Someone Else’s Writing

Writing: Necessary Laziness

Folks, I am a lazy, lazy man. Unless it involves booze, I don’t like to put much effort into things. Take grooming, for instance: Haircuts, shaving, dry cleaning your clothes, all generally too much effort for Your Humble Author here. If I could find a way to combine booze with those activities – booze for me, mind you; I don’t need some drunk bastard cutting my hair – I’d be a happy man. And probably rich once I sell the franchise rights.

About the only thing I’m usually not too lazy about is writing, but this is because writing has always been fun and easy for me, pretty much in the same category as drinking – hey, if only I could combine those two NO NO NO that way lies madness. Sometimes when writing, though, you have to be lazy, kind of on purpose, you know? LEt’s face it, real life is a pretty huge dataset. The number of details that go into just one person’s every day experience while wandering this globe searching for free drinks and tasty sandwiches is staggering, and if you actually tried to capture all of those details in a story, even a story that takes exactly one minute of time to unfold, your story would like be about twenty-seven volumes long.

Thus, laziness. A great example is the popular-with-the-kids-these-days Zombie Apocalypse story, which almost always focusses on the whole thing about killing zombies and rebuilding civilization while calmly ignoring the fact that you’d probably starve to death long, long before the zombies broke down your door. Zombie stories are lazy about the food issue because it’s the only reaction that makes sense – no one wants  story about the urgent need to find a can opener, say, or the moral quandry of murdering your dog in order to eat him. So, Zombie Apocalypse stories usually have abandoned supermarkets filled with foodstuffs for our survivors to gorge on, when in reality every time it rains more than two inches here in Hoboken the local supermarket is an empty, ransacked shell. I mean, seriously, if the news started reporting a zombie fucking apocalypse the supermarket would be completely devoid of edibles within about twenty seconds. Or, the story will have the survivors hunting and farming like in the good old days, which makes a lot more sense, except for the lazy convenience of having your survivors – almost always in a major metropolitan area – know how in fuck to hunt, skin, and butcher animals or farm anything. Not a terrible stretch, but I for one would be found dead with two cans of tuna in my hands and bloody fingernails before I figured out how to grow something in my backyard.

Or, take Lost for example (no spoilers here, don’t worry). The most recent episode, which gave us the extended backstory of Jacob and Smokey, was set in some undefined past, and the characters were all dressed in a sort of rustic ancient style by way of Luke Skywalker in Star Wars Episode IV. The costumes are cheesy and vague, and evoke exactly no culture or historical period ever in the history of ever. They are the laziest costumes I’ve ever seen in my entire life (the whole episode annoyed and disappointed me, but that rant is for later, after the series ends and I have a better perspective). But, I can see why, maybe, that decision was made: Because a) the story is maybe meant to be a parable and not taken literally, or b) because they don’t want to distract us with questions about whether, say, ancient Romans or Egyptians would do something. Keeping it vague gives them latitude to do whatever they want. Thus, the lazy costumes are necessary.

Or, maybe just lazy. Figuring out what’s a necessary laziness and what’s just lazy is not easy, even when you’re writing. I’ve had plenty of moments where an editor hands back a manuscript and tells me I need to spend more time and energy on a sequence, and when I lok back on it I can see pretty clearly that I was impatient to get past that spot and glossed over everything too quickly. It’s easy to be lazy when you can see everything clearly in your own head, and forget that people can’t read you mind and see all the details as clearly as you do.

Now, all this talk of booze has made me hungry. The food not so much. To paraphrase Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, food just makes me sick.

Gamer, or Why Do They Hate Us

Continuing in my apparently ongoing series of posts wherein Jeff Watches Lame Recent Sci-Fi Movies and Complains About the Writing, I watched the truly, awesomely terrible movie Gamer starring Gerard Butler, who talks like he’s got golfballs in his mouth and obviously needs a new agent. Not many folks bothered to catch this one in the theaters, which speaks well of humanity as a whole, but I was mildly intrigued. This was definitely one of those movies that I knew would not be good but hoped to find some intriguing kernel of delicious smarts somewhere under the bloated Hollywood bullshit. I was sadly disappointed.

