Just a quick post, as I caught this while browsing the UK riot coverage this morning. The BBC is reporting that British parliament is thinking about whether it would be “right and possible” to limit access to social media during times of unrest. Twitter, Facebook, and Blackberry Messenger have been cited as major influences on the rioters’ ability to organize, and apparently Home Secretary Theresa May is meeting representatives from each of these companies to talk about their “obligations during times of unrest”. Given the role of social media in the recent Arab Spring uprisings, and the attempts by government to shut down access as a result, such suggestions from British Prime Minister David Cameron are obviously concerning.

Rights campaigner Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group is quoted in the article making some important points:

Who would decide whether texts or tweets constituted an incitement to disorder? If not the courts, then there could be abuses by private companies and police. He also pointed out that “[a]ny government policy to shut down networks deprived citizens of a right to secure communication and undermined the privacy required by a society that valued free speech”.

Given that the government was firm that the army would not be brought in to deal with rioters, the lack of use of water cannons and rubber bullets, and the fact that David Cameron has also stood by proposed cuts to the number of police officers in London, is there some likelihood that the warnings of rights activists will be heeded? Given how surveillance-heavy the UK is, I am not so sure. However, so long as the length and spread of the riots is being blamed on police tactics, perhaps discussions of restrictions to social media access will not receive too much attention?

This is what academic Myriam Dunn Cavelty terms a “policy window”- an event which creates an opportunity through which ‘security professionals’ can gain attention and support for their security arguments, framing the event in a specific way, and prompting certain security responses. It will be important to watch and see which players with their various motivations capitalize on this opportunity to advance their own cause.

EDIT: And there it is- China takes the UK’s discussion of social media censorship as validation of its own Great Firewall. You can’t expect to hold the moral upper hand and chastise China’s tactics to promote social solidarity and then go ahead and do it yourself. It doesn’t matter if you argue how ‘different’ each situation is. Really it’s just a matter of degree, and the perhaps small likelihood that the UK will have oversight which will discourage abuse of these powers.

Proposed surveillance powers will have reduced warrant requirements, potentially introduce vulnerabilites, and cost ISPs who will pass that cost on to consumers

I went to a really interesting forum a couple weeks ago at Simon Fraser University called ‘Stop Online Spying’, organized by the Open Media group and apparently spearheaded by Michael Markwick, who brought along one of his undergraduate classes. It was focused around the Internet surveillance or ‘lawful access’ components of Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper’s crime omnibus bill, which is set to pass in the first 100 days after his reelection. A coalition of advocacy groups and professors have written an open letter to Harper, outlining their objections to the bill, which can be found here.

There were a few familiar faces- Micheal Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association, who is always refreshingly straightforward and forthright in her analysis of surveillance law and its implications. She explained how police already had many of the powers that this bill provides, and in fact the bill simply reduces oversight and increases the potential for the abuse of these powers.

A few of the folks from the Open Media group presented- this organization were largely responsible for publicizing and organizing against the proposed usage-based billing in Canada. There was also a guy called Christopher Parsons, a PhD at UVic, who I feel like I probably saw at the Cyber-Surveillance in Everyday Life conference at U of T. He made some really insightful comments on the difference between public and private data, and the importance of ‘meta data’ or ‘traffic data’- the major loophole in electronic communication privacy law.

One really interesting aspect of the forum was a presentation outlining the history of the lawful access bill, which didn’t come from no where, but is just the latest form of a number of previous bills that have been reframed over and over again throughout the years (the presentation was by either Vincent Gogolek of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, or Steve Anderson of Open Media, I cannot recall). This is one of the main points raised in the coalition’s open letter, mentioned above.

It was great to have the opportunity to attend a discussion of Internet surveillance issues that was held close to home, as many of these forums are held in Ontario. It was also nice to hear some of the bright-eyed optimism of some of the undergrads in attendance- events populated by those in the surveillance studies field can often be quite cynical affairs! But this is definitely an issue with the potential to capture the minds of the younger generation, if they are given the opportunity to get to grips with the facts and their implications. This was a great opportunity for them to do just that.

How about a nice game of chess?

