Exploring the Uncanny Valley of “9”

The film “9” directed by Shane Acker was one of the most innovative films of 2009, maybe of recent history. With stunning visual effects and a style that was unique and creative, “9” instantly gained a place in my Film Criticism class, just on visuals alone. But something really intrigued (or bothered) me about “9”. The Uncanny Valley.

The Uncanny Valley is a theory that holds that “when robots and other facsimiles of humans (homunculi) look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's lifelikeness.” Basically the Uncanny Valley is when a non-human object takes on human characteristics and either performs them so poorly as to appear garish and unreal, or too well causing an uncomfortable feeling of all too familiarity. It is easy to understand the Uncanny Valley. Compare R2-D2 to Wall-E. Which seems more human? I’d have to argue for Wall-E as he has more “human” qualities. Now compare Wall-E to a Terminator…

In the film “9” we have what Acker calls “stitchpunk” characters that are made up of burlap sack like material and clockwork gears. There are nine characters all together, and *spoiler alert* they are comprised of fractions of the Scientist’s soul (he was their creator, and one of the last living humans). Because these little creatures are imbued with human spirit, they act and behave as fractions of that spirit. It makes one think when boiled down to bare essentials, what are we? One of the more disconcerting scenes is when the burly and brutish character with the designation of “8” is deriving some kind of pleasure from running a magnet over his head. Whether it was like a drug, or sexual in nature, we as an audience quickly learn it was a bad idea, because “8” does not survive the next five minutes. But of all the dystopic scenes throughout the film, Armageddon, skeletons, Matrix-esque robot killers and so on, this scene seemed to disturb me the most. Also the scenes with “6”, the demented artist portion of the group, were also specifically creepy. I think it is due to the fact that these characters are doing some very human things.

Films like “9” can be inspiring for writers because the world of “9” is so rich, that our imaginations begin to fire on all cylinders. But also, the little things, like getting high from a magnet, can make us really consider Character, and how our characters are illustrated and portrayed in our own work. What basic human needs are being fulfilled? Denied? When you see something “uncanny” or disconcerting, it might be wise to explore those feelings, name them, and write them into our work.

A Interview with Daria Snadowsky - Part 1

As part of an ongoing conversation about sexuality in YA literature, I interviewed author Daria Snadowsky about writing authentic sexualtiy in the YA novel general, and specifically in her own work, Anatomy of a Boyfriend. 

As a writer, how do you make a scene involving sexuality authentic? Or to put it another way, how does one write sexuality in a realistic, original, and literary way?

I’m not sure if there’s a bright-line rule for how to write a realistic sex scene because it depends so much on the story, the context, the narrator’s voice, etc. In Anatomy of a Boyfriend, realism was easily achievable because Dom, the main character, is an aspiring doctor. Consequently, Dom naturally thinks in clinical terms and describes situations in an open-minded, unbiased way as if she were performing an experiment on herself and penning a lab report. I’m not sure if the scenes would have worked as is had she not been a scientist.

In your opinion, what is the place of realistic sexuality in young adult literature?

I believe all YA literature is an ideal genre to include realistic depictions of sexuality because many YA readers themselves are beginning to have sexual experiences. And even if they’re “late bloomers,” they’re probably still thinking about sex a lot, so it’s important they have outlets to learn more about it. And since young people are often embarrassed to talk about sex with each other or with their parents, books are a wonderful, private way for readers to satisfy their curiosity and find kinships with nonjudgmental characters.

This type of literature is valuable for teens because it presents much-needed unromanticized accounts of the highs and lows of love and sex. When we grow up on fairytales like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, it's perfectly natural for us to expect that our first loves will last forever and that we'll know exactly what to do when the lights dim. In contrast, Anatomy of a Boyfriend shows all the humiliation and disappointment and awkwardness (as well as the magic and wonder and peace) that's part and parcel of falling in love and being intimate.

Could you discuss your thoughts about the level of sexuality and detail you used in your book?

I remember back when I was a teenager, I was naturally very curious about "making out." What happens when? What will I feel? What will he feel? What will I be thinking? How do you do everything? Is it instinctual or is it learned? For better or for worse, so many books "fade to black" after the first kiss, so we never see what happens. Or if they don't, the intimacy is often described in very melodramatic, romanticized or euphemistic terms. And that's just not reality. So in this book, I wanted to demystify in an unabashedly honest, non-threatening and sometimes humorous way what occurs, physically and emotionally, during "hooking up." Judy Blume's Forever (1975) serves that purpose to a large extent, but I wanted to get even more detailed and graphic in Anatomy of a Boyfriend. And since Dom never had a sexual experience before, it makes sense that she goes into such a high level of detail when describing her physical experiences because they’re all so new and unexpected and exciting to her.