Well, okay, there was one moment of demented genius, but we’ll get to that.

The basic plot: In the future, the prison system is on the brink of collapse as there are so many criminals the USA can’t find the money to support them. Enter this guy (I do not have sufficient respect for this movie to remember character names) who has invented nanotechnology that allows people to be remote-controlled via the Internet. Basically, they get loaded with nanobytes that mutate their brain cells and then accept wireless commands. He first creates a “game” called Society which is basically Second Life except the avatars are real live people who are paid to be controlled, and where folks remotely act out their fantasies. Then he creates Slayers, where he takes the entire US prison system off the hands of the government and death-row criminals can volunteer to play a First-Person Shooter type game as the actual avatars, or as unarmed “collateral damage” type people programmed to just wander aimlessly while everyone is shooting. A Slayer gets freed from prison if he/she survives 30 games, a collateral-damage person gets freed if they survive one. People log in remotely, select their “avatar”, and get to kill real-live people.

Naturally, there are secrets. Butler plays the most popular Slayer, who is ‘owned’ by a rich teenager. He’s been wrongly imprisoned, of course, and his wife has lost custody of their daughter and been forced to work in Society as, basically, a whore. Players select her as an avatar, dress her up any way they like, then prance her around Society until some other avatar decides to fuck her. Very sad and dystopian. Butler has secret knowledge, of course, which he makes absolutely no reference to throughout the film until other characters explain it to him, meaning his character is either the Stupidest Man Alive or the nanotech causes some severe brain damage, take your pick.

Anyway, that’s all you need of the plot. This entire movie is an example of Buzz Word Script Writing. BWSW is when a story is constructed from poorly-understood terms or phenomena the screenwriter doesn’t know much about; they watch a few YouTube vids, read a few Wikipedia articles, make a list of buzz words, and then tell whatever crapass story they come up with, sure to sprinkle the buzz words everywhere to give it a sheen of currency. Someone heard vaguely about Second Life and First-Person Shooters, and over some good drugs one night they had one of those “Dude, what if the people in Second Life were, like, real fucking people.” and there was a moment of stunned silence. Then everyone began snorting coke and drinking tequila, and three hours later there was a script.

I swear to you: That’s how these scripts get written.

Naturally, of course, they don’t really understand the appeal of either, and they are so far removed from the user bases of either that they assume, stupidly, that the people who play FPS games or who get involved with stuff like Second Life are assholes. Basically, they assume the potential audience for their movie are assholes and proceed to insult them through the course of the entire film. The FPS gamers are represented by an obnoxious teenaged kid of privilege. The Society players are represented by a grossly fat man in a motorized chair who is your typical Hollywood Gross Fat Guy (HGFG), which means he apparently doesn’t wash and has no moral basement whatsoever, because Hollywood thinks fat people are not simply unhealthy or unlucky, but rather EVIL. That’s how the film’s producers/writers see y’all: You play with computers, therefore you are either vapid and shallow, or gross and fat and unloved by society.

Cheers.

The movie is made of fail, but there is one part of the story that is really badly handled from a writing standpoint: The secondary villain. The hero of the piece is, naturally, a Badass. He’s survived dozens of these games because he’s ex-military and of course has a noble goal (getting out, clearing his name, regaining his family) so of course he’s the toughest guy in the room (and inexplicably world-famous; this movie makes the classic mistake of trying to convince us that the Slayers game and its main characters are HUGE worldwide celebrities, while showing us a game that is about as interesting and exciting as watching Gerard Butler swallow those golf balls in his mouth). That’s fine. The main villain is the exact opposite: Nerdy, decadent, rich and powerful financially and politically but weak physically. That’s fine, too, and makes for a classic, if slightly tired, combination. About halfway through the story they introduce a secondary villain who the main villain plants in prison to finally kill the hero, and he’s introduced on a video screen as a sweating, trembling black man, all bulging muscles and barely-contained anger. They fill the screen with his ominous, hate-filled face and linger on his muscular, aggressive body. One of his first acts in prison is to murder someone just for the hell of it and then taunt the hero about how he’s going to kill him and then rape his family.

