The Queen's Gambit: Will Check Your Attention and Keep It for a Long Time

If you'd like your soul lifted, refreshed, and recharged for a long time, check out The Queen's Gambit, a seven-episode mini-series, on Netflix.  Its story of Beth Harmon, a fictitious child chess prodigy who grows into a flawed but splendid champion, shines on so many levels.

The closest analog in real life is Bobby Fischer, an American child chess prodigy who went on to become World Chess Champion in 1972 by beating Boris Spassky, who held that title and represented the Soviet Union.  Fisher's career went downhill after that, and The Queen's Gambit ends right after Harmon gains that victory, so there the similarity ends.  But we're left with an extraordinary set of scenes and relationships.

Among my favorites -

• Beth with Mr. Shabel, a janitor in the orphanage who recognizes Beth's talent and teaches her chess
• Beth with the variety of boys and young men she usually beats in matches, and can't quite connect with or fall in love with.
• Beth with her adoptive mother, who comes to deeply believe in her.
• Beth in the Soviet Union, where she meets and bests a whole new series of masters and near-masters
• Beth and Jolene, a friend at the orphanage, who turns out to be quite a friend indeed

As this list which I could go on with indicates, Beth is the centerpiece of just about every scene in the mini-series.  And Anya Taylor-Joy delivers this role memorably, animating a character who ranges from almost autistic at the beginning to alcoholic and almost serenely triumphant at the end.   Same for all the other characters - memorably performed that is - ranging from those chess boys young and old, to the pharmacist with whom Beth has her own unique relationship.  Come to think of it, she has a unique relationship with just about each and every character in this narrative.

One of the main reasons The Queen's Gambit is so good is precisely because it comes from a novel, not real life, which all too often is not quite as incredible as the story told here.  And, though I haven't yet read the Walter Tevis novel of the same name from which the mini-series is derived, I see on Wikipedia that he authored six novels before he died in 1984 at way too young an age, and three of them, including The Hustler, were made into movies before The Queen's Gambit.  

All of which adds up to a real phenomenon on our hands, and cause for a big round of applause for everyone concerned, including Netflix for getting it on our televisions, computer screens, and phones.

 

Podcast: U.S. Senate vs. Twitter

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 153, in which I dig into the issues raised  by the appearance of the CEOs of Twitter, Facebook, and Google before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee at the end of October 2020.  In a nutshell, the issues boil down to violating the First Amendment vs. Violating the Spirit of the First Amendment.

Relevant reading: Postjournalism by Andrey Mir

Check out this episode!

The Undoing 1.1: A Murder, A Missing Person, and NYC Bustling in the Snow

David Kelley's The Undoing mini-series debuted with a star-studded cast on HBO tonight.  I mean, with Nicole Kidman as Grace Fraser a psychologist and Hugh Grant as her husband Jonathan Fraser an oncologist on the posh side of New York City, and a murder and a missing person, we can just stop there and how can you go wrong, right?  You can't.  The first episode was sleek and blockbuster powerful, an East Coast analog in many ways of Kelley's California Big Little Lies, which was pretty hot, suspenseful stuff, too, over two seasons.

[spoilers below]

The Undoing starts off with a nice long build-up of rich mothers (whose kids are in an elite private school) plus one (who's among them on a scholarship) meeting on some auction committee.  Before the hour's over, Elena (the young mother with a scholarship for her son) has a conversation in the nude with Grace in a locker room (that is, Elena has not even a towel around her), Elena on the night of the auction kisses Grace on the lips, and Elena is found brutally murdered the next morning.  And, when Grace tries to let her husband know about the murder -- he left in the morning to (supposedly) to attend a meeting in Cleveland -- she finds that he's gone missing.  About as good a set-up as you're likely to find on any screen.

So here's where we stand:

1. Is there a connection between Elena's murder and Jonathan's disappearance?  We don't know that yet, for sure, but, how could there not be?  

2. Did Jonathan murder Elena?  He's the most likely suspect at this point, his motive being jealousy, or maybe he was sleeping with Elena and she or he wanted to end that.  He did say something to Grace about Elena, and his being missing doesn't help,  but that's all still circumstantial at this point, as they say.  There's even a chance that he, too, could be dead.

