So, yesterday I tried to get back to work. There is more to be written than I care to consider, yet consider it I must. It's what I do. The traveling-to-New-England, doing-research-in-old-libraries-and-ceme teries, seeing-things-what-I-ain't-never-seen-be fore portion of the Writer's Life is done for now. Time to return to the slog, the grind, the word to word to word chain, this office, this keypad, the unrealized worlds infinite locked inside my head. Time to write.
Yesterday, I made notes for an sf short story which I am currently calling "The Pearl Diver." It's being written for Lou Anders' anthology, Futureshocks. I'm very pleased that, post-"Riding the White Bull," I'm being asked to do sf. I'll begin the story today. I think it will require ten days. Then I move on to the beginning of The Daughter of Hounds.
Yesterday, I read another paper from the new Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, "A primitive marine gavialoid from the Paleocene of Morocco." Sometimes I think reading JVP is the most masochistic of all my masochistic endeavours. I also reread a couple of chapters of S. T. Joshi's biography of Lovecraft, including Chapter Twenty-Three, "Caring About the Civilisation (1929-1937)." I have been asked repeatedly, over the years, if I will ever write non-fantastic fiction, or, as a few tactless, narrow-minded individuals have put it, "serious fiction." These two quotes from Lovecraft's letters, adressing this very question, are better than any answer I've ever offerred:
Time, space, and natural law hold for me suggestions of intolerable bondage, and I can form no picture of emotional satisfaction which does not involve their defeat--especially the defeat of time, so that one may merge oneself with the whole historic stream and be wholly emancipated from the transient and the ephemeral. (HPL, 1930)
There is no field other than the weird in which I have any aptitude or inclination for fictional composition. Life has never interested me so much as the escape from life. (HPL, 1931)
I spent much of yesterday steeling myself to endure a whole hour of Stargate: SG-1, just so I could catch the promised preview of Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars hidden somewhere in the muck. But then, at nine o'clock, I discovered it was to be a two-hour-long episode of Stargate: SG-1, and I faltered. I just couldn't sit through that much crap, not even for a glimpse of new Farscape. So Spooky and I watched the director's cut of The Butterfly Effect instead, which was quite good and much darker than I'd expected. As I told Spooky last night, I'd moan about its similarity to Threshold, but then I'd also have to moan about the same similarity with Donnie Darko, and as Donnie Darko is plainly superior to both Threshold and The Butterfly Effect, what's the point? This Zeitgeist dren sucks. After the movie, we flipped back and forth between They Live (possibly the worst of John Carpenter's low points) on AMC and you-know-what on the SFC, trying to catch the commercial breaks on the latter and, hopefully, the Farscape preview. In the process, I saw way too many lousy special effects, too much wooden acting, heard far too much bad dialogue, and was subjected to that big guy with the funny oval thing glued to his forehead. I'd given up on actually seeing the preview, but at 12:30 Spooky switched channels again at just the right moment, and there it was. All ten or fifteen seconds of it. Three shots of Chiana, and I think she was still blind in every one of them. Wow. I may burst before October 17th (when the first half of the mini airs; the second half will air October 18th). And yes, of course I know I'm a dork.
And speaking of Farscapery and being a dork, this coming week I must finally do battle with the Eyeball Nazis to secure new contacts for Nar'eth. I think Spooky, being a greater rebel than I, is going to order hers from Britian, instead.
Yesterday, I made notes for an sf short story which I am currently calling "The Pearl Diver." It's being written for Lou Anders' anthology, Futureshocks. I'm very pleased that, post-"Riding the White Bull," I'm being asked to do sf. I'll begin the story today. I think it will require ten days. Then I move on to the beginning of The Daughter of Hounds.
