[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

Because I am a nerd — no, really — every time I watch Monsters, Inc. I think about the biology and physiology of its monsters. As in, I very strongly believe that all the different monsters in the film are the same species, rather than separate species of monsters who have all decided to live together in harmony (a la Zootopia). I hypothesize the monster DNA does not strongly code for morphology, and so you get this wide range of body shapes, limb numbers, squish levels, etc, and just because the parents look one way doesn’t mean their offspring look similarly. You never know what you’re going to get until it comes out. So, like apples and dogs, every monster, as a phenotype, is a complete surprise.

Have I thought about this too much? Yes. Yes, I have. But if I have, it’s because Monsters, Inc. has encouraged me to do so. The filmmakers at Pixar, whose fourth film this was, went out of their way to build out a monster world so detailed and complete, and so full of little grace notes, details and Easter eggs, that one can’t help but follow their lead and build it out a little more in one’s head. Thus, the intriguing nature of monster DNA, and how it is (in my head canon, anyway) why you see so many weird and wonderful monster designs in this film.

The story you will know, especially if you were a kid at any point in the 21st century (or had a kid at any point in this time). The monsters under your bed exist, and they are using you for responsible renewable energy! Turns out that the screams of children are an extremely efficient source of clean power (this is not explained, nor should it be). The monster world has become equally efficient at scaring the ever-living crap out of kids, through a corps of professional scarers, who lurk and roar and flash their teeth and fangs and what have you. These scarers are not just municipal workers but the sports stars of the monster world, with other monsters having posters and trading cards of them.

This premise, I will note, could be played for absolute “R”-rated terror, and has been, several times — not necessarily an entire power plant apparatus, but surely the idea of horrifying creatures feeding off the fear of children. But as we all know, life is easy, comedy is hard. The real expert mode is taking this terrifying premise and wringing laughs out of it.

Monsters, Inc. does it by, essentially, being a workplace comedy. The monsters aren’t monsters when they’re off the clock — well, they are monsters, but they’re not scary. They’re just getting through their day like everyone else. Our two protagonists, James P. Sullivan (John Goodman) and Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) are your typical Mutt n’ Jeff pairing and workplace partners; Sully, who is big and blue and can roar with the best of them, is a champion scarer, and Mike is his sidekick and support staff, keeping him in shape and making sure they meet their scare quota and then some. Mike and Sully have great chemistry and it’s easy to overlook that they’re the reason you have to put a pee sheet on your kid’s bed.

The film also flips the script: Yes, the monsters’ job is to scare kids, but the fact is, the monsters are flat-out terrified of children — like a toxic game of tag, if one of the kids touches you, you could die. Even a sock brought back into the monster world is cause for a biological detoxification regimen not seen this side of a chemical spill. So naturally a toddler named Boo slips into the monster world and follows Mike and Sully home, and from there — well, things get squirrely. There is also some workplace espionage, and a subplot with Mike trying to get a girlfriend, and tales of energy extraction gone too far, but you hopefully get the point, which is that the filmmakers decided that the terror aspects of the film were the least interesting things to follow up on.

I love all of this. Also, it shouldn’t be a surprise — this is a Pixar film, and it is rated “G,” so the chance that this movie would go Full Thing were never exactly high to begin with. But anyone who has ever read my work knows that what I’m fascinated with is the mundane in the fantastic. Yes, it’s nice you’re a James Bond villain, but how are you making that work financially and logistically? Sure, there are 300-foot monsters that stomp about, but what is their actual ecology? And so on and so forth. It’s no great trick to make a monster. It is a trick to make a monster city where there is a logical reason for monsters to do what they’re famous for doing, and where doing that thing leads to very human complications.

The folks at Pixar are with me on this, overengineering their monster city with gags and bits and sly asides (the fanciest restaurant in town called Harryhausen’s? Chef’s kiss. The tribute to the Chuck Jones – Michael Maltese classic animated short “Feed the Kitty”? Two chef’s kisses! Two!), and giving us characters whose monstrous nature is a source of comedy. Having Sully voiced by John Goodman, an Actual Human Teddy Bear, is inspired, especially for his scenes with Boo. Meanwhile, Mike Wazowski is a literal ball of anxiety, and Billy Crystal has never been better cast. I would watch an entire movie of Mike and Sully just riffing, a fact which informs Monsters University, the movie’s sequel (well, prequel), which is not as good as the original but that hardly matters because we get more time with these two.

Monsters, Inc., is probably no one’s pick for the best film Pixar has ever made (that’s probably Toy Story 2, maybe Wall-E, with Coco being the dark horse candidate), but as I noted before, this series isn’t about the best movies, it’s about the movies I can settle in and rewatch over and over. Of all the Pixar films, Monsters, Inc., is this for me. You probably won’t weep watching this, like you might with those other Pixar films I mentioned. This one is thoroughly low-stakes. But low stakes is okay! I love looking at it, and keep wanting to be able to look around corners and go into shops and see how all the monsters are going ahead and living their lives.

There’s a whole world here I want to explore, and many things I want to speculate about. I want to tell the monsters my theory about their DNA. I’m sure that will go over super well.

— JS

james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
[personal profile] james_davis_nicoll


An all-new Bundle featuring the Old Gods of Appalachia Roleplaying Game, the tabletop game of eldritch horror from Monte Cook Games based on Steve Shell and Cam Collins' Old Gods of Appalachia anthology podcast.

Bundle of Holding: Old Gods of Appalachia

In the bleak midwinter - parakeets!

Dec. 23rd, 2025 03:57 pm
oursin: hedgehog in santa hat saying bah humbug (Default)
[personal profile] oursin

Had not been seeing these lately, but over the past few days have been spotting several out of the back windows.