3. Any other suspects?  The husband -- Elena's -- is always a possibility, but he seems like a nice guy.  I suppose there's a very outside chance that Grace did it, but she didn't really have the time, and she seemed genuinely shocked to find out about the murder.  So, make that chance very slight and outside.  (My wife suggested Grace's father Franklin.  We don't know much at all about him, but he's played by Donald Sutherland, which suggests some kind of significant role.)

4. How about someone not at all in the first episode?  I'd say no -- Kelley's too good to pull rabbits like that out of a hat.

So we have a nice, taut, high-octane mystery on our hands, set in snowy, pre-pandemic New York City, which is fun to see in any case.  See you back here next week.

 

Podcast Review of Borat 2: Camera Epistemology

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 152, in which I review Borat 2: Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.

Check out this episode!

Unsolved Mysteries Season 2: Ghosts, DNA, and Missing Children

Unsolved Mysteries has returned with another short, six-episode season on Netflix.  Why they just don't do one twelve-episode season is still a mystery, but the good news is this second season is just as good as the first, which is to say, quite good.

There's a strong mix of true stories, ranging from who murdered a U. S. government official to whether a woman whose death was ruled as a suicide was in fact murdered.  But I'll just say a few words about my three favorite episodes:

• Tsunami Spirits is the closest these six episodes come to science fiction, or maybe fantasy, as in life after death.  But this ghost story almost could be a serious piece on the anthropology of how people in a community deal with a mass death.   In this case, it's a town in Japan hit by a tsunami, leaving many of the survivors with the feeling that spirits of the departed were still at hand, and communicating with the living.  The priest interviewed for this episode was especially instructive and memorable in his thoughts and comments.  He was and is determined to take these survivors' stories of interacting with the dead seriously, even though that might go against the specific tenets of his religion.
• A Death in Oslo tells the story of a woman who checks into a posh hotel, only to be found dead in her room of a gunshot to her head a few days later.  The gun's at hand, but seems in the wrong place for the suicide that this death is initially thought to be.  The woman's identity is not known -- in retrospect, her check-in was suspicious -- and the people who investigate, especially a guy who has devoted decades of his life to finding her, realize their first job is to identify her.  They do, eventually, get her DNA.  And there the story ends.  My question:  wouldn't 23andMe and like-DNA family tracers be helpful in locating this woman's relatives?  (See my review of Sergio Pistoi's DNA Nation for more.)
• Stolen Kids is a story of just what it sounds like, and heartbreaking.  Two unrelated tots around the age of two are kidnapped just a few months apart from the same park in Harlem, NYC.  That happened decades ago, and age progression images are the best hope the police and the families now have of reuniting with their now-adult sons.  The episode ends with a whole series of age-progression images of little kids who were kidnapped.  I hope that helps get some of those families reunited.

In the original Unsolved Mysteries, one of the best parts was when, after an episode, we got an update on mysteries that were solved.  I'm looking forward to the next season of Unsolved Mysteries, and hoping we see at least one or two happy resolutions, or at least resolutions of some kind.

See also Unsolved Mysteries Is Back with No Host? ... The New Unsolved Mysteries: A Proper Review

"Abraham Lincoln Over There"

I've been thinking about the second and final Presidential debate between Biden and Trump last week.  Obviously, and as I said on Twitter and Facebook right after the debate, Trump was less abusive than he was in the first debate (faint praise), but Biden held his own, and delivered a vastly more effective closing statement.   But as Election Day -- or the end of Election time -- looms, and that last debate fades into history, I'm realizing the highpoint of the debate, certainly its most memorable line, came when Joe Biden looked at Trump and said, "Abraham Lincoln over there..."

This came a little after Trump had claimed with a straight face that he done more for African-Americans than any other President, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.  It had much the same power as Lloyd Benson's rejoinder to Dan Quayle's statement in the 1988 VP debate that he and Jack Kennedy had been of a similar age, allowing Bentsen to say to Quayle, I knew Jack Kennedy and you're no Jack Kennedy.  Quayle had been warned by his prep team not to say that in the debate -- he had been saying that on the campaign trail -- and Bentsen had been well prepared for such a statement.  In the case of Trump, there's no warning such arrogance,  and it didn't matter if Biden had been prepared for that statement and was ready with the Lincoln jibe, it was delivered with just the right tone at just the right time.

Trump unsurprisingly went on to dig a bigger hole for himself, responding that he had never said he was Abraham Lincoln.  This was literally true but a lie in effect.  Everyone had heard him compare himself to Lincoln just a few minutes earlier.  The denial also showed that Trump is metaphor-blind.