Yesterday, I read another paper from the new Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, "A primitive marine gavialoid from the Paleocene of Morocco." Sometimes I think reading JVP is the most masochistic of all my masochistic endeavours. I also reread a couple of chapters of S. T. Joshi's biography of Lovecraft, including Chapter Twenty-Three, "Caring About the Civilisation (1929-1937)." I have been asked repeatedly, over the years, if I will ever write non-fantastic fiction, or, as a few tactless, narrow-minded individuals have put it, "serious fiction." These two quotes from Lovecraft's letters, adressing this very question, are better than any answer I've ever offerred:
Time, space, and natural law hold for me suggestions of intolerable bondage, and I can form no picture of emotional satisfaction which does not involve their defeat--especially the defeat of time, so that one may merge oneself with the whole historic stream and be wholly emancipated from the transient and the ephemeral. (HPL, 1930)
There is no field other than the weird in which I have any aptitude or inclination for fictional composition. Life has never interested me so much as the escape from life. (HPL, 1931)
I spent much of yesterday steeling myself to endure a whole hour of Stargate: SG-1, just so I could catch the promised preview of Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars hidden somewhere in the muck. But then, at nine o'clock, I discovered it was to be a two-hour-long episode of Stargate: SG-1, and I faltered. I just couldn't sit through that much crap, not even for a glimpse of new Farscape. So Spooky and I watched the director's cut of The Butterfly Effect instead, which was quite good and much darker than I'd expected. As I told Spooky last night, I'd moan about its similarity to Threshold, but then I'd also have to moan about the same similarity with Donnie Darko, and as Donnie Darko is plainly superior to both Threshold and The Butterfly Effect, what's the point? This Zeitgeist dren sucks. After the movie, we flipped back and forth between They Live (possibly the worst of John Carpenter's low points) on AMC and you-know-what on the SFC, trying to catch the commercial breaks on the latter and, hopefully, the Farscape preview. In the process, I saw way too many lousy special effects, too much wooden acting, heard far too much bad dialogue, and was subjected to that big guy with the funny oval thing glued to his forehead. I'd given up on actually seeing the preview, but at 12:30 Spooky switched channels again at just the right moment, and there it was. All ten or fifteen seconds of it. Three shots of Chiana, and I think she was still blind in every one of them. Wow. I may burst before October 17th (when the first half of the mini airs; the second half will air October 18th). And yes, of course I know I'm a dork.
And speaking of Farscapery and being a dork, this coming week I must finally do battle with the Eyeball Nazis to secure new contacts for Nar'eth. I think Spooky, being a greater rebel than I, is going to order hers from Britian, instead.
- Mood:
anxious - Music:Apoptygma Berzerk, "Starsign"

Comments
Threshold's actually superior to Donnie Darko. Part of me wants to put hard work into proving that to you but I guess it would probably be futile . . .
In the process, I saw way too many lousy special effects, too much wooden acting, heard far too much bad dialogue, and was subjected to that big guy with the funny oval thing glued to his forehead.
Hehe. They must've showed it twice because I caught the Farscape preview in the second commercial break. Far too little. I don't think it did much more than remind people that Farscape exists and was cancelled much too early . . .
I would welcome the attempt, but fear it would be futile.
I don't think it did much more than remind people that Farscape exists and was cancelled much too early . . .
That's a start...
All right, here goes . . .
The first thing that comes to my mind that Threshold has over Donnie Darko is that Threshold did a better job of respecting its own reality.
The most obtrusive flaw in Donnie Darko was Patrick Swayze's character--or, I should say, caricature. It's true there're plenty of magic self-help regimes in real life very much like the one pushed by Swayze's character. But the portrayal of it in Darko does not for a moment make you believe that a real person could actually be persuaded to follow it, primarily because it comes off as too ridiculous. All the characters that push it and follow it seem more like parodies of real people than actual real people, like characters from a Saturday Night Live skit. Part of the problem is that Swayze lacks real charisma, at least in this role. Compare him to the similar character played by Tom Cruise in Magnolia. Cruise's guru is more credible because he comes of like someone who doesn't take himself so seriously. Of course, he does take himself very serious but he behaves as if he really believes in his philosophy, and that everyone who shares it is in with him on a joke being played on the rest of humanity.