Which is one cheering thing among various niggles and peeves -

Yesterday I was informed that my order from Boots was being delivered, and then got two texts saying they had tried to deliver it but no-one answered. WOT. There was somebody here all the time.

Also a text that my other package (fresh yeast via eBay) had been delivered (this comes through the letterbox) - no sign of this so presume it has gone to the wrong door, and so far nobody has come round to pop it through ours.*

However, at least the Boots parcel turned up today: address label had street number blurred so reasons for mistaking, usual postperson recognised name, possibly yesterday was a seasonal worker?

Other annoyance: Kobo ereader running very sluggish - though this does not seem to apply across all books, which is weird?? Anyway, I connected to wifi in order to update the software, as possibly bearing on the matter, and dash it, it synced a whole load of things I had already downloaded and I have been obliged to clean up the duplicates.

I am, though, grateful that Christmas grocery orders have been nothing missing and no substitutions except for 1 thing which was not at all critical. Also oops, the pudding I ordered was rather smaller than I anticipated, but I feel one can have too much Xmas pud, and there are mince pies, brandy butter, etc.

In further happy news, the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been saved from oil drilling.

^ETA: somebody from 2 doors down brought it round this evening. The address on the package was perfectly clear.

27

Dec. 23rd, 2025 02:19 pm
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

We have a tradition on Athena’s birthday that we would wake her up with a cake and candles, going back to the days when she had no idea when her birthday was, so it would be a total surprise to her. This year there was a complication to that tradition: she has her own house now. That said, the house is only about a mile from ours, and it was hinted that early morning cake would not be looked amiss, so, yet again the tradition was upheld. I can’t say how long this will go on, but we’ll enjoy it while it does.

Also a tradition: Me saying here how great I think my kid is, and how of all the kids I could have been a parent of, she’s the best of all possible kids for me. This continues to be true! I know she has a lot of cool stuff planned for 2026 and I’m glad to get to be part of some of them. In the meantime: She’s great and I love her. If you want to wish her a happy birthday in the comments, that would be swell.

— JS

[syndicated profile] aqueductpress_feed

Posted by Timmi Duchamp


 

Reading Pleasures of 2025

by Gwynne Garfinkle

 

 

 


Charlie Jane Anders, Lessons in Magic and Disaster. Jamie, a trans witch and grad student, teaches her mother Serena to do magic, in the hope it will help her move on from years of grieving her late wife, Jamie's other mom. But while Serena readily takes to witchcraft, this disrupts Jamie's life in ways she never could have imagined. The novel interweaves Jamie's present-day narrative with the story of her mothers, starting in the 1990s, along with (fictional) excerpts from the 18th-century English literature that is the subject of her dissertation. (As a long-time fan of Dale Spender's Mothers of the Novel, I loved this novel's celebration of 18th-century women writers.) Anders' writing is brilliant, quirky, and full of heart.

 

John Wiswell, Wearing the Lion. This deft, profoundly empathetic retelling of the labors of Heracles is by turns delightful and devastating. Good-natured Heracles is clueless that his adored Auntie Hera can't stand him (because he's a reminder of Zeus's philandering). Her lashing out inadvertently leads to the death of Heracles's children, and Hera sends him on quest after quest in an attempt to hide her guilt. What follows is a wonderful tale of found family and lovable monsters, including an affable hydra and a lion named Purrseus. I kept wanting to give Heracles a hug. (The audiobook, narrated by Elizabeth Klett and Christian Black, is superb.)

 


Nisi Shawl, The Day and Night Books of Mardou Fox (2024). As a one-time Kerouac nerd, I was eager to read this speculative novella inspired by Alene Lee, the Black writer Kerouac used as the basis for the character of Mardou in The Subterraneans. Shawl centers Mardou's voice by telling her story in journal entries. In one passage, Mardou recounts how Leo (Kerouac) sent a story of hers to his publisher without her permission, and, even worse, "added his own ending. A collaboration, he called it." Mardou's mystical experiences add another dimension to this unique book.

 

Amal El-Mohtar, The River Has Roots. An exquisite tale about sisterly love and the magic of music, based on the murder ballad "The Cruel Sister." Contemporary stories about faerie are often not my jam, but this one enchanted me. The hardcover edition is gorgeous, with illustrations by Kathleen Neeley.

 

Sarah Gailey, Spread Me. This wild ride of a novella is a queer, erotic take on The Thing, replete with unsettling body horror. Very weird, tense, and riveting.

 

 


 

Rachel Harrison, Play Nice. When Clio's estranged mother Alex dies, Clio decides to renovate her childhood home, which Alex claimed to be haunted. In the process, Clio unearths buried family secrets, as well as the truth about the entity living in the house. More ambitious in structure than Harrison's previous works, this novel includes sections from Alex's paranormal tell-all book about her side of the story.

 

Paul Tremblay, Another. A preteen artist with an anxiety disorder is gradually replaced by a doppelganger, and his parents don't seem to notice or care. Tremblay's first foray into middle-grade fiction is creepy and genuinely upsetting, but it's also a heartwarming paean to the power of making art.

 

Chris Kraus, The Four Spent the Day Together. This compulsively readable novel blends autofiction and true crime reportage, amplifying both stories in the process. Kraus's exploration of class, social media, and addiction sometimes makes for an uncomfortable read, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about this book.

 

Marian Engel, Bear (1976). My favorite backlist discovery of the year. When I saw its lurid mass-market paperback cover on Bluesky--an erotic novel about a woman and a bear?!--I was not expecting this quiet masterpiece (which won the Governor General's Literary Award). I really must read more by Engel.