The social ramifications of sexuality tend to play a large part in the novel, as well as in many YA novels featuring sexuality. Could you comment on how you handled this in Anatomy of a Boyfriend?

Anatomy of a Boyfriend highlights not just the physical elements of intimacy but also the emotional elements, which, unfortunately, are often left out of sex ed classes in school. Dom’s decision to get physical with Wes didn’t just have physical consequences—it affected how she saw herself and her relationships with her family and friends. The most important line of the book is when she wonders to herself, “How is it that mankind can engineer condoms to prevent pregnancy and STDs but not be able to invent some sort of emotional safeguard? Is it even possible to abstain from falling in love?” Dom’s story demonstrates that although sex carries tons of physical risks, if we're careful, odds are we can avoid them. But there is nothing we can do to ensure we won't fall in love or be heartbroken. So for every line where Dom describes what happens to her sexually, I always followed it with an emotional description, because you can't separate the two.

Can you discuss finding a balance between being authentic and sensational sexuality?

Again, it depends so much on other aspects of the story, but I suppose one thing all authentic sex scenes have in common is that they’re not gratuitous--they service the theme and contribute to the characters’ development. In Anatomy of a Boyfriend, each sex scene depicts a sexual “first” and describes Dom’s reaction to it. We never see Dom and Wes do the same thing twice because it wouldn’t really add anything new and would only slow down the pacing.

Thanks, Daria, for your wonderful comments, and your willingness to contribute them. You are truly is an asset to the YA writing community.

My Interview Archive

This is a list of interesting interviews from YA authors about their craft:

Sherman Alexie: A Texas Book Festival audio interview with John Jahnski on writng, featuring his books Flight, and The Absolute True Diary of a Part-time Indian.

Laurie Halse Anderson: A "YA Lit Bitch" interview with Ellen Papazian from Bitch Magazine about feminism and craft, specifically featuring Wintergirls and Speak.

Melvin Burgess: an interview with Joanne Stapley on his YA book review blog Once Upon a Bookcase about teen sexuality and writing, featuring his book Doing It.

Kerry Cohen: an excellent Q & A from her website, on her attitudes about adolescent sexuality, and her book Loose Girl: A Memior of Promiscuity.

Rachel Cohn and David Levithan: a blog interview with Little Willow about their YA novel Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist, the use of language and realism, and excitement over the film version.

Sara Hantz: an interview with Joanne Stapley on her YA book review blog Once Upon a Bookcase about teen sexuality and writing, featuring her book The Second Virginity of Suzy Green.

Joanna Kenrick: an interview with Joanne Stapley on her YA book review blog Once Upon a Bookcase about teen sexuality and writing, featuring her book Screwed.

Ron Koertge: an interview with Sarah Erwin from The Book Source about his writing style and his books The Brimstone Journals and Stoner & Spaz.

Margo Lanagan: an interview at with Jeff VanderMeer at Clarkesworld Magazine on her novel Tender Morsels and the contraversy over its violent content.

Serena Robar: an interview with Joanne Stapley on her YA book review blog Once Upon a Bookcase about teen sexuality, the curent state of sexuality in YA fiction, featuring her book Giving Up the V.

Laura Ruby: an interview with Joanne Stapley on her YA book review blog Once Upon a Bookcase about teen sexuality, the curent state of sexuality in YA fiction, featuring her book Good Girls.

Tanya Lee Stone: an interview with Joanne Stapley on her YA book review blog Once Upon a Bookcase about teen sexuality, the curent state of sexuality in YA fiction, featuring her book A Bad Boy Can Be Good for a Girl.

Sara Zarr: a "YA Lit Bitch" interview with Ellen Papazian from Bitch Magazine about sexuality and Christianity in her book Story of a Girl.

On "Factotum" and "Basquiat"

I am concerned that all of the “good” artists and writers were on the fringe of society. Bukowski was a drunk and Basquiat was an addict. Critics claimed their work suffered when they were “clean.” Does one have to be repellent or an addict in order to be "Great?" Maybe not even just seen by others as Great, but even be capable of being Great? Many of the Great authors committed suicide or died in obscurity. Why? I am concerned that maybe they they understand things that others don’t, or that looking into the abyss for too long may make you cast yourself in.

I have spent a few hours (on the Internet) with Charles Bukowski and Jean-Michel Basquiat and I find them interesting and important. I had never heard of either of these artists before seeing the films about them, (Factotum and Basquiat) much the same as my fascination with Diane Arbus since seeing the movie “Fur.” With every new film I expand my appreciation for Art. I also believe in this idea or concept of Art, and that it is what makes us individuals and is innately human. Maybe it is that great capacity for individual creativity is what set apart Bukowski and Basquiat and in the end overwhelmed them.