While Swayze's character needn't have necessarily employed precisely this same tact, he definitely needed something like it where it would be easier to see why he could capture the minds of so many people. It was essential that this thing Donnie is up against seem more menacing and complicated. The scene where Donnie speaks against Swayze at the assembly ought to work like this; in the confusing midst of the piper's lulling song, the hero stands to slice through the peace with an uncomfortable reality that, naturally, no one listens to. What we get instead is Donnie trying to reason with the three stooges. Sure, we agree with him, but there's not much point in saying so. It's almost like propaganda.
This cuts into the thrust of the whole movie as the point of the movie is that Donnie's a hero because he's different and it's horrible but inevitable--because he's a hero--that he had to die. Of course, there's another problem here because the movie doesn't make a convincing argument that Donnie couldn't have walked out of his room anyway without still being a hero. It seems more like he got distracted. I can still kind of dig the sadness at the end, but it's more senseless than I think it was meant to be. I think we were meant to see it as Donnie's sacrifice to save Gertrude and the world.
Meanwhile, Threshold is tighter. I don't think you were trying to convince the reader that any of your characters were as heroic as the makers of Donnie Darko were trying to convince us that Donnie was heroic (mind you, I don't count that as making Threshold either superior or inferior--it merely makes it different). Threshold, instead of being the conflict of characters vs. caricatures, is more characters vs. themselves, frequently by way of communication with other characters. The menace is frightening for its non-human qualities, and it works. The non-human things in Donnie Darko, like Donnie's visions before we know what they mean, act only as cool effects because Donnie's reactions to them are difficult to understand. Not always a bad thing in fiction, but it is here, as it essentially dismembers the story.
We're told something in Threshold by the unravelling of people's mindworks as they react to the mysterious strangeness. Darko tells us nothing except that Donnie is an intriguing guy.
So, I say Threshold's superior because it has more whole characters, better use of an inhuman menace, and a cute girl getting a nasty wound when she goes out barefoot (that last one could be just my predilection).
I also thought The Butterfly Effect rocked. I actually liked it a bit more than Darko ... Darko was more accomplished and maverick, but comparatively chilly. It didn't even TOUCH Threshold, but in a way, it was exploring much different emotional ground than either of the other two. Though as a novel, Threshold can branch off into back story and such, both it and Darko are relatively tightly contained narratives, about the succession of events for the characters at a specific place in their lives. The time travel/change device is a pivetal aspect, the punch line if you will. It's not the characters' chief concern for most of the story, even if it is *responsible* for those concerns unbenknownst to them, and by extension, same goes for the audience. TBE is all about a character's on-going experience with this phenomenon, exploring one version of the possibilities much more in depth. People who bitch about how the changes aren't more far-reaching, don't change the whole world, etc., are missing the point, period. That's another movie, and the filmmakers chose this one. Who's life isn't filled with pivotal moments where we look back and agonize over, "What if I'd done this/what if I could go back into that moment and.../etc." The device of having Kutchner's character "speak through" previous versions of himself was the most brilliant device, because that specifically is something I suspect many people fantasise about doing.
I didn't mean to sound very harsh. I do actually like the movie. Although I appreciate more what it wanted to be than what it ended up being.
It reminded me a bit of E.T., in a good way. Something about the dynamics of conversation in the Darko family. Just slightly odd, but completely plausible. I liked that. I was also reminded of E.T. near the end, when Donnie suddenly had a group of friends to ride bikes with him, on a mission. I liked that too.
but he does make good points, most validly as to how Threshold is better, with which I agree.
Thanks.
And I thought I had some twisted fixations. Though now you mention it, I can see the lure of the fetish ...
*Decides to stop there. Quickly*
I believe it'll be the next stage in Quentin Tarantino's evolution as an artist. And Nar'eth's already there, if not beyond it!
Huzzah, indeed!
http://www.watchfarscape.com/files/pkwa
Thank you!!!