And then: The secondary villain does absolutely nothing worth nothing. He’s the worst villain ever in the history of bad movies. He just fails and fails and fails, and very quickly is reduced to a joke. If I thought this was perhaps the whole point of his character, that would have been OK, I suppose, but they clearly introduce him as a genuine menace, and then couldn’t figure out how to have him be actually menacing without ruining their shaky, barely-there plot, forcing them to, you know, think about plot mechanics and such. So they give this guy a huge buildup, make you think the hero’s in for it now, and then … nothing.

Finally, we do have one bright moment. The main villain, as you recall, had mind-controlling nanotech injected into all these people, and when the hero arrives at his mansion for some revenge – worst plan ever, as HE IS FILLED WITH MIND-CONTROLLING NANOTECH – ahem, he encounters the villain and about a dozen other death-row inmates. Instead of simply launching his puppets at the hero (OR, SAY, SIMPLY USING THE MIND-CONTROLLIN NANOTECH TO FORCE THE HERO TO KILL HIMSELF) the villain begins a song and dance number with the inmates as his mind-controlled backup dancers. I kid you not. A little silly, yes, but also kind of brilliant: He’s a rich genius bent on taking over the world, and for months in the story he’s had complete mindfuck power over all these people. It makes sense that he’s batshit, and cruel. It’s a fun scene, like finding a cheeseburger still in the wrapper in a dumpster outside a Johnny Rockets.

Whew. I’m exhausted.

Pandorum

Apparently, there will be an ongoing series of posts where I discuss a movie I saw recently. This will usually happen when I’m pissed off about some really lazy writing, but I suppose it might also happen when I’m blown away by the writing, too. It’s just that simmering resentment after you’ve spent 94 minutes of your life on a story that could have been good inspires more words than pleasant enjoyment does.

So: Pandorum. Came out last year to little fanfare, got some mildly non-negative reviews I dimly remember, and is now on Cable TV, so I watched it. The basic no-spoiler premise is: In the future, the world is spiraling out of control with overpopulation and global warfare. So they put 60,000 people into “hypersleep” and send them on a huge motherfucking spaceship on a 123-year journey to the only Earth-like planet ever discovered, called Tanis. Two members of the flight crew suddenly wake up from their hypersleep, suffering temporary short-term memory loss from their lengthy induced comas, and find the ship seemingly abandoned, in a sad state of disrepair, and themselves unable to raise anyone on the radio. Plus there are frequent power surges indicating that the nuclear reactor is going to fail.

There may be spoilers from this point on, kids, so if ye fear spoilers and foresee a scenario where you watch this bad movie, be warned.

So: The first 30 minutes or so are actually promising. There’s a decent sense of dread as the two crew members struggle to make sense of what’s happening, and the introduction, early on, of humanoid hunter creatures who infest the huge ship hunting down humans as they wake up from their hypersleep is a bit derivative, but effectively handled. It’s one of those movies that comes down to the revelation of the mysteries, and there was potential for some really cool mysteries, man. The problem is, they tried to cram about 500 mysteries into one story, and fucked them all up.

Mystery One is what are the creatures hunting everyone on the ship, and how they got there. That it’s obvious that they are in fact a portion of the 60,000 passengers, mutated somehow, is minimized by the fact that the story makes this pretty apparent early on. The main problem with this mystery is the simple fact that it exists, because the whole damn story would have been much better without it. Seriously. Some moron decided they couldn’t sell a sci-fi horror movie without human-eating alien creatures, so they dumped a box filled with human-eating aliens into the story. Now, the idea that these creatures have been waking people up from hypersleep and devouring them alive just as they’re waking up is indeed kind of creepy and horrifying, but the story would have been stronger, tighter, and more interesting without this third-rate Alien ripoff of a plotline.