Everyone should explore this ability even if it is just for themselves. Write-paint-draw-play-compose-move-dance-stitch-weave-construct-discover-CREATE. The capacity to create makes us human, and individuals.

Imaginary Portraits

I love watching movies like Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, where I am left with many questions and quests. The quest of course can be many things, but in this case, I had no idea who Diane Arbus was, and felt I really needed to know her after the film was over. I of course started at Wikipedia, and then killed approximately two hours looking at Arbus photographs and reading about her life.

But this brings us to the question: Is a movie like Fur required to be "authentic" and factual? Can this work of art that stands on its own, be a valid work if it is imaginary? I guess what I liked about Fur specifically is that it tests the boundaries of what conventional movie goers expect. This is not a biopic per se, but a film about the essence of Diane Arbus. How does one capture an essence? I think of poetry, and how the medium of film is like poetry in that what poetry does with words, film can capture mood and tone with images. Arbus's pictures are that way, wrought with emotion, and I think the film captures that essence.

There is specifically one scene that is extremely thought provoking. When Diane's husband discovers that there is an emotional affair going on, and he discovers that her lover Lionel is going to die, he asks her, "What difference does it make. He is going to die anyway." I felt he was asking her, why is she hurting their family, and him so much by continuing on with her actions, if it is not going to come to any kind of fruition? My wife who was watching the film took it to mean that he was giving his wife (Arbus) permission to complete the affair physically, because it would not matter if Lionel was going to die anyway. Arbus kisses her husband and says, "I will go an end it." And proceeds to go up stairs and make love to Lionel. Is that really what the husband was expecting her to do? I thought that it was a nice piece of complex acting/writing to have two people watch the same scene, and have two distinctly different impressions about what was happening. It spawned several conversations about feminine and masculine perspectives, and a discussion over whether committing the physical act of adultery with a dying man really matter?
Nichole Kidman was captivating as Arbus in the film, she has that just so prim and proper manner about her, that when she is able to shed that veneer and show the true sensual woman inside her, it is powerful. I had a few moments during the film where I recalled Eyes Wide Shut, and I may need to see it again, now that I can't seem to stop thinking about this film.

On Patriotism

I am a SUN Magazine subscriber, and the topic for July 2008 is "patriotism". The deadline for this topic was December 1st, 2007, and that has sadly past. But I thought it was such a good story that I wanted to share it with someone, you here you are...

On Patriotism

On the Fourth of July, 1994, I attended a fireworks display at Blakeslee Stadium, at Mankato State University. There were approximately 3500 people in the stadium bleachers and on the football field that evening, many of them fellow college students. People were spreading out blankets and listening to portable radios playing patriotic music. Announcers were on the loud speakers giving fireworks display readiness updates and hawking products. I was watching the activity at the southeastern end of the field where shadowy people were scrambling to get everything connected and in place, when the festive chatter in the crowd turned to dismayed murmurs and boos.

I looked out at midfield and saw some students spreading out what at first I thought was a patriotically colored blanket. But it kept getting bigger, and bigger. As the “blanket” unfolded on the ground, I realized that it was a huge American Flag. In that instant I also knew it had to be the flag that had been stolen from the local Perkins restaurant the previous weekend. The students who had brought the flag began stepping on it, and one student walked to the center and plopped down with a large cooler and began motioning for his friends to sit down. There was about ten of them, and they looked pretty intimidating, and serious. The crowd’s dismay quickly turned to outrage, with people standing up and yelling for the police—only yards away—to do something. “Arrest them! That is stolen property!” a man next to me was yelling. But no one moved. I just kept looking back and forth from the crowd to the students, fearing I was about to see my first riot, and hoping for someone official to stop it before it happened.

The crowd began to part on the other side of the stadium; I thought for sure an out-of-control man was busting his way through the crowd to take care of the situation in his own way. To my surprise it was a woman who was working her way down to the ramp, and then she dropped thought the handrails and onto the field. She stomped toward the students and started shaking her fist and pointing at the flag on the ground. She was obviously livid, and the students were easily intimidated by this mother from the masses and immediately began to move off of the flag. The lone student in the middle refused to get up. The middle-aged woman began to gather the flag in her arms until she had almost all of it, except the small portion the student was still sitting on. With a tug, she got it all, dumping the man onto the grass. The crowd waited. She stomped over to police officers who were standing just yards away, and shoved the flag into the arms of one of them. It was a surreal feeling, and I could almost hear the mosquitoes buzzing it seemed so quiet.

The crowd roared.

People were whistling, and yelling, “Thank you!” and “You ROCK!” We clapped and cheered for that woman until our hands were red and our eyes were wet. We clapped because she did something that no one else did that night. In front of several thousand people she had the courage and patriotism to stand up for something she believed in, and wasn’t willing to let anyone trample on it. Almost fifteen years later, I am still clapping.