 

Sienna Tristen, Hortus Animarum: A New Herbal for the Queer Heart (2022). These prose poems are so full of sonic lusciousness, I couldn't stop highlighting phrases in the ebook. From "white bindweed": "I am sick to my mallowbee stomach with watching them try & control you for oh how I cherish my nosenudge in the throat of your corolla, oh how I treasure the ephemeral scent of your rarefied afternoon high--oh how I love a thing that flourishes best in disturbed earth." (Hat tip to Mary Soon Lee, who chose this chapbook for SFWA's poetry book club.)

 


Maggie Nelson, Pathemata, Or, The Story of My Mouth. I've been dealing with jaw dysfunction for years, so I was curious about this account of Nelson's efforts to find a cure for hers. Melding everyday life and dreams, this lyrical work is a meditation on pain and the desperation to find relief. Nelson discusses in rueful detail the quack treatments she contemplates against her better judgment. She writes: "Sometimes I wonder what I would have thought about all these years, if I hadn’t spent so much time thinking about the pain. Then I remember that I’ve thought about a lot of other things as well. Also, I'm not sure the goal of life is to think about as many things as possible." This year Nelson also published the slim volume The Slicks: On Sylvia Plath and Taylor Swift, an incisive study of ambition, fame, misogyny, poetry, and pop culture.

 

Chloe Caldwell, Trying. Like Pathemata, this memoir uses a specific medical issue (infertility) as a jumping-off point for an unpredictable journey. Halfway through the book, which Caldwell wrote in real time, her marriage crashes and burns, and her life (and the book) opens up as she reclaims her queer identity.

 

Eleanor Johnson, Scream With Me: Horror Films and the Rise of American Feminism (1968-1980). This study of domestic horror would have benefited from a more intersectional analysis. Still, Johnson's discussion of the status of reproductive rights, laws against marital rape and domestic abuse, and the Equal Rights Amendment when films like Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, and The Stepford Wives were released is illuminating.


 

Becky Siegel Spratford (editor), Why I Love Horror: Essays on Horror Literature. This wide-ranging collection includes personal essays by such horror luminaries as Tananarive Due, Stephen Graham Jones, Victor LaValle, Gabino Iglesias, and Alma Katsu.

 

Patti Smith, Bread of Angels. I'm currently savoring Patti Smith's latest memoir, a life-spanning self-portrait of the artist, in prose both gritty and luminous. Smith is a national treasure; in these tough times, I'm grateful for her enduring voice.

 



Gwynne Garfinkle lives in Los Angeles. She is the author of a novel, Can't Find My Way Home (2022), and two collections, Singing, Singing (2024) and People Change (2018), all published by Aqueduct Press. Her fiction and poetry have appeared in such publications as Strange Horizons, Fantasy, Uncanny, Escape Pod, Apex, Penumbric, and Not One of Us.

 

 

james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
[personal profile] james_davis_nicoll


In honour of Blish's Prometheus nomination, Blish and Knight's classic fascist utopia!

A Torrent of Faces by James Blish & Norman L. Knight
[syndicated profile] file770_feed

Posted by Mike Glyer

Justin T. O’Conor Sloane, Editor-in-Chief, Starship Sloane Publishing Company, Inc., says – I like partridges in pear trees just fine, but I think this science fiction rendition of “The Twelve Days of Christmas” helps to address the scarcity of science … Continue reading

(no subject)

Dec. 23rd, 2025 09:56 am
oursin: hedgehog in santa hat saying bah humbug (Default)
[personal profile] oursin
Happy birthday, [personal profile] cassandre!

I forgot about one other thing.

Dec. 23rd, 2025 12:50 am
[syndicated profile] plaidder_tumblr_feed

plaidadder:

The Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude Book Club: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

From time to time I may post about the ways in which Wake Up, Dead Man interacts with some of the classic mysteries listed on the Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude book club syllabus. The book club list is certainly a clue, but it’s also a bit of a red herring. Not all of the mysteries on this list play a major role in the film, and some of the mysteries that I think this film is most engaged with are not on this list. It’s not like nobody else has noticed these borrowings, but it amuses me to talk about them. We’ll start with one of the most obvious: Agatha Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

Spoilers for both Wake Up Dead Man and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd follow.

Keep reading

I forgot about one other thing.

The moment Dr. Nat came up to the alcove saying, “Don’t touch anything,” and pushed Father Jud aside to get to the body…the MRA veteran cannot help but be reminded of the phone call that Dr. Sheppard fakes in order to be the first to get to the crime scene so that he can push the dictaphone out of the way before anyone else sees it. So I was thinking, hm, what is he trying to hide here. And I wasn’t that surprised to find out that Dr. Nat was the one who really stabbed him.

[syndicated profile] plaidder_tumblr_feed

From time to time I may post about the ways in which Wake Up, Dead Man interacts with some of the classic mysteries listed on the Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude book club syllabus. The book club list is certainly a clue, but it’s also a bit of a red herring. Not all of the mysteries on this list play a major role in the film, and some of the mysteries that I think this film is most engaged with are not on this list. It’s not like nobody else has noticed these borrowings, but it amuses me to talk about them. We’ll start with one of the most obvious: Agatha Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

Spoilers for both Wake Up Dead Man and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd follow.