In popular culture, from 1983 and the release of War Games or 1984′s Neuromancer by William Gibson, the popular understanding of computers- and especially networked computers- has been that they can be manipulated by anyone with the requisite skills into doing almost anything, even accidentally starting nuclear war. Written in an era of intense insecurity and doubt, especially with regards to technology, the imprint of the Cold War is clear in these popular imaginaries. More recently, in an equally strong climate of fear, season 7 of the TV show 24 showed terrorists hacking into the air traffic control network in a display marrying the intense fear of terrorism centred around the hijacking of commercial flights on 9/11, with the growing uneasiness around these technological devices that we are so dependent on but don’t really understand. The most recent Die Hard movie, Live Free or Die Hard, took this uneasiness further, suggesting that hackers could take over the transportation system, air traffic control, phone and television networks, the power grid, the computer system at the FBI… anything run by a computer was potentially at risk, or was a threat.

Yes, that's a car flying into a helecopter. Pretty standard fair during cybarmaggedon.

More worryingly, however, is the message that comes from mainstream media, following a similar line. CNN in collaboration with the DHS earlier this year released footage of an experiment carried out on a generator like those operating the electrical power grid. The experiment was to show how easily an experienced hacker could break into the computers operating the generator, and not just shut it down, but blow it up. (The insider knowledge required to complete such a feat was not mentioned; nor was the fact that the hacking had occurred on a software program similar to the SCADA software operating the real grid.) The fear that there could be physical repercussions for acts carried out in cyberspace is not a new one, Weekly World News Ran this story in 2000:

Weekly World News is known for its outlandish cover stories which often verged on the satirical, however satire is based on reality. The actually alarming thing is that this rhetoric which was once restricted to sci fi movies and tabloids is now the fodder of mainstream newscasters such as CNN, who also recently ran a two hour special “focumentary”, Cyber Shock Wave, in which a situation room made up of current and former government officials attempted to formulate a strategy to deal with the catastrophic effects caused by a cyberattack. Richard Grusin describes this onslaught of cyber-fear mongering as part of a strategy of “premediation”, through which the media reports on potential threats with such detail and immediacy as to keep viewers in a constant state of low-level fear, and thus prepare the nation to face any threat that might occur in the future, rather than being surprised by the unthinkable in the manner of the 9/11 attacks. Grusin provides an interesting breakdown of this strategy at work in Cyber Shock Wave in his blog here.

Perhaps more alarmingly, while some strategists and members of the military and intelligence communities have been worrying about cyber attacks for some time, the hype and rhetoric involved is in some cases beginning to approximate that of CNN. Richard A. Clarke, counter terrorism and cybersecurity adviser for the Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations recently published a book warning of the perils of cyberterrorism and cyberwar which sounds at times as if it has borrowed great chunks from Die Hard 4.0; all that’s missing is a battered and bleeding John Maclean (but others are battered an bleeding in his place, as a result of the explosions triggered at oil refineries, chlorine gas released from chemical plants, the disabling of air traffic control, trains crashing into each other, and the entire country being plunged into darkness). For a more detailed review of Clarke’s book, visit Wired Magazine’s article “Richard Clarke’s Cyberwar File Under Fiction”.

However his book is not without merit. He offers a breakdown of the potential threats and various administrations’ and military and intelligence organizations’ reactions to these threats with a clarity and detail afforded by an insider. And his analysis of the threats is often quite reasonable and grounded- he presents the issues and potential solutions clearly and assesses them logically. However once he has done away with the workable potential for any limited solution, his alternative suggestions are so extreme that they would seem more fitting to the tightly regulated regime of China rather than the hands-off, limited big government ethos favored by Americans. In fact in describing the Great Firewall of China, he explains how China is in a much better position defensively due to the level of control is has over its networks, sounding somewhat envious of this level of regulation. Objectively this is probably true, but is he advocating such a controlling system for the US? It would seem so, as later on he promotes the idea of using deep packet inspection on Internet backbone ISPs (as an alternative to the apparently distasteful idea of using real incentives to force industry to regulate itself). While championing the American ethos of non-regulation of industry, he seems happy to do away with privacy rights as an alternative. Rather than promoting education and using stronger incentives to encourage industry to regulate itself, he would rather that we lock the Internet down as the safest and most fool-proof solution. He claims that “our nation’s strong belief in privacy rights and civil liberties is not incompatible with what we need to do to defend our cyberspace” (2010, P162). The people just need to trust in their government and intelligence organizations that this surveillance is not being misused, but is only used to protect. That’s a big ask considering, among other things, the recent warrentless wiretapping scandal over the NSA.