In all fairness to the Trump-Quayle comparison, Quayle did go on to win the Vice Presidency in that 1988 election.  But that was only because George H. W. Bush ran a much better campaign for President than his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis.  Though anything is possible when the votes begin to get counted next week, and underestimating Trump's support is an ever-present danger, I expect Joe Biden to do much better than the ersatz Abraham Lincoln who masquerades as President.

Borat 2 (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm): Camera Epistemology

My wife and I just saw Borat 2 aka Borat Subsequent Moviefilm on Amazon Prime Video.  As with the first Borat movie in 2006, it was at turns and sometimes all together (and altogether) hilarious, horrifying, over the top, sobering, and vulgar.  And there's the already infamous Rudy Giuliani scene near the end.

As always, the question -- Giuliani aside -- is how much the people in the movie, other than Borat and his daughter Tutar -- knew about what was going on, i.e., that they were appearing in a movie.  The two guys who took Borat into their home and spouted dangerous conspiracy theories, the woman who genuinely tried to help Tutar, the various women and men who tried to understand Tutar and Borat, however outrageous or insane their stories, until these marks either broke or continued to work with varying degrees of discomfort inside this horror-show amusement-park universe -- were they really marks or were they part of the paid, unacknowledged, scripted acting cadre?

The people singing the at once very funny and deeply disturbing Covid-19 song were at a rally, and they most likely were real.  They wouldn't have wondered what the cameras that were recording them were doing there.  But what about the conspiracy duo -- who were also at this rally -- what did they think when Sacha Baron Cohen entered their home with not just his mustache but some kind of camera crew?  Or, again, that wonderful woman who took Tutar under her wing, and tried to give her guidance?  I sure hope she was real -- she showed there's still some hope for humanity -- but what did she make of the cameras?  Or, did both Cohen and Maria Bakalova who played his daughter have some kind of super-micro cameras tucked somewhere into their shirts?   Which brings us to Giuliani.

The good thing about Pence and Giuliani -- good, that is, as far as their roles in the movie -- is that neither would have been surprised by cameras in the contexts in which they were filmed, and of course there's no way they would have agreed to play along with Cohen, anyway.   So about Giuliani:  He consents to go into Tutar's hotel room, leering during the interview, and for some reason lies back on the bed (I'd rather not say "lay" here, and who knows exactly if that's grammatically right) and then either (a) tucks his shirt down the front of his pants or (b) you be the judge (this is Cohen's advice to viewers of his movie).  It probably doesn't really matter - Giuliani is a sleaze either way, just a worse sleaze if he's not tucking in his shirt.

Anyway, a brilliantly funny and all too instructive movie by Cohen, wonderfully acted by him and by Bakalova as his daughter.  And as for the rest of people who appear in this movie?  Brilliantly acted or real? Follow Cohen's helpful advice:  See the movie and decide.

Why the US Gov Going after Google is Not a Good Idea

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 151, in which I argue that the U. S. government pursuing anti-trust action against Google is not a good idea.   My reasons range from media evolution, which responds to human needs, taking care of information monopolies as it did regarding Microsoft's near-monopoly in the 1990s, to Trump's real reasons for going after Google.

Links to articles and books mentioned in the podcast:

• Google Abuses Its Monopoly Power over Search, Justice Department Says in Lawsuit
• Leave Poor Microsoft Alone
• I'm a Progressive Libertarian
• Human Replay: A Theory of the Evolution of Media

Other relevant podcast episodes:

• Trump Ban of TikTok Violates the First Amendment 
• Why I Am Against Net Neutrality

Check out this episode!

The Trial of the Chicago Seven: A Little Too Much Fiction in this Docudrama

My wife and I saw The Trial of the Chicago Seven on Netflix on Saturday. Having lived through the real trial of the Chicago Seven (originally Eight) in 1969-1970, we thought there was a little too much fiction in this docu-drama to be 100% successful and effective.  Nonetheless, it was powerful viewing.

To back up a little, as I alway tell my classes, docu-dramas are by definition never 100% truth or exactly as the events in the movie actually happened.  Hey, even straight-up documentaries are never 100% true, because the film-maker inevitably has to leave some events, one hopes inconsequential, out of the film.  Real life is too sloppy and inexact to fit in just as it is or was in a documentary.