Mystery Two is what really pisses me off: What happened to the ship? It’s the size of a city, has facilities and space for 60,000 people, and looks like its been through a war. I’ll grant another smart move in that the characters  figure out early on that they may very well have been asleep much, much longer than the 123 years the trip was supposed to have taken, and this is a really intriguing question. There are apocalyptic hints that the Earth was destroyed in a cataclysm some time after the ship launched, which indicates that there was some sort of mass psychosis or something – Hypersleep Sickness is known as Pandorum, apparently, in case you’re wondering about the title. Remove the stupid monsters and stick with survivors creeping through a dead ship gathering clues as to what’s happened, and you’ve got a tense, creepy story. Instead, because of the many fight and chase scenes involving the fucking retarded monsters, they cram this mystery’s denouement into one gloriously infodumpy scene where a character introduced moments before inexplicably knows everything that happened, and just tells us. The fact that the explanation is, in fact, an idea that has potential is just an extra kick in the balls. If they’d actually written a better story and found a way to give us these revelations organically it might have been really affecting and fascinating.

Mystery Three involves that fucking title again: Pandorum. Space Madness, basically, established early on in the film as a real disease with symptoms and everything. Symptoms the two initial characters both exhibit at different times. It’s such a repeated thread in the story you start to think it’s going to mean something, and in a way I suppose it does, as it serves as the explanation, ultimately, of what happens. But on the other hand, it also fucks everything up, because there’s a clear implication, towards the end, that maybe a lot of what’s been happening is just inside once of the character’s pandorum-addled mind. And holy shit, that one little throwaway bit of business borks everything, because there is literally no support built into the story for that subtle twist. Usually when stories build up to a “it’s all in his head” climax, there’s a Sixth-Sensing in the background, all the little details that now fall into a different order and convince you that, yes, this makes sense now. There’s none of that here.

Maybe I’m overthinking the last bit; After all, it’s a flash and a line at the end. Maybe it’s the remnant of an older script or edit, where that was the intended twist. The real problem here is the obsession with the twist ending. Everyone loves twists, sure. And most people like a good mindfuck movie where the rug is pulled out from under you at the end and you free fall into a new understanding of all that went before – but this movie seemed like the twist was the whole point, and everything else is just padding so they can hold out on the twist until minute 90. And, frankly, the story would again have been stronger without the twist. If they had just stated what was going on, it’s a creepy premise. While this appears to be standard Hollywood Hackery, as a writer it’s good to remind yourself that sometimes the clever bit isn’t really worth keeping.

I’ve definitely been guilty at time of keeping a “clever bit” in a story even after the story grows beyond it, simply because I was so impressed to have come up with the clever bit in the first place. Being able to recognize when it is the very clever bit that inspired you that is now killing your story is good kung fu to have; sadly, Hollywood, as a whole,  doesn’t have it. probably because movies are greenlighted because of the clever bit, and removing it also probably removes the funding.

Sigh. Oh well. Nothing is a complete waste: There’s good stuff to steal in Pandorum. You could walk away with 5 decent story ideas just from the unexplored threads this movie leaves behind, and five more from the wrong turns the “twists” throw in there. Have it.

The Trouble with Awards

First, a disclaimer: I have never won a Major Award for my writing. Or a Minor One. Or, say, an award of any kind. I am not bitter about this. Plenty of genius goes unrecognized in this sad world, and I have the warm comfort of booze to get me through the lonely nights in my office that is completely devoid of awards. Fuck it. I am not bitter.

Of course, they just announced The Hugo Awards (quick scan . . . nopes, not there) which is what makes me think of this topic. Would I like to win a Hugo? Sure. But here’s the curious thing: I look back on the list of Hugo Award-winning books, and I find I haven’t read quite a number of them. And, for a surprising number of those titles, frankly have no desire to (“The Wanderer” by Fritz Leiber comes to mind). It isn’t just Hugos, either – I once read through a list of movies that won Best Picture Oscars, and the same situation was apparent: I hadn’t seen a large proportion of the films, and I had zero desire to rectify that situation.