These are this issues I hope to explore in my paper. The public perception, the hype, the premediation, and in this context the strategies being pushed by the administration and their potential impact on privacy and civil liberties. Surveillence mechanisms and proposals to review will include the Einstein programs, Perfect Citizen, and, briefly, Echelon, as well as getting into some of the legal and jurisdictional issues.

Deterrence

I recently wrote a paper on the development of U.S. cyberpolicy in which I noted an interesting shift in the rhetoric being employed from one of anti-terrorism in the Bush Administration’s National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, to Cold War rhetoric in the Obama Administration’s Cyberspace Policy Review. This shift seemed to be in line with recent assertions that the U.S. is engaging in a cyber arms race. An obvious reason for this emphasis on an increase in cyber capabilities is so as to be able to use the strategy of deterrence so popular in the Cold War. This would then imply that the Obama administration has abandoned the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attack, and was returning to a superpower-centric vision of world order. However the reason the the Bush Doctrine was taken on in the first place was due to the changing nature of global power; a stalemate had developed precipitated by the unwillingness of nations to initiate nuclear war; the Soviet Union had collapsed and Russia was now an ally of the States; and 9/11 demonstrated that perhaps the greatest threat to national security could come from unpredictable and perhaps irrational non-state actors who were not averse to risks and did not want to maintain the status quo. Cold War-style deterrence only works against an adversary who has something to lose. Pre-emptive action was therefore the safest alternative, striking in ‘anticipatory self-defence’ before the adversary can strike you.

A preemptive cyber-strike makes no sense for several reasons: firstly, the aim of a pre-emptive strike is for the superior power to thwart an imminent attack by a growing power before this power reaches its fully potential an attack capabilities. However in the case of cyber capabilities, the U.S. is not the strongest power- China is far more developed. Secondly, attribution is a very difficult issue in cyberattacks; it is easier to attribute blame through political motivation than through examining the cyber trail. Therefore it is difficult to pre-empt an attack when it is not clear even after the fact where it might have originated from or to what ends. Even if this could be ascertained, the likelihood of the attackers being state-sponsored or even working independently so as to allow plausible deniability, makes any kind of national response difficult. And finally, a full-scale debilitating cyber attack is unlikely to occur by itself; this would not disable the ability of an enemy to retaliate. It would mostly likely occur in one of two scenarios: in conjunction with a kinetic attack, with the aim of confusing communication and computer-based military functions enough that they would not be able to respond to a physical attack; or it would be used discretely as a form of espionage, in which case a physical retaliatory attack would be excessive, and a similar cyberattack may not currently be within U.S. cyber capabilities.

Therefore a strategy of deterrence would seem to be the best option, building up the U.S.’s cyber capabilities so that no one will challenge them. However the U.S. is already far behind China, and not in a position to deter anyone. If anything it is China who is leading in the cyberspace race. Therefore, it would seem that the U.S. is adopting a strategy of straight-up defense, in the hope of detecting and minimising the damage of a cyberattack, until its capabilities are developed enough to match that of China. The Obama Administration may be using Cold War rhetoric to inspire a sense of urgency and competition in its citizens, to arm against an attack from China, but this is not a cyber arms race in the way this rhetoric would have us understand it. It is more a race to catch up.

Government in bed with military

I have a number of posts on the go right now that I haven’t got around to editing properly, but I wanted to write this down before I forget. I’d like to do an analysis of popular culture’s use as a hypodermic needle to innoculate society against negative impressions of government. Using Barthes’ essay ‘Operation Margarine’ in Mythologies, I want to talk about how an admission of some minor faults excuses all kinds of greater issues, in the name of the greater good.

The examples I want to look at are firstly, the power structure in Battlestar Galactica, in which government is quite literally in bed with the military. Despite all of Adama’s fuckups, he is portrayed paternalistically (the other characters refer to him as the ‘old man’, and disloyalty, if it ever occurs, is seen as a painful and unwelcome process of betrayal) and as having the crew and indeed humanity’s best interests at heart. Often his plans fail because of an inability for the uneducated masses to just have faith in him. Even when the faults are due to his own misunderstandings or delusions, his intentions are always good, and the repremands he directs against himself in the face of any screw-up are always worse than any judgement that could be brought against him.

