Um, there are going to be spoilers for Cloverfield and The Thing to follow. Really though, if you haven’t seen them yet, renting and immediately watching them would be a better use of your time than reading this.

I’m currently in the middle of writing a story where everyone dies at the end. I know this is a classic no-no; the conventional (and usually correct) wisdom is that killing your characters at the end is a dramatic copout for writers who can’t think of a real ending for their story. It’s a big fat cheat, and the only thing America hates worse than a loser is a cheater. Also, “and then everyone died” is kind of nihilistic. It’s something teenagers write. Nobody wants to write like teenagers, including teenagers.

But obviously there are exceptions. It can be done well. The Thing and Cloverfield are Exhibits A and B. So how come they work when so many other “whoops dead” stories don’t? What makes them so special? Most important of all, what can I steal from them to make my own fucking frustrating almost-finished story work, too?

I think I get The Thing. Kurt Russell and Keith David, the last survivors, are clearly going to die at the end, but it’s not so much that they’re being killed by something as they’re making the choice to die. And not only is it a choice rather than a condition imposed on them, it’s a moral and logical choice: if one of them’s infected, and they live to bring that out into the world, then the world’s toast. Killing themselves/each other is an enormous fucking sacrifice; it doesn’t get much more noble than giving up your own life to preserve the rest of humanity. Oh, yeah, that’s why Danny Boyle’s recent Sunshine worked, too.

Resolved: everyone can die if it’s for a cause.

“Getting eaten by a 350-foot giant fucking monster” is not a cause, yet somehow Cloverfield’s ending feels right and proper. I’ll admit a strong wave of some emotion that translates roughly to “Oh hell no, Hud just died?!? Boo on that,” but that was swept away by that ending, which felt both sad and earned. I guess it was a little more in the Greek tragedy mold, where Rob’s hubris kept him from getting together with Beth until the ending, at which point it was too late to avoid getting bombed into vapor.

Yet again, work gets in the way of what’s important, so I must cut this short. But a lot of what Cloverfield’s about is terror coming from nowhere. It’s senseless and unstoppable. A lot of average people die. In that light, killing all the characters is natural; it’s not really a cheat when the whole point is that, by definition, a tragedy’s something a lot of people don’t escape.

I’d like to claim I’ll be thinking about this stuff a lot tonight, but I envision a long series of procrastinating to Futurama commentaries instead.

Share this:

Specifically, bad ones, and not regretting it. There’s two big reasons I think any time spent watching movies is time well spent.

a) The list of things that are more fun than making fun of a bad movie with a bunch of friends is very short. The only thing we like more than watching bad movies is watching good movies.

b) Watching bad movies can teach you a ton about just what makes bad art bad.

This is especially true in this blessed age of DVD commentaries. Take The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 and 2. The first is awesome: nasty, brutal, fucked up, funny and scary. The second is so terrible my roommate, who’s seen plenty of awful shit in his day, apologized to us midway through, and offered several times to turn it off. No dice! No doubt it was a disaster, but after Robot Ninja and Voodoo Academy, the bar for badness is set so low it requires seismic drilling just to locate.

The reasons to hate Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 are too long to fully elucidate. But for one thing, it looks awful in that weird ’80s horror movie way: everything’s bright and dirty and plastic, even when it’s set in an underground torture-carnival. Second, despite the fact it’s directed by Tobe Hooper, the same guy behind the first, it’s absolutely loaded with mugging, maniacal cackling, perverse character tics, and more egregious overacting than a high school production of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

There’s no way to overstate how awful and annoying the whole thing is. It’s all so obvious and exaggerated and fake. What on earth would possess someone to make this? Why would a director think he was doing good to order all his actors to ham it up so hard you can catch trichinosis just by watching?

The answer to these questions and more can be found on the movie’s commentary, which I had no choice but to watch–Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was so painful and awful that at some point it stopped being bad altogether, instead becoming a fascinating study of a man utterly detached from reality. The commentary only confirmed this. According to Hooper, the first movie had a deep layer of black humor–who knew!–but apparently no one on earth got that, so when it came time to film the second, he decided to play up the humor even more, which apparently meant making it such a wrath-inducing crime against comedy that all the laughs transcended the mortal realm to become merely theoretical.

Yes, people, we’re to blame for Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 being so bad. If only we’d had the smarts to see the humor in the first one, Hooper wouldn’t have been obligated to bludgeon us to death with it in the second.

In other words, a terrible, virtueless movie was made because Hooper underestimated his audience. He didn’t understand that we did get it the first time; the reason his precious black humor worked was because it was played so straight.

Not trusting your audience is usually a young man’s mistake (self included). The urge is to spell it out, to make sure every point and theme is clear as crystal, because God knows the drooling R-tards reading or watching our brilliance won’t be able to keep up without an authorial hand yanking them toward enlightenment. If you need to break yourself of this habit, watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, and then follow it up with the commentary. Stay strong; remember, the urge to suicide is strictly temporary.

Still kicking? Awesome. Now let’s make a pledge to never underestimate our audience again. And once you manage, be sure to let me know how the hell you pulled it off. I’ve got some stories in dire need of revision over here.