Now, I am but one slimly talented and somewhat endrunkened author, so my personal failing to absorb my own culture is not proof of anything. Hell, man, my existence is not proof of anything. All I know is, just about every single list of major awards is pretty much a snoozefest for me, and usually the further back you go, the less interested in the winners I become. This doesn’t have anything to do with time; the last two books I read were published in 1931 and 1972. I think it’s just perspective: The movie that won Best Picture last year still has that unvarnished sheen of Proven Quality to it, whereas something from a bit further back – say, Gladiator – has had that sheen scraped off and stands there shivering and alone like a drunk coed waiting for a bus after a Frat Party: Not nearly as attractive as it appeared earlier. I’ve seen it on TV too many times and I know all the seams, all the terrible line readings, all the logic problems with the plot.

You see, the simple fact is I don’t think these awards are really very good at sussing out what’s really good. Now, if I ever win a Major Award I will remove this post and burn down my own house to remove any evidence that I ever said that, because if I win a Major Award you are going to hear about it. I’ll have T-Shirts made, I’ll call you up every five minutes to remind you, and I will make sure that every cover of my books is emblazoned with the words WINNER OF THAT MAJOR AWARD so unsuspecting fools can buy copies based solely on that recommendation. And my official line will be that Major Awards are mankind’s best and most scientific way to determine art’s value. But deep in my heart I will still know that awards are generally bullshit.

Awards are useful, sure.  It’s just remarkable how little use I have for them in my reading and viewing choices. This is either because I am a shallow jackass, or because Awards are kind of random and often poorly administered, or simply because something that seems really cool when it first comes out turns out to be a shallow, bloated monstrosity filled with faux importance and cheap manipulation when you’ve had some years to get past the hype. And of course people vote for things for really dubious reasons, sometimes. Now if someone would please nominate me for a Hugo for Best unresearched Blog Post, I’d appreciate it. Thankee.

HOT TUB TIME MACHINE (or, Oh, I see what you did there)

Me Likey DrinkyPeople ask me why I drink. Well, to be honest, they’re often asking me what I drank, and the setting is usually an emergency room in a region where I don’t speak the language, and, naturally, I have no pants. Wait, what was I saying? Right: People wonder why I medicate myself when my life is so great. I have a loving wife (the lovely and fearsome Duchess), four cute cats (and the facial scars to prove it) and a thriving writing career. What’s to get hum about?

Other writers, of course.

Professional jealousy is a terrible thing. I’m not talking about people who strike bigger money lodes than I do, or people whose sales are higher – I actually don’t worry about that. No, what I get hum about in regards to other writers is when they have better ideas than I do, or ideas I simply wish I’d had. Pretty much the moment I meet another writer, right in-between the friendly handshake and the polite cocktail banter, I start hating them because of some idea they had that I would kill to steal.

Which brings us to Hot Tub Time Machine.

Went to see this over the weekend despite mixed reviews and several warnings that it was gross, immature, misogynistic, homophobic, and dumb. The sheer power of that title was too much to resist, so The Duchess and me and our friend Ken went to check it out. Is it misogynistic? Yep. Homophobic? Yep. Dumb? Yep. Funny? Off and on – overall I enjoyed it, and there were some side-splitting moments, but overall it’s a mediocre movie. I honestly wouldn’t steal much from this movie – the SFnal aspect of time travel is treated as a gonzo plot device and nothing more, and they quickly borrow some well-worn tropes to set the main story in motion (Butterfly Effect anyone?). There aren’t too many surprising twists as the story resolves itself, and most of the jokes wouldn’t work outside the framework of this movie and the combined charm of the lead actors, which is considerable.

What would I steal from this movie? Cincinnati.

Here be spoilers, so turn back if you regard spoilers as bad. The one thing I think this movie does that is interesting and effective from a writing point of view is fail to explain several running jokes and references. Not fail to explain them, actually, but rather boldly lampshade them and then stand around with its chest thrust out like Mussolini soaking up the crowd as it refuses to explain these bits of business. There’s a moment early in the film when John Cusack’s character is reminiscing about his old girlfriend from the 1980s, and the three middle-aged friends who form 3/4s of the main characters start chanting “White Buffalo, white buffalo” over and over again in decreasing volume. The younger kid in the car with them demands they explain themselves but they just keep chanting. It happens once more in the course of the story, but it is never explained in any way.