So. The thing that really elevates The Murder of Roger Ackroyd above typical clue-puzzle mysteries (including many of Christie’s own) is what this novel does with narration and point of view. The book is narrated by Dr. Sheppard, a close friend of the deceased Roger Ackroyd and the town doctor of King’s Pyland. He has a sister named Caroline who was an early protoype for Christie’s Miss Marple. There’s a point close to the end of the novel, after Poirot has already revealed a lot of the information he’s uncovered, where Dr. Sheppard mentions to Poirot that he’s been writing about the case–inspired, he says, in part by the novels published by Poirot’s original sidekick/narrator Hastings. Poirot says, fabulous! Let me read it. Dr. Sheppard, flattered by Poirot’s interest, hands the detective his manuscript–which is exactly the same book that we’ve been reading. Poirot reads the same book we just read. And it confirms for him something he already suspected, and which we are soon going to be kicking ourselves for not having figured out: Dr. Sheppard is the murderer.

So The Murder of Roger Ackroyd isn’t just about who killed Roger Ackroyd; it’s about how murder mysteries work and, by extension, how reading works. After finishing a clue-puzzle novel, unless we guessed right, we end up feeling stupid for not having been able to figure out who the killer was. But in fact, MRA shows us exactly why we can’t solve the mystery the way the detective does. We are unable to get outside of Sheppard’s perspective; we can only see what he wants us to see, and pay attention to what he points us toward. We trust him–and not just because Sheppard and Poirot are explicitly presented to us as a doctor/detective team that replicates the Holmes/Watson partnership (and the Poirot/Hastings partnership, which itself is introduced in Mysterious Affair at Styles as a replication of the Holmes/Watson partnership, though tragically Hastings initially believes that he’s the Holmes in that team). We trust Sheppard because you have to trust the narrator to some extent in order to read any narrated story.

Yes. There are unreliable narrators. But even unreliable narrators have to give you a basic fact pattern that you can trust, or else the story becomes meaningless. An unreliable narrator usually tips you off about the fact that he’s unreliable; and in a book with an unreliable narrator, the author will usually offer you indirect access to a different perspective on that fact pattern. For instance, the narrator of Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived in the Castle is very unreliable when it comes to her self-presentation and in her worldview, but she does not tell the reader about things that didn’t happen or deny things that did. To be a paranoid enough reader to spot Dr. Sheppard as the killer, you’d have to spend so much time challenging everything he says that you’d never make it through the novel. Poirot knows Sheppard is the killer partly because of investigations that we haven’t seen him do–because obviously he’s concealing his true motives and actions from Sheppard, who he knows is the killer.

Anyway. So the fact that Wake Up Dead Man starts with Blanc reading Father Jud’s narrative about the Good Friday Murder immediately puts you on notice, if you’ve already read MRA. We’re primed to be suspicious of Father Jud’s voiceover narration, even more so when we discover that MRA is on the reading list AND that Blanc (who’s definitely read MRA) is the one who talked Father Jud into writing the narrative. But at the same time, Father Jud’s naration generates so much affection and sympathy for him as a character that we just can’t be as suspicious of him as we know we should be. So during the first section of the film, if you know MRA, you feel like I know this trick but I am still falling for it. And then when Blanc comes out after having read it and says, “Why’d you do it?” you have that moment of “oh fuck, it really WAS him all along”–until you realize it’s way too early in the film’s running time. And I like how Johnson doesn’t try to prolong that moment. He knows it can only be temporary. He knows we know he’s not going to reveal the killer that early.

I would put the casting of Andrew Scott in this film in kind of the same category of meta-red-herrings. If you know Scott from either Sherlock or Fleabag, then you have to expect that he’s going to play a major role in this film. Surprise, he’s a minor character who’s certainly weird and very funny but definitely not an Andrew Scott Character. But I digress.

Part of what MRA was trying to tell everyone is that there is really no such thing as “fair play”–and that readers don’t really want that anyway. What they want is the *illusion* of fair play–the belief that they *could* solve the case independently of the detective. But we can’t. We can guess, and if you read enough clue-puzzle mysteries, law of averages says sometimes we’ll be right. But we’re never *really* playing along–because we can’t really see the story world the way the detective sees it. Even if he is narrating.

I’m just gonna say…

Dec. 22nd, 2025 06:13 pm
[syndicated profile] plaidder_tumblr_feed

…I don’t even go here but it is REALLY funny now that “Heated Rivalry” is on TV to watch the normies try to wrap their heads around the phenomenon of women being into m/m.

“Why are middle-aged straight women so into ‘Heated Rivalry’?” asks some fucking thinkpiece.

The Good Omens Nativity

Dec. 22nd, 2025 09:05 am
[syndicated profile] plaidder_tumblr_feed

plaidadder:

plaidadder:

So, Good Omens the novel basically leaves out Jesus entirely. The TV adaptation includes a scene where Aziraphale and Crowley witness the crucifixion and briefly discuss how it got to this point. The temptation in the desert is referenced, but that’s all.

I understand and 100% concur with Gaiman’s decision not to really Go There. It would throw up barriers for viewers who aren’t Christian (or aren’t *still* Christian) while inevitably offending a significant number of viewers who are.

Nevertheless, my brain keeps asking me the question: what if Aziraphale was involved in the Nativity, the way Crowley got dragged into the Antichrist’s birth, because he was Heaven’s agent in the field? And what if, like the birth of the Adversary, it was…kind of a shitshow?

GABRIEL: Hey, Aziraphale, you know how these human things work. I’m supposed to go tell this woman she’s going to have a baby with the Holy Spirit. The Almighty suggested I ask you about how to break it to her. Got any pointers?

AZIRAPHALE: Uh…try to be kind?

GABRIEL: (checking his phone) Kind, got it.

AZIRAPHALE: And…and…I mean to say, that is, perhaps *explain* to her what the plan is, before you ask her to–

GABRIEL: ASK her?

AZIRAPHALE: Well…this is going to change…well, I mean everything, and it’s… it’s customary…to ask.

