Month: July 2012

Reflections on Avatar: The Legend of Korra Book One

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

Book One of Avatar: The Legend of Korra came to an end last month. I started watching the show with high expectations, but they swiftly took a nosedive as it progressed. Sadly, the season finale did nothing to shake me from my apathy.

I approached the show as a huge Avatar fan. I loved it so much that I purchased the boxed sets of all three seasons, which is something I rarely do since I’m such a cheapskate. I re-watch them regularly, and I can honestly say that I enjoy almost every episode (with the exception of “The Great Divide,” of course).

When I heard that they were going to make Korra, I was thrilled. I was a bit disappointed that we wouldn’t be seeing more of the original characters, but the steakmpunkesque setting looked intriguing. But after the first few episodes, my enthusiasm for the show all but vanished, and I continued watching out of a sense of duty rather than enjoyment.

Korra was originally intended as 12-episode miniseries, but that was eventually increased to 52 episodes divided into four ‘books,’ with each book having a different plot arc. The original series, on the other hand, had 61 episodes spread over three books. Because Korra has shorter books, the plot is forced to move along at a much faster pace, without any filler episodes. That could have been an asset, but instead it turned out to be a problem.

The show’s pacing struck me as woefully uneven. The first part of the book is dominated by the pro-bending storyline, which gets jettisoned midway through so the Amon storyline can take center stage. After a fairly sedate beginning, viewers are subjected to plot whiplash as the remaining episodes zoom from battle to battle.

I wish the pro-bending storyline had been pruned a bit because it really wasn’t all that interesting. The institutionalized nature of the combat managed to make bending boring. At their core, all the pro-bending scenes were the same. Two teams would meet in an arena and lob elements at each other. They were a poor substitute for the varied combat shown in the original series.

The Amon storyline is less repetitious, but things move so quickly that everything seems curiously devoid of impact. The finale contains some genuine drama when Amon manages to strip Korra of most of her bending skills. For a few moments, I thought that the second part of the season would focus on her struggle to regain her mastery of the other elements, and I was genuinely excited.

Alas, Avatar Aang comes along in the last few minutes of the episode and restores her bending while dispensing some pap about how her recent suffering has made her a true Avatar. Apparently, Korra can now tap into her spiritual side, but it’s kind of hard to see this as a momentous achievement when her lack of spirituality hasn’t been mentioned since the first episode.

Of course plot problems can be overlooked if the characters are sufficiently engaging. Sadly, Korra’s weren’t. I think the lack of filler episodes really hurt the characterization. The original series handled filler episodes very well because they often ended up being more character-driven. “Zuko Alone,” “The Tales of Ba Sing Se,” and “The Beach,” are all great examples of how the original series managed to flesh out the characters.

But there wasn’t room for anything like that in Korra, and so everyone remained pretty one-dimensional. Compared to Aang, Korra’s personality seemed pretty flat. She felt like a generic Strong Female Character, and I think it’s because we weren’t allowed to get to know her gradually. She also didn’t seem to face many interior struggles. True, she had problems with the spiritual side of being the Avatar, but that it’s not really a ‘struggle’ when it’s mentioned once at the beginning and then forgotten about until the finale.

Her relationship with Mako felt similarly flat. There was never really any chemistry or tension between them. True, Mako had the hots for Asami for a while, but she might as well have worn a nametag reading “Hi, my name’s Asami, and I’m a plot complication.” There was no reason to think of her as a credible rival to Korra.

And then there’s Amon, the main villain of the book. Although he gets points for having a plot that’s more sophisticated than the usual KILL, KILL, KILL!!!, he’s still rather bland until the finale fleshes out his backstory a bit more. He can’t really hold a candle to either Zuko or Azula from the first series.

I haven’t totally given up on Korra, and I’m willing to watch a bit of Book Two to see if things get better. But I certainly won’t be rushing out to buy Book One anytime soon.