At another moment one of the characters refers to something that happened in Cincinnati, and the kid mentions finding a shoebox in Cusack’s closet labeled Cincinnati. The other two friends react violently, aghast that Cusack would a) keep it in the closet and b) label it clearly, adding that whatever it is is “admissible”. Again, despite thirty seconds of screen time devoted to it and the strong reactions of the characters, Cincinnati is never explained. Or even mentioned again.

Finally, and perhaps my favorite, there is the Boozy Bear: A man dressed in a bear costume shows up constantly throughout the movie, drinking and dancing. He’s just there; no one comments on it, no one asks about it, and the bear is never explained.

I love this stuff. A lot of writers get caught up explaining every single grace note and reference, terrified that people might not get what they’re trying to say, or so caught up in their own perceived cleverness that they have to underscore every bit to make sure you see it in all its glory. The three credited writers didn’t exactly create the Schindler’s List[1] of Sci-Fi, or even a movie you’ll remember two years from now. But these kinds of bits, left for you to make up your own backstory to explain, elevate even a lame story at least slightly, and I am a complete sucker for them. I’ll spend the next several months trying to figure out if there’s any clues I missed as to their provenance, and then I’ll spend several months having dreams about Dancing Bears in Cincinnati. Trust me, I’ve been through this before, though usually it’s a David Lynch movie, and not frickin’ Hot Tub Time Machine.


[1]Still one of three movies that always makes me cry. The other are discussed in Volume 10, Issue 3 of my zine The Inner Swine.

Obscure Books

Because I am a cheap bastard, I frequent Used Book Stores a lot. There used to be a store in Manhattan where you could buy old paperbacks for $1 each; man, I did some damage in there. One of the benefits of frequenting Used Book Stores is the low barrier between you and books you’ve never heard of. In a regular store if I come across a book that looks vaguely interesting but about which I know nothing, the roughly $500 price tag might scare me back to the old familiar haunts of Elmore Leonard and Richard Morgan novels, but in a Used Book Store, what the hell. It’s only a few dollars. As a result, I’ve bought and read some strange and obscure books. The odd thing about them is for the most part they weren’t always obscure.

Which may seem obvious, but it’s weird to think of yourself as an aware and well-read person and then discover there are literally thousands of books that once sold very well, that were very famous, and of which you have never heard. Consider The Crime Book of J.G. Reeder. I bought this one day while wandering a street fair with The Duchess. The only reason I bought it, for $3, was the cover:

The Crime Book of J.G. Reeder

It just looked interesting. I’d never heard of J.G. Reeder or the author, Edgar Wallace (though I should have). Turns out, they were both quite famous and popular, and stories featuring the character of Reeder have been filmed a few times. Not exactly the Collected Works of Shakespeare here, but still, books that were at one time pretty big, and which now might as well have never existed.

They’re not even all that great, honestly. Some better than others, but one of the stories stands out as inexplicably bad: In Red Aces, the mystery Mr. Reeder is investigating is explained in a 2-page infodump at the very end, with absolutely no effort made to, you know, actually make it into an entertaining mystery story. You get the set up, the characters, some of the investigating, and then at the end a character you never noticed before is arrested and we’re treated to a memo filed by Mr. Reeder explaining everything, including tons of details that weren’t given to you in the story.

Okay. . .so maybe it’s not so weird that these stories are now more or less forgotten.

This isn’t new for me; I began my career of loving obscure book back in high school, when I discovered a series of Italian book by Giovanni Guareschi about a small-town priest in Italy named Don Camillo. My father had a paperback copy of a book called Don Camillo Takes the Devil by the Tail, which I read and really enjoyed against all odds. I mean, this is a book originally written in Italian in the 1950s – what are the odds? When I found four more collections of Don Camillo stories in my school library, I noticed they hadn’t been borrowed in 25 frickin’ years, so I offered to buy them. The school charged me $5 a piece for the four books, which I still have, and still enjoy.

