Bryce Moore's Blog, page 246

Mr. Johnny Come Lately: The West Wing

Yes. Sometimes I just prove to the world that I'm about as out of touch as you can get, from a television perspective. I just barely started watching The West Wing. I don't know what had kept me from watching it to begin with. Maybe it was Martin Sheen, who's the father of Charlie Sheen, who I resent for Two and a Half Men, which stayed on the air when shows I loved (like Arrested Development) were getting canceled. (That said, I've never watched an episode of Two and a Half Men, so maybe I shouldn't insult it. But a sitcom has to be awfully good for me to want to put my time toward it, and I've never heard anything but bad for 2.5 Men.)



Guess what? The West Wing is a great show.



Season One is so far, at least. I guess there's a reason it won Best Drama four years in a row, and was nominated for each of its seven seasons.



What makes it excellent? It shows a behind-the-scenes look at what goes into politics these days. In many ways, it's an excellent companion piece to Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, which showed what went into politics in Lincoln's days. Guess what? Things haven't changed much. Skimming over some critiques of the show online, it appears that a fair bit of it is true to life. Idealized, yes, but representative of how things work at that level of politics. (I still take it with a grain of salt, but anytime you get Karl Rove liking a show that features a bunch of Democrats, you know there's at least something to it. It does seem to present an awfully idealized version of liberals, and thus demonize Conservatives to some extent, but what was it going to do? Present a perfectly neutral viewpoint? That wouldn't be realistic at all.)



So there's the politics, but it's more than that. The characters are well done, the plot lines are tight and interconnected well. There's plenty of tension and humor and big plot sort of stuff that just lends itself naturally to a presidential team. Aaron Sorkin did a smash job with this show.



But why am I telling all of you this? You all probably already watched the show while it was on. But maybe you're like me, and you didn't. One of the things I love most about Netflix is finding a TV show that I completely missed out on, and then watching the heck out of that show for the next month or two.



Good times.



So there you have it--that Emmy-award winning show that everyone loved like a decade ago? Turns out it's a good show. Go figure.

What Makes Horror Horrific?

Building off my post from yesterday, I've been thinking some about why horror scares us--what it is about it that makes us really frightened. Stephen King wrote a book about a killer clown. Why is it as scary as it is?



Part of the reason I'm thinking along these lines is that I'm in the midst of rewriting THE MEMORY THIEF, which I'd like to have a bit more of a horror flair. I'm not writing the next IT, mind you. But maybe something in the vein of Something Wicked This Way Comes, or The Watcher in the Woods. Even those movies are more than what I'm going for. But I'd like a decidedly creepy tone in certain areas of the book, and so I've been looking around to see what's done to bring on the Creepy.



On the surface, this should be fairly straightforward, right? I mean, you just need to describe gruesome bloody awful scary things. But I don't think that's what truly scares us--despite what a lot of modern horror movies these days seem to think. You can't just slap up a bunch of gore on the screen or across the page and get everyone really scared.



Some of it is setting the stage. I think what's really scary--to me, at least--is something that somehow connects to me personally. Make it something that will almost certainly never happen to me, and I can't really be scared. I can build a barrier between me and the thing I'm seeing or reading--disconnect myself from it. Make it something that I could see happening to me, and things change. That's one of the reasons you see so many of the same set ups for horror movies. Haunted houses--they look perfectly normal, just like your own house. Until . . .  Or people getting lost in the woods. Getting lost at camp. Getting lost in caves. Killer toys. Curses from strangers. Step one for a successful scare is to make your audience believe it could happen to them.



(Of course, as soon as I write something like that, I inevitably start to try and think of exceptions to the rule. Rules are stupid. So let's not say these are hard and fast "rules" or "steps." They're ingredients that can be used.)



Setting the tone is important, too. On film, that means getting some tense music going. Using lots of oblique camera angles (few right angles on screen). That sort of thing. You can't do that in writing, but you can choose words carefully. A person could be "thin," or he could be "skeletal." Stuff like that. At the same time, it's important to get a lot of the details hammered down and described well. Some of this is setting the tone, some of it is connecting to the audience. All of it's important.



But there's something else I've noticed. It's not as scary until you see the characters really react to it. See how they respond. See what actions they take because of it. Again, it's important to keep things as realistic as possible. Don't have characters do stupid things in response. Don't have them react outlandishly. If you're dealing with the fantastical. the more things you can anchor in reality, the better.