A response to “What Ails the Episcopalians”

The Wall Street Journal recently ran an op-ed piece that can only be described as a hatchet job aimed at The Episcopal Church. Now as many of you know, I am an Episcopalian. I converted several years ago, and it’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made. So when I see the church subjected to ill-informed vilification, it kind of pisses me off.

The author, Jay Akasie, writes that our triennial General Convention is characterized by its “sheer ostentation and carnival atmosphere.” While I’ve never been to General Convention myself, I have watched the proceedings extensively. Akasie and I must have been watching different conventions because I didn’t see any “carnival atmosphere.” I saw a bunch of people sitting in a drab convention center arguing about parliamentary procedure. The only thing I saw that could be characterized as ‘ostentatious’ was the doctoral gown worn by the President of the House of Deputies when she presided over the House. But even that’s pretty tame compared to what other presiding officers wear!

Akasie also derides the Convention’s work, claiming that they “discussed such weighty topics as whether to develop funeral rites for dogs and cats, and whether to ratify resolutions condemning genetically modified foods.” But that’s a distorted picture of what actually happened. There was a resolution to authorize certain prayers for use with companion animals, but I’m not sure why the church deserves to be excoriated for trying to provide additional pastoral care. Besides, it hardly dominated the agenda.

Also, there was no resolution condemning genetically modified food. There was a resolution asking the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies to appoint a task force to “to inform the Church of the issues surrounding the development of genetically engineered crop plants and the patenting of genetically modified organisms.” I hadn’t realized that seeking more information about a subject was tantamount to condemning it.

What Akasie failed to mention is that the General Convention passed several pieces of legislation that reaffirmed our commitment to the dignity and worth of all human beings. Now it is beyond doubt that transgendered individuals can take part in all aspects of church life, including the ordination process. And LGBT Christians can finally stand before a congregation and affirm their commitment to one another. Contrary to what Akasie seems to think, the things General Convention do make a difference.

Akasie also attacks our Presiding Bishop, who he accuses of being “secretive and authoritarian.” She is taken to task for “brazenly” carrying a metropolitan cross. Now a metropolitan cross is traditionally the prerogative of a bishop who has jurisdiction over other bishops. In the Anglican tradition, they are usually called archbishops, but we don’t have archbishops in The Episcopal Church. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop who carries out many of the same functions. So it’s entirely fitting that she should carry a metropolitan cross. She’s not the first Presiding Bishop to carry a metropolitan cross, either. I wonder if Akasie thinks they were brazen, too?

Her choice of regalia isn’t the only objectionable thing about her in Akasie’s eyes. She’s also reprimanded for suing dioceses and parishes that have tried to secede and take church property with them. But Akasie conveniently ignores the fact that, under canon law, all church property is held in trust for the national church. I think it’s terrible that lawsuits are necessary, but the Presiding Bishop and her officials can hardly stand idly by and watch as people run off with property that belongs to the national church.

Of course the Presiding Bishop isn’t the only bad egg in the church’s hierarchy, according to Akasie. There’s also a cadre of “revisionist bishops” who are determined to rewrite the Book of Common Prayer using “blunt modern language and with politically correct intent.” In a bid to thwart the laymen who are courageously resisting these terrible innovations, the bishops are said to be intent on nothing less than the destruction of the church’s democracy. Comically, Akasie says that “a long-standing quest by laymen to celebrate the Eucharist,” which is said to be “a favorite cause of the church’s left wing,” could be in danger from the sort of undemocratic, unicameral legislature that the evil bishops are allegedly proposing.

Never mind the fact that the revisionist bishops that Akasie loathes so much are all elected officials who presumably represent the views of a majority of the Episcopalians in their dioceses. And never mind the fact we Episcopalians take our liturgy seriously (the beauty of holiness and all that), and so the idea of a cabal of liberal bishops tearing it up and substituting some bland pabulum strikes me as a bit nutty. That’s not to say that we don’t produce some less-than-stellar liturgical resources from time to time, but the difficulties involved in amending the Prayer Book help ensure that bad ideas don’t get etched in stone. And finally, the only Anglicans that I know of who want to see lay presidency are in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia. They’re pretty much diametrically opposed to the church’s left wing!