The Don Camillo stories are just hokey fun, for me – they’re charming. There are probably about five other non-Italians below the age of 75 who have heard of this character, though.

It’s fascinating, this glimpse into the past. These books sold well, were made into movies, were comon pop-culture currency at one time. Today they might as well have never existed, except for the occasional lunatic like me who hoards them, gloating over books no one else wants. Even before I had my own set of books to watch anxiously sink into obscurity, I found books like these fascinating, not only because they were once popular and now forgotten, but for the insights into the psyche of a long-gone reading public.

You can see now why I was never one of the Cool Kids. But screw it. The cool kids read boring books.

I Can’t Go, but You Should

The rather genius Evan Mandery is reading tonight in Manhattan. He is hilarious, and I wish I could make it, but I naturally forgot all about it and made other plans. Because I am an incompetent jackass.

The event is being moderated/hosted by the insufferably talented Sean Ferrell, which means it’ll be twice as entertaining. Afterwards, Sean will dance for drinks if you ask him. But only if you ask him.

Barnes & Noble
97 Warren Street
New York, NY
7:00PM

Portal 2

Portal Melts My BrainAside from being a boozer, an anti-pants activist from long before the advertising world latched onto the movement, and, oh yeah, a writer, I’m also a casual gamer, almost exclusively in first-person shooters. Maybe it’s the virtual carnage, maybe it’s the immersion, maybe it’s the fact that because of the cropped nature of the HUD I can imagine my avatar is not wearing any pants while I slaughter zombies/nazis/robots/whatever. Whatever the reason, I like me some FPS games, and Portal from Valve was no exception. Now that they’ve announced Portal 2, I’m reminded of how great the first one was.

I was dubious at first: The idea behind Portal is that you have a wormhole gun of sorts; fire it at one surface and portal A opens, fire it at surface B and portal B opens. Step through portal A and you emerge from portal B. At first glance I thought this sounded a little dull and cumbersome, but as with just about everything else, I was wrong: Portal was easily the best game I’ve played in years. One reason it was so enjoyable was the unique game concept of the portal gun, which made the game basically one huge puzzle. You weren’t just running and gunning and occasionally pressing buttons, you were solving what amounted to rich physics puzzles. This is more fun than the phrase “rich physics puzzle” might lead you to believe.

The other, equally important reason Portal rocks, though, is the storytelling.

That’s one of the things I like so much about first-person shooter games; they feel like you’re in a story. There’s usually a plot, some character development, and in the better-designed ones some branching of the story based on decisions you make. Portal has a great story, which I won’t spoil too much aside from the premise: You wake up in a “testing facility” which appears to have been suddenly and chaotically abandoned. Your only companion is a sentient computer that has awakened you for a testing session that is designed, it becomes increasingly clear, to kill you. You have to be very clever with the Portal Gun in order to survive.

What really makes the story great, aside from clever, hilarious writing and very good voice acting, is the way the entire story is Shown and not Told. “Show Don’t Tell” is a cliche of writing workshops, and should never be regarded as an unbreakable rule (just like all rules, there are times and places where breaking it is genius) but rules like this get repeated for a reason. Portal is a monument to the power of Not Telling. You only get the information you can glean – from things the computer says, from graffiti on the walls, from frickin’ slide presentations in empty conference rooms – while surviving the murderous “tests” the computer throws at you. By the end of the game, if you’ve explored energetically and paid attention, you have a pretty good idea what’s happened.

The game’s writers could have had someone show up and explain everything to you in a nifty two-minute narration, yes. And this would have been boring, and reduced the game quite a bit – though the genius of the game’s design itself would have saved things. As a story, Portal works partly because the writers decided to rely on the intelligence of their audience and let us piece together the story from what we’re shown.