Dave Wolverton taught in his creative writing class that one great approach is to start by having the character think of what scares him. Anticipate being frightened--what the worst possible thing could be for them. And then when it comes, have it be even worse than the worst possible thing they could imagine. Set your audience up for something, and then over-deliver. I think that's a really good technique.



But I wanted to throw it out to you, the readers (and watchers) of horror and the scary. What makes something scary to you? More than just chilling at the moment--what makes something stick with you days or weeks or years after? Please share. This is for posterity. :-)

In Which I Discover the Obvious: Horror is Scary

When I was about fifteen or sixteen--maybe a tad younger--I was coaxed into watching the made-for-TV movie version of IT by my cousin, Dave. It was at a sleepover, and we watched it right before going to sleep. The movie freaked me out to no extent. I mean, it's not a wonderful version of the book or anything, but it was sufficiently scary to warp my young mind to the point that months later, I still had trouble falling to sleep if an image of a clown flashed through my head by some strange happenstance. (You never know when you're going to think of clowns.) The book's all about a killer thing that takes the shape of a clown and then can pass through walls or windows or anywhere. No wonder I was freaked out.



I'm in my thirties now, though. I wear big boy pants, and I haven't wet the bed in decades. So I decided I was old enough to read the book version of that lovely tale. Why did I decide this? Because I practically worship the ground Stephen King walks on when it comes to writing, and I wanted to see how a really genuinely scary book is put together.



I don't normally like horror, truth be told. I have a fairly active imagination (hello--author), and it doesn't take much for me to be disturbed. That said, I don't seem to be able to turn away from horror movies or horror books. It's like I'm a moth, and I can't stay away from that flame. Hellraiser, Friday the Thirteenth, Nightmare on Elmstreet, Saw . . . there's a whole long list of movies I've watched against my better judgement. I'm just a sucker for punishment.



After all these years since I saw the TV version of IT, one image has stayed with me for all that time. There's a scene where the clown is lurking in the bottom of a sewer grate, and he lures a five year old boy to come close enough to the grate to . . . eat him, I guess. The clown's all friendly at first, and then he goes from zero to evil in about one millisecond. I've had that thought kicking around my head for twenty years. It still scares me.



I started reading IT at bedtime, pretty confident it wouldn't freak me out right away. The first scene of the book? That scene that's been haunting me for twenty years. Thanks, Stephen King. It took me an hour to fall asleep. And I'm still reading the book. Right before bedtime. Because horror. Honestly, sometimes I worry that there's something wrong with my head.



How about you all--anyone read the book? Seen the movie? Love horror? What did you think? Why? Please share.

Diet Update: Week Seventeen

Week seventeen has arrived, and with it came that dreaded day. The day I had to admit to you all publicly that I didn't lose any weight this week. Not only that, I gained weight. Let's get that out in the open right away. I clocked in at 190.4 this morning. That means I'm up 0.8 pounds for the week.



Some of this is due to the fact that I cheated on my diet hardcore this week. We're talking exotic cheeseburgers, bratwursts, bags of M&Ms, multiple slices of chocolate cake, soda, different varieties of potato salad, ice cream bars . . .



Yeah. All of that and more.



Why in the world did I fall off the wagon to that great an extent? One reason is that there were a couple of parties I went to this past week. A wedding and a (very tame) bachelor party. I didn't want to be That Guy at the party who just nibbled at his food. So I ate along with the best of them. And paid the price. And then there was the wedding, and I just didn't have it in me to diet for that, too.



I'm getting tired of this, people. That's what it all boils down to. I'm now officially a "normal" weight, and being on a diet is just plain no fun. I want to be able to live it up a bit now and then. The writing was on the wall last week, when I started talking about just stopping the diet at 185.



It also didn't help that I was still recovering from being sick, and I haven't felt up to exercising.



The good news is that even with all of that cheating and no exercise, I still only gained 0.8 pounds for the week. Honestly, I'm happy with how much I weigh at the moment. 190 is a fine weight. My only concern is that it's quite close to hitting 195, which would put be back in the "overweight" category. But if I could settle in here and not move any, I'd be content. Cheating as much as I did this week, and only gaining a little? I'm actually okay with that, more or less.