The Episcopal Church isn’t perfect. It never will be, considering it’s run by fallible humans who have a tendency to project their own views onto the Almighty. I admit that I roll my eyes at some of the things that go on in the church, but that’s just the price you pay for being a ‘big tent’ church. I would be hard pressed to think of another Christian community that tolerates the degree of theological disagreement that we do. There are Episcopalians who fervently believe in transubstantiation, and who seek the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the saints. There are also Episcopalians who see the Eucharist as nothing more than a memorial, and who worship plainly, without smells or bells. And when the church decides to take a stance from which a significant minority dissents (such as ordaining women or blessing same-sex unions), we do our best to ensure that dissenters aren’t persecuted because of their conscientious objection.

At the end of the article, Akasie says that he is an Episcopalian. But if he’s so unhappy with the church that he feels the need to resort to this sort of error-laden smear campaign, perhaps he should start looking for a new spiritual home.

Lords reform looks close to death

It looks like Nick Clegg’s proposals to reform the House of Lords are about to be consigned to the scrapheap. Although the government won the vote on second reading by 462 to 124, they had to withdraw the program motion that would have set the timetable for the rest of the bill’s journey through the Commons. Labour had promised to vote against it, and with around 100 Tory MPs threatening to rebel, it didn’t stand a chance of passing.

Labour claims that they opposed the program motion because it didn’t allow enough time for debate, but I suspect they’re more interested in exacerbating tensions between the Tories and the Lib Dems. It sure seems to be working.

Now the government is in a terrible pickle. Theoretically, they could just take the bill through the rest of its parliamentary stages without any preset time limits, but their rebel backbenchers would almost certainly end up filibustering it. The government will be all too aware that an earlier attempt at Lords reform, the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 1968, died because MPs on both sides were able to slow proceedings to a crawl until ministers finally gave up.

If the Lords Reform Bill is going to make any progress, there has to be a program motion. David Cameron has hinted that he won’t negotiate with Labour, which means he’ll have to appease his own backbenchers. The Daily Telegraph has reported that Cameron is offering extra days in committee, or a reduction in the number of elected peers. But since they want the entire bill scrapped, it seems doubtful that those concessions will win him many votes. Interestingly, the Telegraph is also reporting that Cameron has indicated that, if he can’t win over his backbenchers by the end of the summer, he will abandon the entire bill. That would place a huge strain on the coalition, and I suspect a messy divorce would soon follow.

Still, I hope Cameron does come to his senses and jettison this atrocious bill. It really is a dog’s breakfast. Nick Clegg and friends have repeatedly said that they want the second chamber to be more accountable, yet they’ve proposed a body whose members would serve a 15-year term without the possibility of re-election.If you never have to face the voters again, you don’t have to worry about what they think.

The bill also seeks to ensure that the reformed Lords remains subordinate to the Commons. But that convention only really makes sense when the Commons has an electoral mandate and the Lords doesn’t. Requiring an elected chamber to kowtow to another elected chamber is an exercise in constitutional fundamentalism.

The way the government has tried to secure the primacy of the Commons seems poorly thought out. Clause 2 says that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 will continue to apply to the reformed House of Lords. Those acts are what allow the House of Commons to pass legislation over the Lords’ veto. But they still allow the Lords to delay non-financial legislation for about a year. Until now, the Lords has usually given way in the end, which is why the Parliament Acts have only been used a handful of times. Would an elected chamber be equally self-denying? I doubt it.

Then there is the Salisbury-Addison convention which states that the Lords won’t reject government bills that arise from manifesto commitments. That convention was negotiated back when the House of Lords was filled with hereditary peers, most of whom supported the Conservatives. Why should it apply to an elected chamber whose political complexion reflects the will of the people?

On the plus side, the wrangle over Lords reform has helped convince me that Britain probably needs a written constitution. The idea of effecting constitutional change of this magnitude through a mere Act of Parliament is troubling, to say the least.