But docu-dramas go a big step further away from truth.  At the very least, they rewrite or make-up dialogue.   Worse, they often make up characters and/or endow characters who existed in real life with deeds they never did.   This works best the further back in history the docu-drama goes.  I couldn't possibly have any personal recollection of what Lincoln said and did.  So I was able to enjoy Spielberg's Lincoln with zero quibbles.   But 1969-1970 is a lot closer than are the early 1860s to our time.

So, lots of people noticed that Tom Hayden's closing statement in the Aaron Sorkin docu-drama wasn't made by Hayden in reality, and was not a closing statement.  Or that the pacifist Dellinger -- who did in fact earlier read the names of some of the American fallen in Vietnam during the trial-- never hauled off and punched a guard who was trying to escort Dellinger out of the courtroom, as so dramatically depicted in the movie.  To be honest with you, neither my wife or I jumped up and shouted during the movie that those events never happened.  But my wife had a vague sense of irritation throughout the film, and I was annoyed after the movie to have been brought to tears by that closing scene, so effective, that didn't happen in real life.

I suppose Sorkin might say that such a reaction is my problem, not his, and if I was brought  to tears by the ending that didn't happen in reality that shows that Sorkin succeeded, doesn't it.  I'm not so sure.  I think that, even in a docu-drama, or maybe especially in a docu-drama, the film maker has an obligation to present a greater quotient of truth.  Again, especially if the docu-drama is so close to home in time.  I'm sure Marc Anthony never said "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;  I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him," but that didn't in the least get in my way of really enjoying Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, from the moment I first read it, so many decades ago, and for that matter thinking about that play right now.

Maybe the answer is Sorkin's movie is meant for a younger generation than mine.  It has lots of assets, including boiling down the differences between the protestors on trial to Hayden vs. Abby Hoffman.  I don't know if that's true, either.  But since I don't know for sure that it isn't, I'm ok with thinking back on that crucial aspect of The Trial of the Chicago Seven, and enjoying the recollection and contemplation of that fundamental conflict between political revolution (Hayden) and cultural revolution (Abby Hoffman). And I should say the acting in this movie, including Eddie Redmayne as Hayden and Sacha Baron Cohen as Abby Hoffman, was just superb.   Regarding those two, special kudos to two Englishmen talking at each at some length in passable American accents.

So, see the docu-drama - with no reservations if you weren't around the first time this trial happened, back in the 1969-1970.  And see Medium Cool made in 1969 if you'd like to see a documentary about the protests around the Democratic National Convention which ignited the trial.

Keeping Faith: Yes, a Real Keeper

The wife and I quickly binged the first two seasons of Keeping Faith, billed on Acorn by way of Amazon Prime Video as a Welsh thriller but just as much a powerfully effective family drama. We loved it.

The Faith in question is played by Eve Miles, last seen here just a few weeks ago as Lola in We Hunt Together.   She was appealingly effective in both roles, but Keeping Faith called for a wider array of emotions, which Miles delivered on beautifully and memorably.

Faith's a lawyer whose husband, also a lawyer, disappears.   Is he dead or missing, and, in either case, why?  The action in the first season all takes place in a week, replete with a clocking calendar giving us the day and whether it was AM or PM, making Keeping Faith a sort expanded version of 24, without a Jack Bauer.

That's because Faith is not only bright, articulate, and tough when she needs to be, but also very vulnerable, and especially when she needs to nurture her kids, a boy baby, a little girl, and an older girl approaching teenhood.  And these family scenes and interactions are where not only Faith the character but Keeping Faith the series show their mettle.  It's a heartache and a pleasure to see what this family goes through in just a week.  The older daughter Alys has the biggest role in this, and here's a tip of the hat to Demi Letherby for doing a fine job in this.

Beyond the family, Hannah Daniel as Cerys who is Faith's partner in the law firm and Aneirin Hughes as Tom, Faith's father-in-law and semi-retired lawyer in the firm, are vivid and well-played characters.  There are criminals that the police are after, and who are themselves police, and of course someone who was and may or may not still be a criminal whom Faith comes to rely upon and even more.

But I'll say no more about the plot, lest I give something crucial away, so just watch and enjoy.

