Time Travel is Stupid, I Know, But I Can't Help It

Just to dredge up Southland Tales one more time, about half-way through the third act some basic expository dialogue lets us in on the "crux" of the plot: a rift in the fourth dimension (space/time) has opened up somewhere near Lake Meade, and as a result, many of the characters have been traveling through time all along. This is also meant to explain the weird behavior of the movie's supposed 'twin brothers' (thought it doesn't). Not until the fourth season of Lost do we get time travel as premise - Heroes had it from the start, but lost most of its audience when it became an easy solution to every problem in the second season. More directly science-fictiony stuff always gets there eventually, as does fantasy set in the current day (ie Superman), but that's a more natural progression.

Anyway, this is all in support of the argument I'd like to make that given enough time (and forgive the meta-pun), time travel will find its way into a mythology. If the world of the story isn't pre-limited, and one obsessive visionary (or in a pinch, a team of television producers) is given free reign to let the world continually incubate, expanding and growing beyond its wildest ambitions, then eventually the biggest thing that can happen will happen, and the only corner left to turn, though stupid, will be the ability to travel through time.

And sure, its introduced most regularly as a convenient fix for bad storytelling. It allows writers to kill off an entire cast in one blow, or detonate the planet without pesky repercussions. Also, it just doesn't make any sense, and no storyteller can really craft the web tight enough to sufficiently cover the gaping holes in logic and causality that result from the effort. But there it is anyway, time and time again (more incidental meta puns for your consideration), rearing its head usually when an audience is already fully committed to a world, so that maybe its sins will be looked upon more lightly.

Time travel is stupid, and obvious, and already done. Yes. But, as previously mentioned, my mythology also features time travel, and although it definitely is, I can't shake the conviction that it's somehow not as stupid, obvious and already done as all those other times.

I mentioned it in relation to Swedenborg, and I've had one of my avatars expound upon it further here , but I've never really gotten to the heart of what it's all about, mostly because I don't think I can. The thing is, my rationale for time travel isn't really a succinct and easy-to-encapsulate central premise, but more a loose constellation of concepts and observations that I've willfully taken out of context and crocheted into a blotchy quilt called post-time. It does involve cellular technology, Swedenborg's description of spiritual time, and the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012, but narrowing it down more than that gets pretty tricky and convoluted.

I can tell you that I was initially struck by the idea in a college English class, while contemplating the observation that until a couple-hundred years ago, a person could know everything there was to know. All of the collected wisdom of art, science and literature was finite enough that it could be attained by a single person in one lifetime, and a handful of scholars and 'renaissance men' did just that. And then science grew too big for its britches, and since then the percentage of overall knowledge that a person can collect has been steadily shrinking, so that each generation of scientist or scholar must choose a smaller and smaller niche of study in order to achieve mastery of their subject. I was thinking about this in terms momentum. If this is a trend, where is it headed? Will we keep splitting fractions forever, defining a perpetual asymptote of scholarly ambition, or will we eventually transcend knowledge altogether? Okay, that sounds stupid, but now think about the Internet. As people are able to retain less and less in the grand scheme of knowledge, the Internet has made it so that the availability of knowledge is increasing at an inversely proportional rate (let's just say it is, for the sake of argument). The time it takes to attain knowledge is also decreasing steadily, to the point where I'm incensed if it takes longer than a fifteen second wikipedia search to find out something I don't know. So, to recap, our knowledge of the world and our ability to access that knowledge is increasing steadily every day; but, as a result, any given person knows less and less about the total state of affairs as time goes on, while they study more in-depth the nuances of a particular subject. Another result: ADD. We've all got it. There's just too much to know, and too many different items of information in a single day (or minute) that we need to access at any given point. It's all about learning quickly now, and not about still knowing it a day from now (because we can just learn it again tomorrow). People a hundred years ago would spend ten years learning one stupid thing, and now I'm ready to abandon the venture if I can't achieve satisfying results in the first couple minutes (and I may be an extreme case, I'll grant you that, but I don't even technically have ADD, and I promise you my kids will be even more impatient than I am).

So, lots of stuff. But, where does it all lead? For me, and my obsessive thematic mythology, it results in a world where people eventually have instantaneous access to all the information in the world, but at the same time zero ability to retain any of it. And so everyone is forced to live purely in the moment, unaware of what came before and unprepared for what will come next, existing practically in post-time.

I don't think it would actually work as a premise, but the office show iteration of the mythology that's currently grinding away like an ambitious round of Animal Crossing in my head sure thinks it would. Because although the results would be the same for every character in the mythology (the ability for time travel, for example, since no one would retain anything anyway, thus obviating the dangers of interfering with their past) they could each have their own perspective on what it meant. A Historian figure might draw on the rationale I just espoused, but a more quietly religious figure could just attribute it to the apocalyptic "end-times", as in, the end of time. When the 5000 year Mayan Calendar runs out in 2012, maybe time will just stop running.

And though it may seem stupid to have a cast of characters who couldn't remember what just happened to them, the beautiful thing is that it wouldn't actually matter, because normal people don't really act on the basis of what's just happened to them either. The way I see it, most people interact with reality on a day-to-day basis according to a set of preconceived themes. A life-long cop may begin to look at everything in terms of criminal and non-criminal; a psychologist, in terms of known disorders and defense mechanisms; a historian according to recorded historical precedent, etc. I know I'm obsessed with the world inside my head, but I think everyone else is too, just that most people happily mistake their interpretation of the world with how the world actually works. This explains why children tend to vote like their parents (or the opposite of their parents), and why one person's terrorist will always be another's hero. I'm venturing into some pretty preachy and over-generalized waters here, so I'll stop, but I'd like to just leave you with with the wisps of truth beneath the stereotypes and cliches I've laid out.