Share this:

The other day I was sitting around watching The Fellowship of the Ring, as I do every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, when I mentioned to my roommate that, last time I read the books, it sounded like Arwen was the daughter of Elrond and Galadriel.

Needless to say, this was pretty confusing, and I wasn’t at all convinced my interpretation was right; obviously Galadriel and Celeborn are the hot ticket these days, but when you live for thousands of years, is monogamy even less cool than it is for a mortal lifespan? Is cheating even a thing, or is it more like,

Celeborn: Hey, I just realized I haven’t seen another chick naked in 500 years. Mind if I hit the taverns tonight?

Galadriel: Go ahead, sweetie! Oh, you remember that guy Elrond Half-Elven? My old college roommate? Well, we had an affair like 4,800 years ago. Sorry. We were all kind of wound up about Melkor at the time. You know how that goes.

Celeborn: Well, it’s over now, right?

Galadriel: Oh yeah. No, I haven’t even talked to him this Age.

Celeborn: Okay. Well, off to sow me some wild oats!

Galadriel: Have fun! Let me know if you’re going to be later than next spring!

More importantly, how come every elf on Middle Earth doesn’t have scores of children? Even if you only pop out one kid every ten years, some of these guys should have racked up two-three hundred kids by now. Yet Elrond, who’s so old he can remember Isildur’s original betrayal, only seems to have three kids: Arwen, and his twin sons.

That’s some serious fucking birth control. No wonder Galadriel doesn’t give a shit about the Ring when she’s walking around with the One IUD to Rule Them All. Or, as my roommate put it, are elves “so beautiful, yet so impotent”?

Indeed, there’s four possible conclusions we can draw here: a) Elves just don’t bone that often–no more than a couple times a decade; b) Elves get it on as much as humans or dwarves or anyone else, but they have some kind of ultra-effective birth control, be it sheepskin condoms or some inborn ability to choose when to get pregnant; c) They screw like anyone else, they don’t have birth control, but they’re just shooting blanks 99% of the time, or d) They’re only fertile through the first phase of their lives–say, the first 50-200 years–at which point they hit elf menopause, and just sort of putter around the woods for the next 10,000 years or whenever accident strikes them down.

Of these, a) just doesn’t seem likely. c) makes a certain amount of sense–if elves were descended from a line of particularly long-lived apes, rampant infertility would ensure the herd isn’t constantly starving from overpopulation–but if you’ve got 500-1,000 years between generations, it’s going to take a while for that trait to develop, and besides, once the culture developed enough to where they got better at gathering food and the other resources of life, you’d think faster-breeding genetic lines would start to reemerge.

d) is a little better. It ensures any given elf can pass on his or her DNA before settling down into their Golden Eons. However, if I were to dig into the recorded elf family trees, I expect I’d find the children of a single pairing would be born too far apart to be explained by Elf Menopause.

This leaves us with c). In other words, A Wizard Did It. Not a particularly elegant solution, but hey, elves are pretty in touch with nature, and besides, I seem to recall elves were created by some ultra-god back in the good old days, and he seems pretty on the ball.

Still, this conclusion leaves something to be desired. Though it’ll be a sacrifice, I’m going to have to do some field research before coming down on one side or the other. Word up, Arwen. It’s in the name of science.

Share this:

I’m pretty sure the M. stands for Motherfuckin’, because Banks is a god among men.

I just started reading his stuff within the last few months and am now terribly angry with my past self for not having read it sooner. In order, I’ve read The Wasp Factory, The Algebraist, and Excession. Excession is several books deep in his Culture series–the far-flung future setting of most of his sci-fi–but, for reasons that can only be chalked up to out-and-out insanity, many of his early novels have been out of print until just a few days ago. My copy of Consider Phlebas, the first Culture novel, showed up yesterday; I haven’t done much but read it since.

As for why these books were out of print till so recently, I can only imagine we live in a Bizarro Universe where wild adventure, colossal imagination, and the best sense of humor in the genre (fuck it, one of the best in literature–among living novelists, Banks is right there with John Irving and Michael Chabon) somehow fails to ignite the interest of enough readers to keep his backlist churning. I don’t remember everyone on earth suffering massive head wounds, so Bizarro Universe it is.

Some writers are such good storytellers their books are like cannons that blast you through the novel so fast you can’t slow down until you slam into that last page and you close the book, dazed and pained, and for the first time you realize just how much momentum had been sweeping you along.

Banks is that way. And it’s not just his plotting that makes him so incredible, either. It’s his whole sensibility: that life is violent and absurd and ironic and most often being run by forces far beyond our control, but it’s also thrilling and funny and fun; however weak and tiny his characters may be inside the incomprehensibly vast societies and the universe surrounding them, there’s still meaning and value in their individual struggles.

In some ways, that’s the definition of the entire genre of the novel; like M.M. Bakhtin says, we’re not gods or heroes, we’re just normal chumpy mortals who can’t help but fail at whatever grand trial is before us–and the results are often as funny as they are tragic.