 

Cheng Gong's Book entitled Paul Levinson's Media Evolutionary Theory

This is the cover of Cheng Gong's book, just published in China, (English translation): "Media Competition for Human Selection, Survival of the Fittest: Paul Levinson's Media Evolutionary Theory" - as far as I know, the first book published anywhere on Planet Earth devoted entirely to my work. The Preface that Cheng Yong asked me to write follows (it appears in the book both in my original English, which you can see below, and in Chinese translation).

 

Podcast: Running Scared

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 150, in which I discuss Trump's decision to withdraw from the 2nd 2020 Presidential debate because it was virtual (online not in person) which allow him to be easily "cut off".

Further reading (blog post):

Running Scared: Trump Withdraws from Second Presidential Debate

 

Check out this episode!

Running Scared: Trump Withdraws from Second Presidential Debate

 I was not in the slightest surprised to just hear this news: 

“I’m not going to do a virtual debate,” Trump told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo... “I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate. That’s not what debating’s all about. You sit behind a computer and do a debate — it’s ridiculous. And then they cut you off whenever they want.”

I and many others have been calling for moderators to have the technological capacity to cut off microphones during the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates.  Trump interrupted Biden just about every time the Democratic candidate started talking in their first debate, and Pence repeatedly talked far over his allotted time in the VP debate last night.  Moderator Chris Wallace in the first debate and Susan Page in the second debate complained and chastised Trump and Pence, but to no avail.  A capacity to cut off the microphone would have been  useful indeed, and would have well served the goal of the debates to give the American people a chance to see and hear the candidates discuss the issues.

Of course, there's no guarantee that a moderator, in-person or virtual, would use the option to cut off the microphone of a bullying (Trump) or over-talkative (Pence) debater.  But without such an option, the moderator's ability to reign in abusive and errant debaters is limited.  I would have liked to have seen Wallace and Page stand up and refuse to allow the out-of-line candidate to continue talking, but I recognize that that's easier said than done.  

A cut-off switch would have surely helped, and muting someone in an online conversation is easier and far less confrontational than in person.   Not to mention that online debates cannot be vectors of COVID-19.  But Trump cares as much about personally spreading the virus as he does about adhering to the rules of civil debating, which is to say, not much at all.  So, with his poll numbers plummeting, and his desire to keep faith with those who like his truculence, he ran scared and pulled out of the upcoming virtual debate.  Good riddance, and looking forward to November 3.

Harris vs. Pence in VP Debate: Pence Avoids Answering Most of the Questions

I didn't keep a strict count, but I'd say VP Pence avoided answering more than half the questions put to him by Susan Page in the just concluded VP 2020 debate.  The most egregious avoidance came near the end, when Pence didn't answer Page's question about what Trump would do if he lost the election.  That is, the all-important question of whether Trump would peacefully leave office, as the law requires, if Biden won the election.

And that, in turn, raises the question that was raised last week about Chris Wallace: why wasn't Page more forceful in holding Pence to account when he ignored her questions?  She was somewhat better than Wallace in challenging Pence when he talked over his allotted time, but as a moderator, shouldn't she have insisted that the candidate answer the questions put to him?   Is that part of the job of a moderator?  As it was, she complained a lot but took little action.  Once again, a mute button would have helped.

Meanwhile, Harris had a good outing.  She more than once stopped Pence when he was talking over her, intruding on her time, and offered a both logical and passionate defence of her and Biden's progressive positions.  For his part, Pence was far better than Trump in presenting his conservative positions or whatever exactly they were than was Trump, but that's faint praise indeed.

In general, I doubt that this debate changed many if any minds.   But Biden is now so far ahead in the polls, that probably doesn't matter.  What Trump needed tonight was a decisively powerful and winning performance from his Vice President.  What he got was a somewhat weary, smug presentation which will likely do nothing more than seal the much deserved fate of this rapidly disintegration administration. 

Podcast Review of Utopia

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 149, in which I review Utopia,now streaming on Amazon Prime.

Further reading (blog post):

Utopia: More Fun the Real World

Check out this episode!

Utopia: More Fun than the Real World

Just what we needed, right?  A series about a virus that's spreading quickly from city to city -- and killing children no less?  And the plot hinges on a hyped vaccine that may not be effective at all?   So, yeah, Utopia on Amazon Prime is all of that and more, and at the worst possible time.  But maybe at the best possible time, because I found the first season of this series really enjoyable and binge-watched all eight of its episodes yesterday.