The question then becomes, where do I go from here? I mentioned last week that I want to have a successful transition phase, where I get used to eating a good amount of food--not too little, not too much. I want to stick with that. This weekly blog series has helped me a lot so far, and I'm not ready to give it up just yet, so I think that for the time being, I'll continue the series with the disclaimer that I'm now shooting to stay between 185 and 190. I'd like to lose a bit more weight, and then just maintain.



I plan on doing that by continuing the diet, but giving myself some cheats now and then. I anticipate losing weight, but not as quickly or as much. Hopefully next week I'm below 190 again--back in my "target zone." And we'll see how I do with all of that. I'm also committed to continuing to exercise each day. That's been a very good change for me, and I'd like to keep at it.



So it's all about building good habits for the next month or two. We'll see how it goes.



Thanks to everyone for your help and support through this thing. I've really appreciated it!

Movie Review: Man of Steel

[image error]
I went to the late showing of Man of Steel on Saturday night. These days, the movies I see in the theater are limited to movies I feel I *must* see in the theater. A new Superman reboot?



That's a must see in my book.



Historically, I've felt most Superman movies are good. Not great. But decent films. I loved the Richard Donner ones when I was growing up, but I don't think they've aged particularly well. Superman Returns was too weighed down with baggage, although there were parts of the film I really liked.



This new one is a good film, people. It's not a great film--it takes itself a tad too seriously to pull that off, and its action sequences are too long--but it's a solid summer movie, and one I recommend. I'd say it's a 3 star outing, out of 4.



First, the good. The Krypton sequences are really well done and intriguing. Acting was solid across the board. Cavill's a great Superman. Amy Adams does a good job as Lois. The effects are fantastic. I saw it in 2D, but I think it's one where 3D would have added to the experience for what it's worth. The story was intriguing and well done--but I don't want to get into it, as I'd rather keep this review spoiler-free.



The so-so: I found the narrative structure of the movie a tad . . . strange. It splices in events from the past and the present so that in essence, a lot of the movie is spent discovering Superman's history, as opposed to just having it laid out for us. Part of me liked that approach. It kept the origin story interesting. But then again, it also made for a bumpier ride, narratively. I think in the end, it was a wash.



Finally, the bad. Or rather, the not-as-good: Director Zack Snyder found a Christ Analogy hammer somewhere along the way, and he decided to start banging that hammer as hard as he could. Over. And over. You've got a whole scene with Superman talking to a priest, where they lay on the Christ imagery hard and heavy. You've got a big action sequence that starts with Superman basically looking like he's nailed to a cross.



It just felt too heavy handed to be natural. There are interesting parallels between the two stories, granted. Just don't push it so hard, Snyder. And this is coming from a pretty darned believing Christian.



Next up: the action sequences. Joss Whedon talked about how one of the issues he had with The Avengers was that all of the superheroes involved had "punchy powers." And he's right. Iron Man shoots things or punches them. Thor hammers them. Caps punches or shoots. Punch punch punch punch. The Avengers worked because the action sequences were able to put personal flairs on each fight. Make them visually distinct and interesting.



In this movie? It's all punching, all the time. And there's a lot of it. LOTS AND LOTS. By the end of the 2.5 hour movie, I'd seen a solid hour of Superman punching and being punched. Into buildings. Into mountains. Into space. Everywhere. But in the end, it's all punching. And there really wasn't much variation on it. The fighting style was the same. Punch punch punch. It got old.



This movie should have mixed it up, or taken out about a half hour of that.



And as a parting shot, I enjoyed Hans Zimmer's score, but . . . it wasn't John Williams. I think ditching the Superman theme was a mistake, and I wish it was present in the movie. But maybe I'm just a traditionalist.



I guess that makes this review seem more negative than I intended. It's just that it's easy for me to gripe about punching and Christ imagery, and hard for me to praise the pieces I liked without spoiling the movie. Bottom line: It's a Superman movie. A popcorn flick. It's fun, well done, and there are just a few big issues keeping it from completely shining. The best takeaway? I see a very good shot at a revitalized DC Comics emerging from this. I would love to have a Justice League movie . . .



Anyone else already seen this flick? What did you think?

Movie Review: The Frighteners

Imagine some of your favorite 80s and 90s adventure/sci-fi/fantasy flicks. Back to the Future. Jurassic Park. ET. Movies you just loved to death as a kid or younger person. Now what if I told you there's one you haven't seen before, but is right in the same vein? It even stars Michael J. Fox. And it's directed by Peter Jackson.



Do I have your attention yet?