This is interesting to me because Adama’s leadership coincided with that of George W. Bush in real life, a president in which the world had an increasingly failing confidence, and who screwed up in multiple ways. The Iraq war and the insurgency occured on his watch, while in Battlestar at the same time, the human population were living on New Caprica under the brutal rule of the colonising cylons. The critique invited by this parallel was aimed squarely at the Americans, and it was surprising and unusual to see in popular culture. However, this was tempered by the continuing positive image conveyed of the military and of Adama’s leadership. The real world president was doing badly, but it wasn’t the system itself that was broken. There was no way to rescue public opinion of the Iraq War, and to admit to this giant mistake and to criticise it gave Battlestar independant legitimacy. However the sytem itself was supported and perpetuated through the character of Adama. A little admission of guilt excuses the mistakes of a man who had the good of the people as his true objective. Perhaps in the real world, the same could be said of George Bush?

The paternalistic portrayal of leaders, especially presidents, is common in popular media, especially in times of real-world doubt as to the capability of certain leaders. But sometimes the analogy works in the opposite direction to propogate the same myth. For example, one of the most popular and socially forward-thinking, not to mention longest-serving US presidents was FDR. This in spite of the fact he was physically disabled, and felt the need to hide this from the public, lest they perceive him as weak when he was supposed to occupy a position of strength in leadership. Despite having actively deceived the citizenry, he is still seen as one of the greatest presidents of America. The West Wing emulated this idea through president Bartlett. The character was suffering from MS, a degenerative disease, and hiding it from the public. However, just as with FDR, this did not make him a bad president; he was progressive, usually successful, and very paternalistic, agonizing over decisions with a father’s concern, and being treated by his staff with the same love and respect as the ‘old man’ in Battlestar.

This portrayal again came during George Bush’s presidency. It is interesting that, during a time when confidence in presidential leadership was at an all-time low, these evocations of father-like, strong, brave, progressive, adored presidents were present in popular media to reassure the public of the legitimacy of the govermental system. However these were not sugar-coated portrayals; the alternative idolised leaders lied, they screwed up, they made bad decisions. Public opinion during the Bush era was at such a low that overwhelming positivity towards the office of the president in alternate realities wasn’t going to smooth things over. But with the admission of a few faults, compared with a comparision to the overall good of the charcters, the unstinting loyalty of their subjects, and their eventual redemption and return to good-leadership, what does it matter after all if the president screws up a little? When he has done so much good?

Woo embedded pictures! Now I have set myself the task of finding an appropriate pictoral representation for every post. More hours of procrastination!

Well I finished Ender’s Game a week or so ago- I fairly raced through it, it was an easy read and well-written too. Lagging slightly towards the end in the post-climax cleanup. Necessary though- I didn’t feel like it was just wrap up or filler, Card was still bringing in new ideas and further developing the plot even in the wrap-up chapter.

I find it bizarre that, according to Peter Singer in Wired for War, Ender’s Game is on the Marine Corps Commandant’s required reading list.

Some intitial scattered thoughts of elements which the book might be intended to encourage/instill in its military readers:

Paternalism- Graff. Father knows best, worry for the boy. It is impossible to dislike Graff because even though his methods and overall aims (extermination of the buggers) are disagreeable, he is a father figure to Ender and always has his best interests at heart. A message that is delivered with the subtlety of a frying pan to the head and the end of the book when Ender realises what Graff has been doing. We should all just put our trust in our military fathers and unquestioningly let them do whatever they think best to keep us safe.

Heroism- Ender always volunteers, self-sacrifice, hardship to make better person. Could there be a more ideal soldier?

Camaraderie- family, respect, support- all the positive things we always hear about the military

Aside from that, I thought that the provocation towards distrust of military leaders prompted by the implication that the buggers are not real and are just used as a method of control was really interesting in a book that is required reading in the marine corps. The need to fear something in order to hold alliances together is what kept the world functioning throughout the Cold War. And then there’s the need to justify military spending… It’s a veritable roadmap for Bush’s War of Terror, and every other overhyped immenant danger since we lost the USSR as a focus of threat and fear.