For all this, though, I’m always a little disappointed when I reach the end of a Banks novel, and not just because it may be a while before I get to read the next one. His plots are huge and crazy and fun, but they seem to be big shaggy-dog stories or wild goose chases, too. Sometimes the underlying narrative gets lost. When the big wrap-up arrives, the bulk of the characters’ adventures don’t seem to have much to do with it at all.

I don’t quite know how to describe the feeling I’m left with: it’s not that all these episodic adventures were a waste of time–the feeling’s not that harsh at all–but I’ve got this vague uneasiness that those episodes just don’t add up to all that much, either.

Neal Stephenson’s books often feel that way, too. Maybe it’s no coincidence that he’s got a lot of the same humor and excitement and imagination as Banks and usually can’t quite pull things together in the end himself. Next to the mountains of things they do well, a not-wholly-satisfying ending can’t put a major dent in their books. They’re just too goddamn good.

As I write this, I can’t wait to get back to Consider Phlebas, and when I checked up on Neal Stephenson only to find he’s got a new book out this fall–a space opera!!–I’m swearing with joy. These guys are the guys who get me excited about literature with every page I read.

Share this:

I missed Gone Baby Gone last year, which is a bummer, because in a ridiculously awesome year for movies, it would have been my #8 or 9 on the list. I’m sure that whole “based on a Dennis Lehane novel” thing helped, but since when does Ben Affleck kick ass? Casey Affleck is constant goodness, so perhaps it was an oversight to think his brother just lacked all talent, too. Gone Baby Gone had a few too many “Hey, remember what happened 20 minutes ago?”-style flashbacks, but mostly it was a tense, dark suspense piece with the kind of gray moral sensibility that tends to make the genre great.

As I was being pounded into my couch by a stomach-churning flu this weekend, I dug out The Matrix Reloaded, hoping a whole lot of cinematic beatdowns would take my mind off the viral one I was going through. A moderate success–there is a whole lot of ass-whomping in Reloaded, and five years after it came out, it still looks stunning.

I’ve always had a soft spot for the trilogy–the first one’s basically pitch-perfect, and even in the third one, the robots have souls–but watching it this time, I give it a thumbs-up for expanding its universe and throwing both Morpheus and Neo into doubt, but a big thumbs-down for spending the bulk of its time on plotlines that feel completely arbitrary.

Machines burrowing their way towards Zion to kill all humans? Good times. Now that’s some stakes. All that scene-wasting BS with city councillors, fifth-rate sidekicks, and characters who weren’t even in the first movie? Boooooo. Then there’s Neo’s storyline: talk to the Oracle to figure out what to do, then go talk to and beat up the Merovingian so he can get the Keymaker, then take the Keymaker to the Source and.. fix it all up then, yeah, fix it up!

It makes sense, but it doesn’t have that same sense of internal cohesion the first movie did. The action scenes have me drowning in my own drool, and there are some legitimately cool twists, but mostly, it’s a lot of MacGuffiny foolishness on the way to a cliffhanger ending.

The Wachowskis and The Matrix, David Twohy and Pitch Black, most recently, Neil Marshall and The Descent: these are some of the best fucking genre movies I’ve ever seen, yet the project after their breakout movie is always a big, crazy mess. A fun mess, usually with personality oozing all over the place, but it’s like they all ended up wanting to tell stories so big they sacrificed control for epic sweep.

I’d rather watch these guys flail than watch a bland director execute his lack of vision well. But you can’t make a movie as good as The Matrix by accident; surely these guys can find the same success that made their beloved breakouts so belovable. Let’s break it down, gentlemen! Maybe if you try going back to working on a smaller canvas, you’ll resist the urge to splash so much damn paint around.

Share this:

Dear stuff:

Please happen.

Yours truly,

– me, the viewer

I Netflixed Morvern Callar based on the AV Club’s recent feature on modern cult classics, but after watching it, I’m pretty sure its cult consists entirely of those unlucky people who feel exactly like Morvern. Bummer for them, because if they are anything like her, they’re completely unsympathetic and uncompelling.

Here’s a short list of things I would rather do than watch one more scene where Morvern identifies with a lowly bug or lets her shame drive her away into yet another quietly understated episode with no narrative connection to the rest of the movie: 1) lie on my couch with a pillow over my face. 2) Eat a peanut butter sandwich and wonder if I’m going to barf for the next five hours. 3) Tape my alarm to my head, then make my alarm go off as I sit in my unfinished basement and think of all the ways I could be killed just walking out the door.

This is the kind of movie that makes people hate smart things. That’s right, Morvern Callar is the reason you were beaten up as a kid. It’s lifeless and joyless and insulting–okay, so she’s lost and confused and unhappy and can’t connect with other people. That was established within the first ten minutes. The following eighty is where the story was supposed to go.

That’s what bugs me to no end about movies and fiction with no higher aspirations than showing their emotionally crippled characters walking around being emotionally crippled. If that’s the only dimension you’re interested in working with, don’t be surprised when your audience ends up as a cult. You’re lucky to have one at all.

Share this:

About Me



I am a Science Fiction and Fantasy author, based in LA. Read More.

Archives

Featured Books
My Book GenresMy Book Series