Good. Because the cover to The Frighteners is just lame. I mean, it's cool from a design-standpoint, but I don't think it represents the movie well at all. It makes it look like a stock horror flick, and this is definitely a light horror comedy.



Now, first a word of caution. It's technically R. Before that turns you off, you should know this is pretty unjustified in this case. There's no nudity or anything, only light swearing (not even the obligatory F word PG13 movies usually have these days). The violence is all cartoony--Men in Black stuff or lighter.



This is not an R-rated film, whatever it might say on the box.



With that out of the way, let me give you the set up. Ghosts are real. Michael J. Fox can see them. And team up with them to con people into getting him to come and perform exorcisms. But then there's this big bad ghost who might be killing people. and it takes an unhealthy interest in Fox. Action and adventure follows.



It really was a blast of a film, and I was so pleased to discover it on Netflix instant. It's not 4 star material or anything, but it's perfect for what it tries to be. Fun. Fast. Entertaining. A very strong 3 star movie, and a perfect popcorn flick. Check it out.

My Third Grader's Special Talent: VIDEO

To celebrate completing third grade and moving on to the next school, my son's school does a third grade talent show, where students can volunteer to share their talents with the whole school. TRC was all for it. He's been attending rehearsals after school for the past month or so, excitedly looking forward to the big day. I took time off work so I could walk over and watch. The show was pretty impressive: there were piano solos, dance routines, guitar solos, poetry recitals, soccer tricks, and more.



What did TRC decide to do?



Well, how about I just show you. He's the tall one. Here's the video:







That's right. He ran into walls and fell down.



When he told me that was his plan for the talent show, I was kind of stumped. I didn't see how it was a talent. But watching him entertain the whole school this morning? It all clicked together. The kid just loves entertaining people. It was the best darn running-into-walls-and-falling-down display I've seen. :-)



Hard to believe tomorrow's his last day. Third grade, in the record books. Bring on summer.

Writing Update: GET CUPID and THE MEMORY THIEF

Good news, people! I heard back from le agents earlier this week as to a verdict on the first draft of THE MEMORY THIEF. Survey says? We are clear for lift-off. (Trying to think if I can incorporate any other mixed metaphors here. Falling short.) They had some great suggestions for improvements, of course--but overall thought it was a strong first draft.



What does that mean?



It means I've pressed the "pause" button on my rewrite of GET CUPID (which had just passed the 24,000 word mark) to turn my attention to a second draft of THE MEMORY THIEF. I'm typically against doing this sort of project juggling, mainly because I really like to keep momentum when I'm in the middle of a project. So why did I do it in this case?



First off, the GET CUPID rewrite is drastic enough that I thought it would be good to step away from it for a while. When I come back to it, I can reread what I've done and see if it's working as I think it should be. Taking time away from a project can get you some excellent perspective, and that's really vital when doing a third, fourth, or fifth draft. So that's a plus.



In addition, my agent wasn't as keen on the second draft of GET CUPID. (Hence the drastic revision.) So when faced between a choice of which project to work on, I choose the one that people liked the most. The one with the best chance of selling sooner rather than later. It ain't a hard decision.



It also helps that THE MEMORY THIEF is in pretty good shape, as far as drafts go. It's short. It's consistent, and it shouldn't take too much work to polish it up some more.



So that's what I'm doing.



Step one is to reread the whole thing myself--to remind me what the book was like and see what I think needs to be done. Once that's completed, I'll look at the feedback I've gotten to date, and then come up with a list of changes I want to make in the book. Then it's as simple as going down that list and making those changes. I think in this case, the end result will be a tad longer than the book is now. I've got 5,000 or so words to work with, and I think I'll be giving the current book a trim before adding quite a few more words, if that makes sense.



As for the reread, I've decided to do a read aloud to Denisa and TRC. We've been doing to chapters a night, and then I talk to them about things they liked or didn't like from each chapter. So far I've been surprised that the book starts off as slowly as it does. The pacing seemed pretty sluggish in big swathes of the first four chapters. Luckily, that's an easy enough fix to make. I think it comes as a result of me doing a lot of exploring when I start a new book. I end up writing more than necessary as I try to figure out who the characters are and what makes them tick. By the middle and end of the book, with that all figured out, I can get things humming and moving more quickly. This is a common problem in my first drafts, in other words--one I expected to see, but am nevertheless surprised when I notice it. (Especially in this case, where I just finished writing the book a few months ago, and I stepped away from the novel thinking it was pretty tight and zippy.) I'm always happy when I can reread a draft and feel like I'm seeing it for the first time. I really like the feedback I give on books. :-)



Anyway. That's where I am now. I think the reread will take a week or so, and then there will be a few days of figuring out the exact changes I want to make, and then the revision, which I don't imagine will last a month. You never know, of course. In this case, with the book being in as good of shape as it is, I might try to shoot for a more polished draft 2 than I normally go for. That might make sense. The less redrafting I have to do, the better.



