I’ve Never Wanted to Make Films
No, really, I don’t want to direct. But I thought this was brilliance:
Rock on.
No, really, I don’t want to direct. But I thought this was brilliance:
Rock on.
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
Our own BlueMan from the forums owns and loves a Barnes & Noble Nook, and has supplied Avery Cates wallpapers for Nook users to enjoy:
http://www.nook-look.com/nookfiles/index/10/page:1/sort:uploaded/direction:desc
We’re like an infection, spreading awesomeness everywhere!
Aside 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.
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.
Anyway, 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.
Ah, what is it that compels me to post my amateur guitar playing/compositions? Some mysteries are probably better left unplumbed, my friends. I will say I just sort of enjoy creating these songs and the same drive that pushed me to try and get people to read my writing pushes me to post songs here. So, if you’re brave, check ’em out. And then be glad I don’t try to sing <shiver>.
The usual disclaimers: 1. I admit these are not great music; 2. I claim copyright anyway, so there; 3. No, I cannot do anything about the general quality of the mix, as I am incompetent.
Sweet Jebus, this is filled with Geek Goodness:
Damn.
Hey kids, the new issue of Brutarian is out, once again containing my column The Inner Swine Guide to Ignorance. And also too interviews with Larry Niven, Jack Ketchum, and others, plus short stories by Glen Alan Hamilton, Michael J. Varhola, and Stephen Goldsmith. Plus reviews and other columns. This might very well be the best $5 you ever spent.
From IO9.com, a nifty little article with the headline “Scientists Have Discovered Booze that Won’t Give You a Hangover“. This, naturally, catches my eye, because I am a celebrated boozehound who thinks alcohol makes everything better right up until the point where it makes everything so, so much worse. So I clicked that sucker.
And as is sadly typical when any media reports on science (or, ‘science’), the headline is a crock of shit. The super new Future Booze does indeed give you a hangover, but it can possibly give you a measurably reduced hangover (concerning severity and duration) under certain conditions. Also, it ain’t new, no one actually discovered it since it’s been sold for years now, and from what I can tell from this brief article I would rather puke blood and feel like bugs were under my skin for days with my usual brand of liquor than drink this crap, but now I am digressing.
I tweeted this link a few days ago, but here it is again: Cable TV, Summed Up. This is the problem with science, and this is why so many authors (like me!) chuck real, actual science over the side and start making up our own colorful version of science. Science is dry, it is the art of observing and measuring tiny, tiny increments of tiny, tiny things over a period of, say, centuries, and then slowly collating that information into an incrementally better idea of how things are. Science is studying oxygenated alcoholic drinks and discovering that they leave your bloodstream 20-30 minutes sooner than regular alcoholic drinks, and if drunk in quantity may prove to give you a less-horrifying hangover. Who can blame blogs and news agencies from taking that less-than-inspiring story and turning it into SUPER SCIENTISTS FROM THE FUTURE HAVE BOOZE THAT GIVES NO HANGOVER.
Of course, things never take those kinds of leaps forward. The world is boring, just like science, inching along. We invent the telephone, and ti takes us more than a century to come up with the iPhone. We invent the car, and it takes us . . . well, crap, we still haven’t come up with a practical jetpack. Part of the reason we have this dissatisfaction with the Future which leads disturbed people like me to imagine entire universes for you is because of the way these stories are presented. We’re told: Hangover-free Booze! And we get: Booze with a scientifically measurable decline in hangover misery. Now with more data points!
Is it any wonder there are revolutions and riots on a regular basis? I was all set to go burn down Hoboken when I actually read this article and discovered the truth.
Now all we need is booze that won’t harm your liver no matter how many oil-drums of it you consume on a daily basis. Of course, that will likely be the End of Jeff, but it’ll be worth it.
The Devil’s in the details, as the saying goes. I was recently contemplating the new saw that cell phones remove, like, 90% of plot devices from modern stories because so many plots, especially in horror/sci-fi stories, depend on characters being out of communication with the rest of humanity – not to mention that Internet connectivity on the move would make researching things on the fly frickin’ simple. Now, I don’t actually believe that cell phones and other new communication/information technology makes plotting difficult – there’s this thing called creativity, you see – but it’s an interesting game to play, taking any old movie that depends on isolation, miscommunication, or lack of information, drop a smart phone into it, and see how minutes you get into the plot before the movie just ends peacefully.
What it really got me thinking about, though, was the Dangers of Specificity when you’re writing. This is true for all writing, but especially true for SF/F writing, because when you’re writing about demons or zombies or aliens or time travel devices, you strive for complete realism and verisimilitude in the details of your story to ground the fantastic in the real. If your protagonist is fleeing demonic hordes, having them run into a Burger King for shelter instead of some fake, made-up fast food chain will instantly make the scene a little easier to accept by your readers. Of course, the details in the actual writing – what the place smells like, what kind of customers are there at 11PM, the music being played, the attitude of the workers behind the counter – will have a much larger impact. But pop-culture references and up-to-date cultural details will help, and they’re often a shorthand.
The problem with up-to-date references, of course, is that they age badly.
Ignoring pop-culture, which I’ve discussed before, let’s consider the simple fact that while details are your friend, they often turn evil and bite you in the writing ass. Consider the image I’ve got here: Gordon Gecko from 1987’s Wall Street. Not only did that movie star a pre-Cocaine bloat Charlie Sheen, it also apparently starred the World’s Largest Cell Phone. That’s a great detail: At the time, it conveyed to the audience Gecko’s wealth and power with a nifty detail, because in 1987 not everyone had a cell phone. They were icons of, well, wealth and power.
Today, of course, the universe has been cruel to Oliver Stone and Gecko’s huge, bulky cell phone is so amusing to us it’s actually a sight gag in the trailer for Wall Street 2: Wall Streeter. No, really, check it (about 27 seconds in). That’s how details kill you. Burger King might be the perfect detail today, but what about 20 years from now? Stanley Kubrick thought TWA was going to last for centuries. The more specific you are, the more danger your story is in.
On the other hand, I’ve read stories and novels from 100 years ago that still work just fine because they lack that sort of specificity. You can read a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald and despite the fact that it was published in 1922 or so, it reads just fine, because his details are elastic. There are automobiles, telephones, airplanes – but no specific models or types. Yes, it’s still a bit dated, but as a whole it will work just fine. Or take a current story like Avatar: Not the greatest story ever told by a long shot, and way, wayyyy over overrated, but one thing it has going for it is a complete lack of specificity. Not within its own universe, which is realized with a great amount of detail, but concerning the world from which the story springs – namely a future-earth. We get absolutely nothing about things at home from this movie. No corporate shout-outs, no technological/cultural changes. Nothing. It’s a blank slate and thus the story lives entirely, purely within the alien landscape constructed for it, and as a result as long as we’re not sending Space Marines to fight corporate wars against blue-skinned natives on foreign planets, the movie will remain firmly science-fictional. The lack of grounding details works well for it. There’s no big TWA logo anywhere to distract future audiences from the story.
Well, the world is dumping what appears to be six hundred feet of snow on my house right now, so I have to wrap this up and go outside to move tons of crystallized water from my sidewalk. Wish me luck. The longer I live in the northeast USA the more certain I am that my demise will come after drinking four Hot Toddies and then shoveling snow for an hour.