well stocked with humans but not a single person in sight

If anyone recalls how nature documentaries go on and on about how great the human body or mind really is, might i remind you all of how inherently unrealistic that statement is. just last month, another man in america killed another teenager and just this month alone, we've restarted the Cold War. 

under the lens of science, logic and reason, we're a marvel of genetic engineering and a part of the one in a million chance in the great big universe of life occurring. and then we wage war with one another while depriving the very one in a million chance of life to other beings who share the same fate and world we live on. so, humans are brilliant on paper but a hassle to live with.

the problem is that we think we're more evolved than other animals due to our keen intellect and supposed civility. Bonobo monkeys are more evolved than us in that sense seeing as they're able to resolve most of their fights through sexual activities. do we perhaps think that animals are more compassionate than us in that aspect then? not really. they fight and cannibalize themselves as much as we do. so, we're pretty much the same then; nothing really special and still an animal.

perhaps we think our capability to build things is something that animals don't have, and that somehow puts us on a higher pedestal than them. wrong again. termite and ants build their nests and turn them into ridiculously large mounds of tunnels and nursery halls; much like our skyscrappers. birds too are able to build small, elaborate houses; the weaver bird is one such. so, that rules out construction then.

what about inventing things? this must be the key thing that separates us from the monkeys! not really, again. chimpanzees and certain other apes have been known to utilize sticks and make small tools to hunt or crush hard shelled nuts to get at their delicious insides. the slight argument is that our inventions tend to be more sophisticated instead of banging sticks and stones together. but then again, man's supposed greatest discovery was fire and that itself came from banging sticks and stones together. nice try.

we'd then imagine that ambition is the main thing that separates us from the animals. we climbed to the top of the food chain because we were more ambitious and dominated the other animals in the way to become the apex predator. mm.... yes, if only all other animals did not wish to survive. in order for animals to become successful, they must do all they can to survive first and foremost. predatory animals such as the tiger or crocodile must survive their youth, consume much meat and then grow as large as possible and reproduce multiple times in order to be successful. if ambition can be defined as such, we're really not that different. humans must survive school or in some other parts of the world, not get shot. then humans must grow up physically and mentally while making themselves strong or being very good at something like football or being an accountant. then humans must procreate as well, though usually cleverer humans, stop just before having children in order to maintain a certain level of happiness.

i'm bringing up all these points because for some unknown reason to me, humans feel the need to be the sole caretaker of the world. to be fair, nature was doing alright till we showed up on the scene. we brought in our factories, leveled the forests and decimated a number of species. all for the sake of progress or more bluntly, greed. perhaps in some way, we have to become the caretakers of nature for the simple reason that we abused it and must atone for it. not because we are able to build things. we are not much cleverer than a cat or more intimidating physically than a dog.

however, it takes a person to undo the damage we've done to this poor little planet. it takes heart, soul and dedication, not just logic, science and "progress". humans are not people anymore than we think that certain animals are. in my books, a person is a being who is able to balance logic, emotion and love. humans are by definition still an animal as i've noted above. humans are not much different from an animal by any means. humans have been shown to be as cruel as animals, perhaps more so in that aspect. with that in mind, it takes a rather special human to rise above our innate animal behavior to truly become a person.

what we need are more people who are able to discern and be dismayed by the damage we are causing to the world. we need said people to begin educating others into being proper people; quite the impossible task on it's own. more importantly though, the proper caretakers of the world should be people, not humans. and unfortunately, despite there being about 7 billion humans and counting on this world, i can quite confidently say there aren't many people on it. though, you may then pose a different question to me and ask me if i am so pretentious as to count myself as a person. the answer is no, and that is the god honest truth. humans, we've a long way to go. so, hope that our planet remains hospitable enough for us to become people.

observations on some of fiction's bigger names

Politics, drama, messy love triangles, large scale warfare, class discrepancy and quirky characters; the primary ingredients of most science fiction and fantasy titles that have big fights in them. It is interesting to note how the masses in general these days respond when you say Star Wars or Game of Thrones. However, throw at them other names like Dune or Terry Pratchett and they'll probably be stumped. Why is this? Wasn't Dune an epic tale in its own right? Wasn't Pratchett's wit a refreshing breath of air in the grim, leather-clad and axe-wielding fantasy novels? 

My suspicion is that people read and know these titles because they're probably easier to digest. While mass-media has been a boon to many of these books, these books must have had a following massive enough in the first place to have attracted Hollywood. Lord of The Rings is no doubt a story on an epic scale. However, if one looks carefully at the characters, it is no more than a seemingly glorified game of Dungeons and Dragons in a way. We ultimately do not know the reason Sauron wants to control Middle-Earth other than the fact that he wants to and will do it. Sauron is evil because he wants to conquer everything. He is also presented as such. All his buildings, armies are grotesque, slobbering, harsh in every way and dress primarily in black; a colour most often associated with the unclean and evil thoughts. The key word here is appear evil, it is as simple an answer as is logically explainable. With this set up in mind, the heroes seem much more colourful and deeper in comparison to a mindless automaton of an archenemy. 