GABRIEL: OK. Be kind, explain, ask. Got it.

AZIRAPHALE: And be gentle! Reveal yourself…you know…gradually! They’re very easily frightened!

GABRIEL: (is already gone)

*****

MARY: (is minding her own business)

GABRIEL: (crashes through ceiling with full wingspan, halo, divine radiance) HAIL MARY FAVORED AMONG WOMEN!

MARY: AAAAAAAAAAAAGH

********

GABRIEL: Hey Aziraphale, can you let the humans know their Savior is being born tonight?

AZIRAPHALE: Is he really? How lovely! I’ll get started straightaway.

AZIRAPHALE: (disguises himself as a shepherd, goes out into the fields by night, low key starts talking to other shepherds about this family that just arrived in Bethlehem but they couldn’t find a hotel room and now they’re in a stable and the wife is having a rather special baby and wouldn’t it be lovely to go see them and maybe bring them something to eat)

GABRIEL: (watching from on high) Hurry up, you nitwit, she’s already fully dilated, they’re gonna miss it

AZIRAPHALE: What’s so special about THIS baby? Well, you see, that’s quite an intriguing question. How well up are you in your Isaiah?

GABRIEL: Fuck it. We’re going in.

SUDDEN MULTITUDE OF THE HEAVENLY HOST: GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST AND PEACE ON EARTH AMONG–

SHEPHERDS: AAAAAAAGH!!!

AZIRAPHALE: Oh for Heaven’s sake–

SHEPHERDS: RUN! RUUUUUNNNN!!!!

GABRIEL: (flying after them) BE NOT AFRAID!!!

LOCAL SNAKE: Well, that went down like a–

AZIRAPHALE: Oh hush.

Further headcanons :

* Gabriel is so embarrassed by the whole thing he asks Aziraphale to memory-wipe everyone who witnessed this debacle

* Crowley was there, though, and nothing’s wrong with HIS memory

* Decades later, Luke is running around collecting stories about Jesus. Crowley lures Aziraphale to a bar, gets him drunk, then introduces him to Luke.

* Aziraphale spills the whole story while Crowley gazes at him soulfully and Luke scribbles away 

* Over the next millennium or so, Crowley dedicates significant time to ensuring that Luke’s version of the Nativity is the only one ever represented in popular culture

* Gabriel blames Aziraphale

Cards! (Emergency printmaking)

Dec. 22nd, 2025 10:49 pm
radiantfracture: Beadwork bunny head (Default)
[personal profile] radiantfracture
Thank you, [personal profile] james for the excellent dinosaur card!

I've been too exhausted to do any of the semi-bespoke painting I half-promised over the summer, but I had a last-minute compulsion to make hand-printed cards because anything that looks like work went into it makes me appear marginally better.

You see? the cards say. An Effort.

I don't mind how they turned out. Sort of "the Dove of Peace is pissed and wants you to get your shit together."



§rf§
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

So, a story. More than a decade ago, I was having lunch with Tom Hanks, because he read my work and was a fan, and since I was in town on tour, he asked if he could meet me and I said, sure (actually, what was said, to me from my manager as I was getting off a plane at LAX, was, “You’re going to the Chateau Marmont. You’re having lunch with Tom Hanks. Don’t fuck this up”).

Tom Hanks was lovely, the lunch was lovely, and when it was done, as he was waiting for the valet to retrieve his car, some absolutely random dude came up, pulled out a binder, and started pitching a movie idea to Tom Hanks. And Tom Hanks, because he is Tom Hanks, for all the values of being Tom Hanks that there are in this world, stood there being lovely and polite and endured this random person posting up in his space and trying to make him take a meeting.

I relate this anecdote not to impress you that I once had lunch with a famous person, but to make the point that famous people really are not like you and me, and more often than not, that’s because the world will not let them be people like you and me. People like you and me don’t get pitched business proposals waiting for our car. People like you and me are allowed not to be “on” when we step outside our door and into the world. People like you and me can go shopping at any random Safeway we want and not cause a scene simply by existing. People like you and me get to be people, and not celebrities all the time. Yes, celebrities get fame, and sometimes fortune, and occasionally nifty free goodie bags at award shows worth more than most households in the US make in a year. But it does come at a cost, which is, the ability to just be your own fucking self, at the times and places of your own choosing, and not have anyone who might recognize you wield veto power over that.

Notting Hill, in addition to being just a lovely little romantic comedy about two people from entirely mismatched stations in life, trying to negotiate a space in the world they might get to call their own, is one of the best films out there showing at least a little bit of what it’s like to be famous to everyone, everywhere, all the time, forever and ever, amen. The person in the film cursed with such a blessing is Anna Scott (Julia Roberts, who was in fact the most famous actress in the world at the time, so, typecasting), who has the sort of worldwide fame that means that every single thing she says, any thing she does, who she might date or who she might have a feud with, equals miles and miles of newsprint across six separate continents, and probably at least an email or two in Antarctica.

One day, while in London doing publicity for her latest film, she wanders into a Notting Hill travel bookshop owned by one William Thacker, who is meant to be a self-effacing everyman but who is played by Hugh Grant, also at the height of his fame at the time, so at least the self-effacing part is there. William tries to be helpful to Anna as she browses, and she is having none of it, because she knows he knows who she is and thus her shields are up. Then later in the street there is an incident with an orange drink, William offers his flat, directly across the street, as a place for Anna to clean up, and the first spark is lit.

To say that there are going to be complications because Anna is famous on a level that is nearly beyond comprehension is not a spoiler; likewise that there will be complications because William underestimates, more than once, what a burden being that level of famous can be and how it can warp and distort friendships and relationships, even as the people involved try to compensate for them. Any relationship is hard, but being with a celebrity is like being in a throuple where the third partner is fame. And fame, well, it’s a fickle, fickle beast.