A good example of this is the way you figure out, slowly, that the Artificial Intelligence putting you through your paces is not, in fact, interested at all in your safety. At first the AI speaks to you in pleasant, programmed-sounding platitudes about test subject safety, but slowly, subtly, you detect some hostility, and by the time you get to the first test chamber that has some real, actual danger for you, you don’t believe the AI when it tells you that you won’t actually be hurt if you fail the test. This is good, solid storytelling: By this point you know the AI is not your friend, even though no one has told you and you’ve only had subtle visual and audio clues. A lesser storyteller might have had a cutscene where you witness or overhear something damning, or had the AI make a bombastic speech revealing its hatred of you, but Portal commits to the character of the AI: Insane, and possibly, on some level, unaware of its own evil intentions.

Of course, in a game storytelling is second to, you know, the game, and happily Portal is an exceptional game, that rare game that combined puzzle-solving with a visceral action interface. They are puzzles, sure, but since you (or your avatar) are the marble that has to be guided through the puzzle, there’s an exhilaration to solving the puzzles you wouldn’t get if they were on paper or mere models. When you jump into a portal from a high ledge and pop up from another portal, you soar into the air, disoriented and terrified. It’s great fun. Still, unlike most video games, if someone told me a novelization of Portal or a movie version were coming out, I might actually be interested. And that is saying something.

Moon

My handlers and minders don’t let me out much any more, due to ongoing litigations and my apparent inability to keep my pants on. As a result, I don’t get to the movies the way I did in my youth, and when I do manage a movie it’s usually a movie my wife, the sainted Duchess, wants to see. My wife is smart and pretty, but her taste in films is what scientists term atrocious. Don’t tell her I said that; I have enough bruises. For proof I offer up the simple fact that one of the last movies she made me see was Valentine’s Day. I rest my case.

Now and then, though, I am left on my own here at the Somers Bunker and allowed to rent movies on the magical televisual device in our living room. Whoever invented pay-per-view movies should be canonized immediately. Being able to press three buttons and watch a movie makes popping a DVD in seem like an immense chore. I mean, three buttons from across the room versus, what, 37 steps? No contest, mi amigos.

MoonAnyway, while The Duchess was out of town this week I rented Moon, starring Sam Rockwell. I’d heard some vague things about it but didn’t know much more than the star and premise. I really enjoyed it, mainly because it was one of the rare pure science-fiction stories you see filmed these days. Most SFnal movies are genre-mixers, really – and nothing wrong with that, as my own books fall into that category. But now and then it’s nice to watch a movie that is just SF geekery, you know? And Moon falls into that category. There are no guns, no explosions, no fancy special effects, and 4.5 characters, total. The story is not exactly a puzzle; you should figure out what’s going on pretty quickly. But it takes the refreshing approach of taking its premise seriously, exploring that premise’s implications, and seeing where that takes you, story-wise. It works really well.

One reason it works really well is because it shows you a lot and tells you very, very little. This makes sense because the character is on a mining base on the moon by himself, with just a computer and some video messages from earth for company. He only knows what he knows, dig, and what he can piece together from observation and logic. No Basil Exposition[1] shows up to explain everything, and the script very smartly avoids any Moron Lines to stress things that are perfectly obvious. For example, at one point in the film a message arrives telling the main character that a rescue team has been dispatched to effect some repairs. The photos of the rescue team are all you need to see to know they are bad news. No one needs to make a speech about it, and the character doesn’t need to find damning evidence that throws us a plot “twist”. You observe the team, you put their arrival into context of what’s happened already, and you know they’re bad news. The real fun part is, the main character makes the same calculation, but internally. When he does voice his conclusions about the “rescue team” it feels perfectly natural, because we’ve all made the same mental journey.

It’s nice to see that in the age of crap like Transformers, which, frankly, gives SF a bad name, someone out there can still raise 5 million bucks, get actors like Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey to star, and put out a smart little movie like Moon. I hear the director plans to make 2 more films set in the same general universe, though not necessarily extending Moon‘s narrative beyond this movie. I’m glad to hear it.

[1] If nothing else, Mike Myers gave us one of the most inspired character names ever.