Wish me luck!

Diet Update: Week 16

It's interesting. Back when my diet started, each update I would post about it each week got quite a few hits. People seemed interested to see how I was doing. These days? Not many hits at all. You've all stopped caring, possibly because I keep losing weight? I'm not sure. Just an observation . . .



This week was the first since the diet started that I got well and truly sick. Stuck in bed for five days straight with bronchitis. No fun whatsoever. So that's the first time in four months. Is that less than previously? Maybe. But the fact is that when I'm not sick, I still feel better on average--so even if I still end up getting sick as often as I used to, it'll be a net gain, since I feel better the rest of the time. (Though I do think I'm getting sick less. This last bout was just really nasty and no fun. It happens.)



When I'm sick, I like to eat. Comfort food. I also stop exercising, because, well . . . sick. On the plus side, I don't eat as much. I just want to eat junk. It's a complex equation. What can I say? So the end result can be very fluid.



This week? I lost weight. I'm down to 189.6 pounds. Busted through that 190 mark. That means I've lost 1.4 pounds since last week--24.4 pounds total. Feels great!



Of course, I'm beginning to see some potential problems. First up is the fact that if I lose much more weight, none of my pants will fit me. They're already fairly baggy as-is. I don't like shopping, and I really don't want to have to buy all new clothes. Secondly, I think it's going to become harder and harder to convince myself that this whole "diet" thing is a good idea the more below 190 I am. My BMI is now 24.4. That's quite safely in the Normal range. My original weight loss goal was 178, so that I could bounce up to 185 and settle in there comfortably.



These days? I'm thinking of getting down to 185 and then just trying to settle in there without the need to go all the way to 178. Ideally, I need to transition to a maintenance diet and keep at it for several months so that I develop good habits. Before, I've always gotten great at dieting, and then I stopped--deciding to "be good" after that. A general "be good" doesn't last long, folks. So I think I need some sustained practice at what "be good" means--and then I need to stick to that. Why force myself to go to 178 (and need to buy more clothes) if I just stop at 185 and actually stay there?



I don't think I'm weaseling out of the diet. If I get to 185, that'll be 29 pounds lost. Maybe I'll shoot for 184, just to make it an even 30. We'll see.



In any case, another successful week. Onward and downward!

Book Review: The Lies of Locke Lamora

The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



I don't know how I missed out on this book when it came out a few years ago. I love me a good heist plot, and an epic fantasy setting to boot? What's not to like? (Warning for some: the language. It's R-rated, which is probably enough to cross the book off some people's lists.)



Maybe some of what turned me off was the title, as stupid as that might sound. It made me think it was some romantic tale about a place in Scotland. Yes, that's how my mind works. In actuality, Locke Lamora is the main character's name. He lies a lot. 'Nuff said.



As with most heist plots, it's really best if you don't know much going into the plot. There are twists, there are turns, there are fun characters, there are bad guys. What made this book stand out particularly for me? For one thing, the world it takes place in is very fully-realized. Setting details were just fantastic, and it had a sense of history throughout the novel that helped give it that extra oomph. The bulk of the novel takes place in a city with a rather elaborate underworld. The city itself was built by beings long since forgotten, and humanity is basically just using the buildings that existed when they found them. So you've got old wonders that are now used for palaces or dens of infamy. If Goodreads let me use half stars, I'd probably give this one 4.5 instead of 5 stars. Some of the magic system seemed a tad too unexplained and nebulous, but I'm willing to overlook that. (It's not like my own magic systems are terribly concrete, after all).



Lynch does a fantastic job establishing the weight of actions in this world. Consequences are very real, and this book is far from a caper, if you get my drift. It did take a little bit for me to be fully engrossed in the work, but once I was, it was a wild ride to the finish.



Highly recommended.



Anyone else out there already have a chance to check it out?




View all my reviews