Nevertheless, it’s a delight to see everyone in the film give it a go. The film is scene after scene of either William trying to comprehend all of the everything that comes with the girl he likes being The Most Famous Person In The World, or Anna trying to be a normal person and not quite being able to do it because no matter what she does, her celebrity hangs all about her. This leads to delightful scenes like William trying to meet up with Anna at her request and unwittingly being dragooned into a press junket (a scene which I, as a former film writer who had been to dozens of such junkets, found deeply hilarious), or, one of my favorites, William taking Anna to his sister’s birthday party without telling a single one of his friends who the “new girl” he’s dating is, and watching them deal with it, with varying shades of success.

The dinner party scene is actually the heart of the film because it does so many things at once: It establishes Anna’s level of fame while at the same time giving her a little bit of time to escape it and be off the clock. It gives context to William by showing his friends and relations, and lets them all have the easy back and forth that comes from a lifetime of knowing each other. It also shows Anna watching it all, and, while not envying it, still noticing it and being able to compare it to her relatively lonely life.

And it shows that everyone in this scene is kind, and that others are noticing this kindness. This is the scene where we stop enjoying the utter mismatch of William and Anna, and start hoping the mismatch doesn’t keep them apart. Lord knows the film gives the two of them plenty of opportunities to mess things up, and they manage to do just that at least a couple of times.

Roger Michell directed Notting Hill, but it takes nothing from him and his skill as a director here to note this film is primarily a Richard Curtis film. Curtis is probably the most successful writer of British film comedy in the last 40 years, and most of these comedies have some sort of romantic bent. In addition to this film he wrote Four Weddings and Funeral (the film which made Hugh Grant a star, and which got Curtis his sole Oscar nomination), Love Actually, which he also directed, and two of the three Bridget Jones films. (He also wrote the Blackadder television series, beloved by Brits and US nerds, and also The Tall Guy, which is where I first encountered him, the vaccination scene of which I ripped off wholesale for my novel The Kaiju Preservation Society. I will send you a check, Mr. Curtis).

Of all of these films, I think Notting Hill shows Curtis at the height of his screenwriting powers. It’s extremely funny, which is great (especially when Rhys Ifans, as William’s daft roommate, is anywhere onscreen), but it’s also empathetic. It’s hard to do a really good job of making an audience feel sympathy for someone who is so famous that by all rights all that we should feel about her is envy, but Curtis does it. It helps that by this time he had been around famous people enough to understand that celebrity is cage. Gilded, yes, and with staff who will get you everything you want and need, but still a cage. He writes a good cage.

It also helps that this role could be thinly-veiled autobiography for Julia Roberts, who at the height of her celebrity was a media presence on par with Taylor Swift, for all the good and bad that comes with that level of fame, achievement and scrutiny. In 1999, there was literally no one else who could have understood Anna Scott better than Roberts. I have to think there are some parts of this movie that had to be cathartic for her, like the scene where, after a media scandal erupts and William is caught up in it, he suggests it will all just blow over in days. Anna knows better, and so does Julia Roberts, and I think it’s pretty clear both are making the rebuttal to William’s misinformed take.

The gilded cage of celebrity life in 2025 is, if anything, more solid than it was when this film came out. Miles of newsprint have been replaced with hours of celebscrolling on Instagram and Tik Tok, where famous people have to actively manage their online personas, or cede the management of it to a mob of influencers and bored social media mavens who are not their friends, no matter how close they imagine their parasocial relationships are. More people have wide fame (there are YouTube and Tik Tok celebrities who I’ve never heard of, but millions of Gen Z and Gen Alpha people have), but it’s harder than ever to make the money that used to be associated with fame. So all a lot of these newly-famous get is a grind to stay top of mind, and a lack of privacy, and, eventually, a very profound burnout.

It doesn’t sound like a lot of fun to me. At least Notting Hill suggests that sometimes, if you’re lucky, and with the right people, you might get to slip out of that gilded cage, and, if only for a moment, be your own person again. Fame is nice. Love and community is nicer. May everyone, even the famous, get to have it.

— JS

[syndicated profile] file770_feed

Posted by Mike Glyer

(1) NO PARKING. LA Review of Books picks up Tolkien’s The Bovadium Fragments, published for the first time last month,in “Isengard in Oxford”. READERS OF J. R. R. Tolkien are used to dealing with fragments. In the half century since … Continue reading

Life and Such

Dec. 22nd, 2025 03:20 pm
lydamorehouse: (Renji 3/4ths profile)
[personal profile] lydamorehouse
Yule Log 2025
Image: Classice Yule Log with three white candles, bedecked with boughs and ornaments (surrounded by silver reindeer).

HAPPY SOLSTICE to all who celebrate. And those who don't? I hope you had a lovely Sunday all the same. 

Our Solstice was much as it is most years--a quiet, family affair. We have some traditions, the first of which is making rosettes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosette_(cookie)). I have attached the Wikipedia article if you have no idea what a rosette is--it is, in fact, a deep fried cookie. Personally, if done well, I think they taste amazing, like sugar and AIR. Because, basically, the batter is ultra, ultra thin and you use a cookie iron to to crisp up a lot of vanilla and sugar-flavored nothing. Our recipe actually comes from a class I took on Christmas cookie making several years ago, but very likely (this being Minnesota) comes by way of Norway, though possibly Sweden or Finland. 