But what am I doing, defending myself? This isn't therapeutic at all! In fact, I think I'm back-pedaling. I can leave the Undigestible Man if I have to, and I can live without the Fish Master in a second, but if and when I do fall of the wagon it will be because of time travel.

Re: How Not to Make a World

I just wanted to write quickly to say that after watching Southland Tales last night, I can confirm that it really is as big a mess as I accused it of being (if not substantially bigger).

Here's how it ends (spoiler alert, I guess): Two copies of a police officer are shaking hands in an ice cream van as it floats above the city of LA, the fourth dimension burbling outside the back doors. The guy standing on the van's side aims a rocket launcher at the massive zeppelin they're approaching, where the Rock is currently acting out his marital infidelities in an ad-hoc interpretive dance on a stage. Just before the rocket hits the zeppelin, the Rock spreads out his arms and the face of Jesus briefly materializes on his back. Down in the streets, everyone's killing each other. Back in the van, we close in on the eye of one of the versions of the cop, his pupil fading in and out of the milky iris. In a voice-over, Justin Timberlake reiterates with a slow and purposeful cadence, "He was a pimp. Pimps don't commit suicide." Cut to black.

If only Mythological Anonymous had been established earlier, perhaps Richard Kelly could have been spared this senseless act of career genocide.

How Not to Make a World

I was reading yesterday about the new Grand Theft Auto game that's coming out at the end of this month, and it got me thinking about the difficult balance inherent in creating accessible mythologies. Even if it's not really your thing I'd recommend checking out their website, because they've basically manufactured an entire culture to support their game about running people over. They've been taking this tact from the beginning, but in this round they've kicked it up a couple notches, adding a scale model of the internet just for in-game use, and consistent global news that progresses throughout the game, accessible via multiple media outlets reflecting various ideological biases. Even if it's especially not your thing, at least look briefly at this, the Starbucks equivalent within their culture, complete with its own unique advertising scheme, mascot, interactive drinks menu and visual back story. The point for me is that they've made a business out of creating a mythology, manufacturing an entire world for people to get lost in.

Now, granted, this isn't really the same thing as the mythologizing that I'm talking about. Their world is basically just a Mad Magazine-level spoof of ours, ensuring that everything presented is an immediately recognizable generalization of those institutions which crest the peaks of our own popular culture. Sprite's called Sprunk, Verizon is Whizz mobile - I'm impressed with the level of detail that they've brought to this exercise, but it's still just a mirror world with more cars and looser moral guidelines.

The point is, there is a potentially lucrative business model for creating mythologies. A show like Lost provides a better example of a somewhat-unrecognizable world with a burgeoning mythology that millions of people are completely obsessed with (myself included). In this case, a person has to immerse themselves in the world one step at a time or it won't make any sense (not that it necessarily makes any sense anyway), and it's wrought with an intriguing mash of themes and places and concepts that wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with each other in real life.

But see, that's the thing, and maybe the heart of my problem: I don't think I really have a good sense of where to draw the line between accessible, interesting world and self-indulgent fantasy- land.

From an objective-viewer position, I think I can tell when I'm looking at one or the other, and maybe even explain why something works or doesn't. The guy who made Donnie Darko recently came out with another movie called Southland Tales, which he's been working on incessantly for the last six years. The movie was hugely expensive, and its internal world is bolstered by a series of graphic novels, leaving the film itself as something like chapters eight through ten of a twelve chapter story. But apparently it's just a mess. When he first showed it, people didn't even know how to react, and the studios demanded that he go back and refilm half of it so that something coherent might be cobbled together. After this process the movie experienced an invisible theatrical release and went straight to video. Now here is an example of a horrible mythology with no traction. For every Star Wars, I bet there are two-dozen Southland Tales that no one's ever heard of.

When I look at Grand Theft Auto's miniature culture, my first thought is: man, I wish I could have my hand at that job. I assume that the simple spoofy world they created is successful purely because of the detail put into it, and that they would have conceived something more original and thought-provoking if they'd had a more aggressive imagination behind its creation. But I think I'm wrong when I think that. I think their world is successful because it's stupid and obvious, and to add more nuance to it would be taking away from its accessibility to the target demographic of Grand Theft Auto IV. Even Lost isn't really that original, and its success is probably due much more to its episodic story arcs (what will happen next week?!) than to the depth of its mythology. Because the characters and immediate story are compelling (read: the obvious bits), people are willing to divest more time in the hints of bizarreness (what's up with the smoke monster, seriously?).

I think about all of this, and dream of possessing the resources and time to manifest my mythology in some form in the world. And when I think about it, I know full well that left to my own devices I'd be much more likely to come up with a Southland Tales than a Star Wars. So maybe I'm just doomed to an obsession with an untenable world.

But what about this, internet TV producers reading some random guy's blog? It's The Office meets Lost. We see the world from the point of view of lots of interesting characters, coming from a wide range of relatable-to backgrounds and ethnic resonance. And every one of them works for the same large corporation, but none of them know how large the corporation really is, or what its plans are. And it kind of takes place in the future, but you don't know how far in the future. So it's like The Office meets Lost meets 1984. Every episode starts with a cultural montage of some aspect of society that will be the focus of that episode. And all of this is leading up to the revelation that this society exists after time, in the cultural morass of post-time, where all the options and advances of culture have reached their necessary end-points, and so time itself is not really advancing anymore, so all that's left are the individual choices people make and the relationships they form. This also makes lots of things okay, like time travel, because there are no causality issues if time is no longer actually progressing, you see? And then there's this guy who's actually an archetype, and at the end the quiet systems analyst descends to the center of the Earth where he finds the controls to the planet...

Crap, I lost it. Oh well, it was worth a shot.