I also found this blog post which I though illustrated similar themes of the good of the many vs the good of the few, and the need to trust the good intentions of our benevolent commanders, as analyzed through Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica.

Actually, I’m surprised this isn’t required reading for all elements of the military. It is surely the militaristic dream of total control in safe, sanitized warfare. The informationalization of war is not a new concept- RAND’s John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt take their definition of ‘cyberwar’ from an interpretation of the Mongols’ strategy in wargfare, in which superior communications and military intelligence, speed, awareness of the enemy’s tactics, and propaganda or psychological operations secured Mongol victories against armies that were far greater in number. Arquilla and Ronfeldt find similar evidence for the effectiveness of the strategy of information-dominance in the German Blitzkreig doctrine of World War 2 (Arquilla and Ronfeldt, 1997, P38). Information has always been power, especially in the battlefield, and surely the only desire for a military officer greater than the wish to cut through the Fog of War is the desire for a war with minimal bloodshed.

Ender’s Game surely expresses the ideal in warfare- completely sanitized battles which rely on highly developed combat skills, strategies and tactics, in a setting safe enough even for children to become soldiers. No one is hurt (no one in the human camp anyway), no blood is visably spilled, no soldiers get post traumatic stress- they don’t even know they’re doing any killing. It’s the military dream- pure informational separation. And in reality we’re not far off. Ender’s Game was written in 1985. In 1992 John Arnett in one of the earlier uses of the term ‘cyberwar’ described the massive data gathering  project that was the legacy of the Cold War, and the development of robots and drones which we could send into these carefully mapped areas, operated by soldiers safely behind the scenes. “These technologies allow for the progressive separation of man and machine, as ‘autonomous’ weapons such as smart bombs, and planes that do not need pilots are developed, and vast amounts of data are collected from the field by sensors and processed by computers, meaning that humans are increasingly reliant on the interpretation provided by these computers as humans do not have the capacity to process such volumes of data themselves” (Arnett, 1992 P15). Now these drones are in regular use, directed by kids at CIA headquarters in the US, who drop bombs and destroy entire villages in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, with the same kind of distancing effect as a video game. It’s not quite Ender’s Game, but it’s pretty darn close.

However despite these advancements, the dream remains illusive. As Chris Hables Gray explains in Peace, War, and Computers, “[a]s for perfect security, we know today that there will be no such thing no matter what the [Revolution in Military Affairs], for three fundamental reasons: the fog of war, the limits of information technology, and the postmodern war system.” [2004, P29] There will always be uncertainties in war; there is no such thing as total information awareness (despite DARPA’s best efforts!). And technology fails; it is imperfect. Drones cannot accurately identify targets to the same degree that soldiers can, and accidents are inevitable. And add to that: the very nature of war is changing. Gray calls in ‘postmodern war’.

He explains, “[w]ith World War II, war became global, battle became continuous, and weapons becomes absolute. Atomic bombs made it clear that modern war’s main assumption, for the political utility of total war, no longer held. Yet, most of the modern war system remains in place: the military-industrial complex, the military modernization of technoscience, and the assumption that war is still the most effective political tool available to policy makers. Hence, postmodern war.” (Gray, 2004, P24)

Hannah Arendt identified this paradox of postmodern war in her assessment of the changing nature of war since the creation of nuclear weapons: “The third fact seems to indicate a radical change in the very nature of war through the introduction of the deterrent as the guiding principle in the armament race. For it is indeed true that the strategy of deterrence ‘aims in effect at avoiding rather than winning the war it pretends to be preparing. It tends to achieve its goals by a menace which is never put into execution rather than by the act itself.’… the point of the matter is that today the avoidance of war is not only the true or pretend goal of an over-all policy but has become the guiding principle of the military preparations themselves. In other words, the military are no longer preparing for a war which the statesmen hope will never break out; their own goal has become to develop weapons that will make a war impossible.” (1963, P6)

This benefits everyone; it allows for the continuation of huge volumes of military spending- in fact it necessitates it because your army/weaponry/technology must be superior to all other. At the same time it avoids war itself which would be destabilizing and potentially lost. Even if the war was won, the government may not come out of it looking good due to the loss of life on the opposing side. And for what? How was the war justified? It is a precarious media campaign that no one wants to have to deal with.