The cookie making class is memorable because I was the youngest person in the room. I really figured that probably I'd be the oldest, since I presumed things like rosette, pizelles, krumkaka, etc., were the sorts of things that grandma would pass on and, maybe, it skipped a generation. Nope. It was me an all older ladies and on older guy who kept telling everyone that he took the class hoping to pick up a lady. (Yep, he was that old.) Anyway, me and all the older folks all had a lovely time and I was really only there for the hidden rosette knowledge because everyone agrees there is "a trick to it." 

And, there is.

The trick is making sure the irons are hot first--but also not too coated in oil. But that little layer of hot oil will, in fact, help them come off. In fact, ours often just fall off the iron into the bubbling hot oil. So, we always have to have tongs to hand.

Mason and I making rosettes 2025
Image: me patiently waiting for the bubbles to slow down the appropriate amount. Mason in the forground. Our kitchen all around and a few exampes of the cookies drying on the paper towels. The irons come in a lot of shapes--star and flower/rosette shown. Not pictured is the Christmas tree. 

We never want the rosette process to be arduous so we only make as many was we feel up to, call it good enough, and then I usually make a fun lunch like deep-fried shrimp.  We have charcuterie for our Solstice dinner meal, light our Yule log (pictured above), open presents, and then take a bit of the Yule light upstairs in a safe, insulated container and keep the light  burning for the longest night. 

I like to joke: if the sun came up on December 22, thank a pagan!



Our Solstice gifts are always books. There is a version of the Icelandic Yule Cat where the present you must recieve is not new clothing, but a book. We decided to adopt that tradition. Mason got a Terry Prachett book (and a gift certificate for Uncle Hugos) because he's been on a Pratchett kick lately; Shawn got the last and final Phil Rickman novel The Echo of Crows; and I got Bad Gays: A Homosexual History by Hew Lemmy and Ben Miller. My gift is one I asked for because I've really enjoyed their podcast by the same name. 

Also as is traditional, someone's present must include the Solstice wrench. It has been Mason for many years, now, in part, I think because we started using it to baffle a child who could very distinctly tell the shake of LEGOs. 

Solstice Wrench
You can keep your King's Cakes, we have the Solstice Wrench!!  


By chance our friend John J. sent along a bunch of other book-related presents and so we opened those at Solstice as well.


Shawn inspecting a gift
Image: Shawn inspecting a surprise gift (one of many!) from our friend.

A lovely time all around. 

So, again, I hope you all had a lovely Solstice. If not, we can all enjoy the return of longer days. More sunshine! Hooray!
[syndicated profile] file770_feed

Posted by Mike Glyer

The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA) today apologized to members for the harm resulting from a chaotic Nebula rules change earlier this week (see “SFWA Launches, Aborts LLM Tools Nebula Rule Change on Same Day”, December 19.) They … Continue reading

The Kraken Wakes?

Dec. 22nd, 2025 08:18 pm
oursin: Photograph of a spiny sea urchin (Spiny sea urchin)
[personal profile] oursin

2025 is ‘year of the octopus’ as record numbers spotted off England’s south coast:

The common or Mediterranean octopus, Octopus vulgaris, is native to UK waters but ordinarily in such small numbers it is rarely seen. A sudden increase in the population – a bloom – is caused by a combination of a mild winter followed by a warm breeding season in the spring. The ideal conditions meant that more of the larvae of the common octopus were likely to survive, said Slater, possibly in part fuelled by the large numbers of spider crabs that have also been recorded along the south coast in recent years.

(Oy! Ooo are you callin' octopus vulgaris?)

(We will just note that one of the novels by a certain Lady Anonyma featured Cornish wreckers and Sea Monsters.)

There were also

a record number of grey seals observed by the Cumbria Wildlife Trust, as well as record numbers of puffins on Skomer, an island off the coast of Wales famed for the birds.... the first Capellinia fustifera sea slug in Yorkshire, a 12mm mollusc that resembles a gnarly root vegetable and is usually found in the south-west. In addition, a variable blenny, a Mediterranean fish, was discovered off the coast of Sussex for the first time.

Rather creepier stuff to do with animals (or rather, humans doing creepy things with animals) a little less further westwards: New Forest residents unnerved by man leaving animal carcasses by churches

Bundle of Holding: DIE the RPG

Dec. 22nd, 2025 02:45 pm
james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
[personal profile] james_davis_nicoll


The DIE roleplaying game designed by the Image comic's creators, Kieron Gillen and Stephanie Hans, plus three volumes of adventures for an unbeatable bargain price!

Bundle of Holding: DIE the RPG
[syndicated profile] strangehorizons_feed

Posted by Octavia Cade

What A Fish Looks Like coverThe future Earth of Syr Hayati Beker’s What a Fish Looks Like is a complete environmental disaster. It’s an ecosystem in collapse, and the small community that gathers in and around a queer bar called Paradise has the option to stay and make the best of an increasingly ill-suited ecology, or to leave Earth on a spaceship in search of a different home.

Is there one right way to navigate apocalypse? It’s a question that’s becoming ever more relevant as we careen into our own (possibly) dystopian future. Is there a right way? Can there ever be?

This is the fundamental question of Beker’s novella, and if the question is a relatively straightforward one then the execution is not. What a Fish Looks Like is fragments strung together, a book of fairy tales that’s also a medium for two characters, Seb and Jay, to communicate about their fraught relationship, scribbling notes to each other between stories which, as the book goes on, are increasingly experimental and stylistic. If I’m perfectly honest, that experimentation doesn’t always appeal to me. The more stylistically adventurous the stories become—and I’m thinking here of the Little Red Riding Hood and the Snow Queen stories primarily—the less effectively emotive I find them. In this book, however, that varied response may well be the point. More on that later.

