come to him mysteriously, like all of his other hidden knowledge. He insists his father must join in on the rescue in person because he is “the only one who can see them.” What Ben can see, we don’t know yet.

They enter, they get into a firefight with the bad guys, and Ben very slowly and clumsily starts to rescue the electrocution victims by gradually removing the electrodes on their temples after being told to do that by the expert they have with them. The directing is such that he sometimes pretends the jellied contacts are welded on to the victims’ skin, and he must pull hard to get them off. Sure, he himself is hurting as he is indirectly affected by their pain, but that makes it all the more strange that the strike team doesn’t have anyone tasked for rescue.

In the confusion, now on their way out, the strike team splits into two groups. With no more gunfire to follow, all quickly get lost on their way out. Except for the people with Ben, who sees a set of lights reminiscent of a theater, or an airport runway (hint, hint). Now he stops to have a fascinating (to him) discussion about the fact that he sees the lights and no one else does. But oh! The expert reminds him that his kid said that before.

Good, now they have established the eeriness of the situation, they can run for their lives, yes? No. Ben is still uncertain of these lights that will show him the way out. He points his flashlight at the lights, plus looks behind him, and generally slows down. Do they not need to get out of there? The place is in flames, and the corridors are filling with smoke (smoke that somehow bothers no one). At a couple of points, they all stand still as if there is no studio set beyond their positions and they don’t know what to do about that. (Probably true).

Ben, now outside, goes to check on his son. That seems reasonable. But then Michaela asks, “Where’s Jared and Vance?”

Ben answers distractedly, “They went to get Lawrence with a couple of Vance’s guys.” Who is Lawrence?? No character with that name in the credits, but let’s assume it’s the bad guy.

Okay, so Ben somehow knows that. But he also knows that Jared and Vance cannot possibly get out of the underground bunker alive since he is only one who knows the way out. Yet he responds to his sister as if there is no problem.

Meanwhile, there are two remaining soldiers posted outside the bunker entrance, taking turns poking at the smoke with their rifle barrels with all the fear and confusion of extras who haven’t been told what to do.
The only clue for Michaela is that her friends might be in danger is a small explosion, which she runs toward. This is followed by a much larger explosion, which knocks her unconscious. Upon waking, this mishap does not prompt her to call for an ambulance outside while she still has cell service. Neither she nor her brother is inclined to do that. In fact, Ben suddenly turns cowardly and tells her that they should abandon everyone and get out of there.

She won’t. She runs into the tunnels to help her ex, and once she finds him unconscious, cries out helplessly as if phones were never invented. (Oddly, individual bricks–bricks?–are on fire in the background). By then, Ben has driven away with his son, and all the soldiers are dead, exited, or otherwise down.

Unexplained plot hole: Once home, Ben won’t tell his wife what’s going on. He simply lets her think he is endangering their lives instead of saving them. The son also won’t tell his mother a thing in defense of his father. Earlier, the writers’ excuse was that she doesn’t believe in the supernatural. At this point, however, Ben knows that there is a scientific explanation he can use, and he doesn’t. The authors have also peppered in the idea that maybe telling regular people about the callings makes them die automatically. Yet Ben has repeatedly made clear–even in this very episode–that he does not believe that. So all the excuses are gone, but the drama created by Ben’s widening rift with his wife is so convenient for the writers that they keep it on life support.

When Ben agrees to a split-up and moves out of the house, you might think that he’d warn his wife that people are trying to kill their son (so that maybe she can be alert to that possibility even if she doesn’t believe it), but no, he doesn’t. He makes a half-assed attempt to take his son with him and when she says no, he simply gives up and wanders out the door like a zombie.

If the show continues in this vein, Manifest’s destiny will not be a glorious one.