As for the specific story, first, just to get this out of the way: the part I liked least -- by which I mean, it was ok, but did not in itself make Utopia worth watching -- was the graphic novel, i.e. comic book, set-up, which was the foundation of the narrative.  At its best, the "Utopia" comic serves the same purpose as "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy" in The Man in the High Castle -- a secret manuscript which provides the heroes clues to what's going on -- and that was not my favorite part of The Man in High Castle, either.  In Utopia, the comic book does provide entre into a fandom story which provides a strong argument in favor of virtual conventions and which was well done in terms of the individual characters, but cliched in its overall concept.  So, in sum, I think Utopia could have done just as well without it.

The main strength of the series were the stunning surprises that pop up at or near the end of just about every episode.  Excellent characters are unexpectedly killed, apparent allies are suddenly revealed as villains, and other villains themselves evolve into something better.  Although the transformations could have been a bit more plausible, with better prior signalling of traits emerging or latent in the characters, they are believable enough, and make Utopia an adrenalin spurting rollercoaster ride, always welcome in a television series, and the essential element in a bingeable series, which Utopia most certainly is.  (I'll note that I was very unhappy with the death of one of the characters, though it certainly moved the shocked needle way off the dial.)

The overall plot has touches of The Boys from Brazil, and also offers a familiar prosecution of the evils of corporate greed.   But applied to the pandemic, it has a searing and even frightening relevance to our world off the screen, and since it (presumably) is not something that is current happening in our world, it is strangely refreshing to see.  As I was watching it, I was thinking that Utopia threaded the needle between disconcerting because it was so close to our reality, and fun to see because it actually isn't that close (I hope), just perfectly.  Amazon Prime deserves plaudits for scheduling and streaming Utopia in this crazy Fall of 2020.

***Note added October 26, 2022:  On a friend's recommendation, I just finished binging the 12 episodes (two seasons) of the British Utopia, which aired 2013-2014.  It was much better than the American version, and I'll be reviewing that British version here soon.  Here's my review.

 

Podcast Review of Raised by Wolves 6-10

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 148, in which I review episodes six to ten of Raised by Wolves. 

Further listening: 

podcast review of Raised by Wolves 1-3

podcast review of Raised by Wolves 4-5

Further reading:

Mind at Large: Knowing in the Technological Age

review of The Silicon Man

The Silk Code

 

Check out this episode!

Raised by Wolves Season One Finale: The Serpent

A powerful, even stunning, season one finale for Raised by Wolves on HBO Max last night.

[spoilers follow]

The big reveal is that Mother and I and everyone was wrong about how her baby came to be, and what it in fact was.  The virtual sex she had with her creator apparently didn't inseminate her via triggering some kind of organic material she already had insider her.  Whatever it was that got her pregnant presumably came from this extraterrestrial Kepler world.   I say "apparently" and "presumably" because I suppose it's still possible that this hellish serpent she delivered was indeed something that her creator embedded in her back on Earth, and this "baby" is indeed the future of humanity.  But at this point it looks as if that entire virtual, remembered conversation and activity with her builder was just a piece of masterful misdirection.

Other than all of that, which was game-changing, the season finale had a variety of good touches, ranging from Father's jealousy to whatever was going on with Paul.   Again, presumably, I'd say that the voices he heard in his head came not from Sol (of course not) but that ship that we saw hovering in the atmosphere. No doubt that ship will have a major role in the second season (and great that Raised by Wolves has already been renewed.

Another provocative element is the devolution of the beings on Kepler-22B.  I've been thinking ever since we first saw one of those beings early on that there was a human-like quality to its head.  A Neanderthal skull was also revealed in the finale -- works for me, Neanderthals were the centerpiece of my first novel, The Silk Code -- and that skull also raises the possibility that there was a connection between Kepler-22 and Earth in the distant past, if parallel evolution isn't the explanation for Neanderthals appearing on these two worlds, so very distant from each other.

Lots of fascinating issues left hanging.  Good set-up for the second season!

See also Raised by Wolves 1.1: Fast Action and Deep Philosophy  ... Raised by Wolves 1.2-3: More than Meets the Eye ... Raised by Wolves 1.4-5: Halfway to Dune ...Raised by Wolves 1.6-7: The Look on Mother's Face ... Raised by Wolves 1.8-1.9: Frankenstein and Motherhood