The military used to be the organization that dealt with war, and it was separate from civilian life and the way it was governed. WW1 and 2 changed that, with civilians becoming targets in an indiscriminate war. Since the horrors of industrial warfare and the destructive power of nuclear weapons, we have been moving steadily away from war involving civilians, towards a sanitized, safe, secure version of war in which not even soldiers are killed. The Cold War was all about deterrence, to ensure that nuclear weaponry could not be used. Now we are moving towards cyberwars that use robots and drones rather than soldiers, and potentially that use only computers.

One is portrayed as a gentle giant. His most obvious characteristic is his strength, which is highlighted from the start as he is introduced as the feature of a strongman act, during which he breaks steel chains to come to his boss’ rescue. This is the second most obvious characteristic of One: his role as protector. He is frequently shown using his strength to defend those who are weaker and in danger or being threatened, whether it be through his mission to rescue his adopted little brother who has been kidnapped by the cyclopses for Krank, the mad scientist who wants their dreams, or his aid to Miette and her ragtag group of thieving orphans, or his circus boss. However there is something very simple and pure about his actions; he is repeatedly referred to in childlike terms. When he meets Miette he quickly bows to her direction, and she later informs her compadres who sense something strange in the relationship between this man and a ten year old girl that One is not really so old, and they are not really so young.

The relationship that develops between One and Miette, its slightly discomforting undertones, and the tropes of the romance narrative and of heteronormativity through which it is played out make for interesting study.

Miette, in contrast to One, is portrayed as a leader, as intelligent well beyond her years, mature, and emotionally controlled and capable. She leads the gang of urchins who steal for the Fagin-esque twins who feed and clothe them. She commands their respect, just as she commands One when they first meet, and she demonstrates the fair but cold and calculating self-interest necessary to survive in her way of life when she rescues him from the Cyclopses and then leaves him unaided in his quest. It is One’s childlike hope and naive determination to rescue the brother whom Miette assumes must be gone forever which breaks through her practical, logical outlook and moves her to help him.

As they begin on their journey together, One’s strength is repeatedly highlighted along with Miette’s physical size and comparative frailty as he carries her when her feet are tired and sore, and lifts things she couldn’t possibly manage. However she remains the voice of practicality and reason, while One is driven by emotion, with no plan and no idea what to do next. In this way they clearly balance each other, with One being the superior physically but also in terms of untainted optimism, while Miette provides the necessary intelligence, cynicism, and collected control. Despite her age, she is by no means portrayed as the weaker, if anything she has the power advantage over One.

It becomes clear that a close bond is developing between the two, and this is first highlighted when Miette appears to have drowned after she and One are captured, tied, and dropped into the ocean. One goes to a bar and gets drunk, where a sultry vixen attempts to seduce him, but all he can talk about his Miette, his ‘angel’. When Miette appears at the bar safe and well, she is visibly disgusted with One and this woman, who immediately reacts as she would if she had been discovered by One’s wife, saying “Oh, well there’s no problem, I’ll leave you” and extricating herself from the situation.

The growing tension between Miette and One is soon again acknowledged by her compadres who are uneasy with the relationship:

Miette: What’s the matter? What did he do to you?

Kid: What did he do to you? You’re inseparable. You must be in love.

Miette: Think you’re funny?

Kid: He’s a grown-up and you know it.

Miette: He may be big, but he’s not grown up. And maybe you’re not so little either. Or you.

Kid: I am.

         Ok, we get the message.

Here Miette reacts uncomfortably to the suggestion that there could be something more to her relationship with One, but is also emphatic in her assertion that age should not be a factor. Her statement that ‘he may be big, but he’s not grown up’ clearly states the difference she perceives between the emotional, mental, and experiential maturity expected of an adult, and the way in which One and the street urchins behave. Age is turned upside-down in this world where adults are frequently portrayed as unhinged, fearful, irrational, and emotionally driven while the children are independent and controlled, and therefore being ‘grown up’ is a relative concept.