In a similar set up, Star Wars in its original trilogy and subsequent trilogy, we have the main villain called Darth Sidious or Palpatine. Sidious's overall plan is to win and wrest control of the galaxy from the powers that be, making the Sith reign supreme. It does sound similar to LoTR in this sense. Sidious is evil because he chooses to present himself as such. Again, he dresses in black though his minion stormtroopers use a seemingly pious and pure white, or when presented in this manner, sterile and surgically precise white. His motivations are terribly simple in this sense. The more iconic Darth Vader was created to be as terrifying as possible as well as inhuman. Vader is ironically a deeper character in comparison because he views the Sith's power as strong enough to overcome death and protect his loved one, sadly this character development is only shown in the prequel trilogy in Episode 3. Here, Anakin is corrupted into Vader so that he may have the power to preserve the life of his wife, whom he ironically kills later due to his corrupted nature. A much better story than simply uniting the galaxy under Sith rule, and we have no idea why the Sith have to control the galaxy other than it is the evil thing to do.

With that last bit in place, what LoTR and Star Wars have in common then are an enemy that is designed to be hated and loathed on automatic instinct by even children. The enemy's overall objective is the continuation of their evilness and complete control over their worlds. However, there never really seems to be any deeper rationalization as to why complete control over the world is necessary. 

However, there are other works out there that while are better in my opinion, seem to have faded from the memory of the masses in general. Dune is one such piece of work. Arguably, the early portions are the best whilst the later half being written by Herbert's son and his collaborator make it seem more like an effort to forcibly stop the expansion of Herbert's Dune universe. Otherwise, Dune's characters are indeed deeper than that of Lucas'. If we compare major antagonists to one another. Dune's Vladimir Harkonnen is everything that a person might hate immediately and yet, paradoxically we like him at the same time for who he is. Vladimir is presented as the morbidly obese Baron of Giedi Prime. He is hedonistic in his lifestyle, brutal and ruthless in his execution of schemes, he is much more cunning than any old fox and he ultimately has a flair and style. While Vladimir is seemingly inherently evil, he does evil things not just because it pleases him, but because he can and ultimately he also does said deeds for the betterment of his House. Vladimir willingly grinds his populace into slaves not just because he is evil but because he is greedy for more money and prestige. Even his feud with the Atreides is written to have occurred millenia ago when each of the houses' ancestors were to engage another foe together and the Harkonnens were not present during the battle, forever earning the Harkonnens the Atreides rage which turned into a tit for tat whose original meaning became lost to their descendants. There is a logical reason for each of Vladimir's actions as opposed to just being evil.

In comparison to Palpatine, Vladimir feels more organic, more of a person one would be able to relate to. Thus, making Vladimir a stronger character in comparison. On that level, he is comparable to Darth Vader, though Vladimir will still emerge a stronger character because he is able to come into his own as a character and drive the story as opposed to being driven by it. For the purpose of this post, we'll see  Vader as he appears in the movies due to the differences when other author's attempt to use Vader in other works. As a pawn to Palpatine, Vader does not seem to show much character, until after he discovers Luke is his son. Vader appears as a twisted father figure to Luke Skywalker and attempts to corrupt him to the dark side. While at some point we see this father figure side of Vader attempting to convince his literally rebellious son Luke to joining the Empire, other aspects of Vader appear to be more robotic. Vader becomes a cog in the machine called the story; he does certain things simply because it moves the story along as opposed to the story moving because of what the character does.  For example, his interrogation of Leia and the subsequent destruction of Alderaan is designed to show how evil he is, which feels like a rather shallow reason. 

Taking this into consideration the immense success that Star Wars has over Dune currently, one could easily assume that simplicity always wins out complexity. Dune's overall story in the initial parts revolve around Houses Corrino, Atreides and Harkonnen as their plans and schemes intertwine and cause considerable drama to the Dune universe. Star Wars ultimately does not have politics so much as it has battles. Dune has a fair mixture of political intrigue, espionage, drama and warfare. Warfare in general then it seems, is far easier to do. A clearer example of how mindless warfare wins out would be the influential board game turn computer game and novel series Dawn of War. Here is a franchise about as old as Star Wars and has lasted longer than Lucas had control over his own and is still going strong. The universe of Dawn of War has an incredibly simple premise: war and only war. There will be no alliances between factions, no parlays and no quarter given. War, war, war. If it is anything, Dawn of War is simplicity done at its finest. While not as mainstream as Star Wars, it has made its echoes in the halls of time, as Dune once had. 

The end result appears to be that the simpler the premise of a science fiction or fantasy world, the easier it will be willingly picked up and digested by the masses. Never mind that the hero is a hero for being a hero's sake or that his arch villain had absolutely no reason to take over the world other than it is an evil thing to do. If the villain and hero both raise and army to fight to the death, millions of people will pay to watch it happen, and they will watch the subsequent trilogy with eager anticipation. It is a pitiable sight, when the world forgoes substance in favor of spectacles, but if it will keep your monetary boat afloat, who is to complain?