Miette leaves the urchins and continues on One’s journey. The only indicator of sexual tension occurs in the following scene, as they prepare to sleep. Miette asks about One’s life, and it is revealed he used to be a whale-hunter, but his gentle nature got him fired, as he did not want to hurt the whales after he heard them singing. They talk about One’s brother, and One refers to Miette as his sister, however immediately following this he moves closer and breathes on her shoulder. She looks momentarily alarmed and asks what he is doing, to which he replied ‘radiator’, indicating he is trying to keep her warm. She relaxes at the paternalistic gesture and they fall asleep. However this idea of being a radiator references the previous scene, when One is being seduced by the woman in the bar. He asks if she is cold, and she replies, ‘You kidding? You’re a real radiator.’ While the sexual overtones are obvious there, in the scene with Miette they provide undertones of tension, while One’s comparison of Miette to his brother creates a more innocent, protective impression.

The close association of man and child which creates such discomfort throughout the film is constantly displaced by a reiteration of Miette’s wisdom beyond her years, and One’s childlike innocence. All this occurs within a framework that very much follows the narrative of the traditional love story, as the characters slowly get to know each other, protect each other from danger, pillow-talk about each others’ pasts, become jealous of romantic attention from other characters, and become defensive when characters question their unacknowledged relationship.

When violence does occur between One and Miette, he is under the control of a poison given to him by the Fagin-twins, who want to use One to kill Miette. This again fits with the traditional romance framework, wherein a worse fate than death would be death at the hands of a lover and protector. Interestingly, while the poison in an earlier scene resulted in several particularly gruesome killings, One’s poison-induced attack on Miette is of a very different type, conjuring up images of domestic abuse rather than murderous intent. In this way, One’s actions are not only excusable, because he is not in control of himself, but they also occur within a narrative of heteronormativity.

Two final scenes serve to cement the relationship between One and Miette as one of equals rather than man and child. Krank has entered One’s brother’s dream through a dream machine. As Krank cannot dream, he is aging too fast, and hopes to use the child’s dreams to reverse the process. One of Krank’s rebellious compadres lets Miette into the dream to rescue the boy, saying, ‘The little brother could have been yours’. There are several possible meanings here- either the boy was taken from a family that was once Miette’s, or the implication is that in another time or place he could have been Miette’s brother, or it could be that ‘yours’ refers not to Miette’s potential brother, but her child. If One is a paternal figure to Denree, the brother, this could make Miette his mother.

This impression is continued when, finding the boy in the dream, rather than leading him by the hand, she picks him up and begins to carry him away in a very maternal gesture, despite the fact he is not much smaller than she. When Krank discovers them, she offers to sacrifice herself for the boy, in the hope that if she does something good, maybe she could see One again. This indicates not only the depth of her feelings for One, but her protective instincts towards his brother. Miette states that in rescuing Denree, she will gain a brother, but whether this means she will gain Denree as a brother, with One as their father, or that she will get Denree’s brother by rescuing him, is unclear. When Krank accepts, he begins to use Miettes dream to stop his aging, and grows younger while she becomes older. We watch her become an adolescent, and then a woman, fulfilling the impression we have had of Miette all along: of a woman trapped in a child’s body. Miette continues to age and is an old woman when One finds her and rescues her. Awake again, she is a child once more, but her ‘true’ image has been revealed, even if only in a vision of the future, of the woman she will become.

As One, Miette, and the rescued children escape in a boat, Miette leans back against One and they talk about whether he might get married someday. He expects he will, but there is no rush. The message here is perhaps that he will wait for Miette to grow up? She seems happy with this answer.

The relationship between Miette and One is never quite one of man and child, and therefore creates an uneasy feeling in audience and characters alike. However the innocence and good intentions of One, and the positivity of the relationship of One and Miette, and the impression of equality that is created along with the emphasis that age is a relative concept in this world, challenges the natural feelings of discomfort, and allows for a beautiful relationship to be developed along the lines of a traditional romance narrative. The fact that there is no consummation of this relationship, nothing even spoken but only hinted at, and the fact that we are left with an impression of a fully-grown Miette and One’s plans to wait to find a wife allay an remaining uneasiness about the inequality of their relationship. As time passes, and she grows up the worrying factor of age will cease to be an issue.

So I’m blogging. I might use this blog as a place to store ideas for papers, or potential paragraphs. Or as a place to rant about issues. Or to explore ideas. Some posts will no doubt be more interesting than others. Most will probably be few and far between, and way too long. But hopefully I can get into the habit of short and sweet and regular updates.