The title story of the collection is by far my favourite. “What a Fish Looks Like,” inspired by “Beauty and the Beast,” could equally be called “Beauty from the Beast.” The blend of science fiction and magical realism, in service of exploring the connection between the human and the nonhuman, allows a mix of wonder and grief to permeate the text. The central idea of the story is that in this limited, species-poor future—a future in which so much of the marvel that is biological diversity is gone from the world—those species can be placed in a sort of suspended animation.

This is arguably already possible, of course. Places like San Diego’s Frozen Zoo collect and store genetic material from a wide range of species in order to preserve them. As its website states, “The Frozen Zoo is genetic insurance: by banking biomaterials, we secure genetic diversity and enable a future where disappearing species are recovered, ecosystems are restored, and breakthroughs are made possible.” This already feels like a science fictional future, but “What a Fish Looks Like” takes this even further, with nonhuman DNA of extinct species being stored in individual human bodies until such a time as that species can be resurrected—an outcome unlikely to be within the host body’s lifetime.

This process, known as ghosting, is entirely voluntary. The protagonist of the story is asked, on her intake form, if she has a request for a specific species. She does not, but after the procedure is completed she is informed that she houses the genetic material of the recently extinct polar bear. This delights me, because I love polar bears. I’m absolutely fascinated by them, and my one question of this story is “Why had no one picked this species earlier?!”

In what is likely no surprise at all to any speculative reader, the protagonist slowly begins to take on the behaviour of the polar bear. Her dietary preferences change, which becomes a challenge when she starts a relationship with a man who has taken on the DNA of a harp seal—a species commonly eaten by the bear. Some of the changes are even physical, with a patch of fur appearing on the inside of her thigh.

This isn’t the first time this year I’ve read of such a thing. In The Flat Woman by Vanessa Saunders, which I reviewed for Strange Horizons a few months back, I noted how the main character of that novella also took on animal characteristics periodically—I’m thinking here, especially, of the patch of cow hair that appeared on her body. I’m sensing a trend, is what I’m saying, and I find it particularly fascinating how more and more speculative fiction tends towards transgression with regards to species boundaries—particularly when the site of the transgression is the human body.

I don’t want to get too theoretical here, but while much of “What a Fish Looks Like” is a metaphor for human relationships, it is also a considered choice, on the part of the protagonist, to become a biological refugia. That strikes me as deeply compelling, related as it is to the idea of refuge. Where might we find refuge in an apocalypse? Must we always leave to locate one? Who or what might we share that refuge with?

Implicit in these questions is the certainty that refuge will be needed. Part of that inevitability is only seen in retrospect. In the story “Playlist 4Merx In Times of Sea Levels Rising,” a student is washed out to sea when on a field trip to the beach. He dies. (Or at least, his body is never recovered, so death is assumed.) It was a rogue wave that caught and dragged him out to sea, but Jeremy’s teacher, Max, is shattered. She returns over and over to the beach, trying to connect with the mer-creature, the Merx, that lives there. Max is trying to find a way to undo what’s been done, because the guilt is eating her alive. (Note that last phrase: it will come up again soon).

Guilt is understandable: Max was the teacher; the field trip was her idea. She is responsible. She didn’t teach her students enough about the ocean. Maybe if they’d discussed rogue waves then knowledge would have made them immune, protected Jeremy from disaster. But that is responsibility in miniature, the mere responsibility of an individual. There is also what the community has made of the ocean. In this ecological horror of a future, the ocean is filled with plastic, with rubbish, and the warming waters come with increasing dangers. “Tidal Surge: A sudden ocean rise caused by climate change,” Max reads on her phone. A student writes to a local newspaper about climate change and rogue waves. Icebergs melting, rising waters, floods, drownings. The implication is clear: Human activity has made the ocean more dangerous. There’s a collective responsibility for Jeremy’s fate as well, a social choice to make the ocean deadlier than it otherwise might be.

And in that ocean, the Merx. Stories of them, always hungry. “You ate him. Didn’t you. Didn’t you?” Max screams, to the ocean, to the Merx. To herself, eaten alive, as I say, by guilt. Jeremy was swallowed, in the end, by a series of choices, both individual and collective. There is no going back. Once we create the conditions, the outcomes are inevitable. No matter the guilt, no matter the regret, there are some things that can’t be fixed.

Perhaps we want them that way.

In “Antigone, But With Spiders,” a community theatre group attempts to put on a play as a distraction for, or resistance on behalf of, a city being destroyed by out of control seasonal firestorms. There’s a lot that could be said about reflection in this story, about characters and actors and settings and relationships mirroring each other, but there’s also a reflection of another sort: “Now the world is on fire and no one can breathe. Everyone feels guilty because everyone can point to a time when they wanted this, or something like this."

It's true. We do want it.

There’s something so appealing about dystopian landscapes, about post-apocalyptic stories. Perhaps it’s the idea that survival is possible, that we are strong enough (or that we might be). Perhaps it’s the lack of choices, the idea that finally, finally, we don’t have to compromise. Life is terrible and you can do terrible things in the name of survival because that’s the way it is, that’s what everyone does. And yes, it’s romanticising disaster, it’s imagining heroics and excusing horrors—but it’s also the world we’re choosing, every day, to create. We do want this, and we show that we want it, this point of no return, by living in a way that ensures that there’ll be no return.

On the other hand, perhaps apocalypse is that one last opportunity to come together, when there’s no possible way of avoiding it anymore. Jay’s observations underline this in a scribbled note to Seb: “Funny community, always so mad at each other until there’s an apocalypse.” When there’s a fire to get people out of, when there’s sickness and not enough clean water, then priorities rearrange themselves pretty quickly. When it’s cooperate or die, most people choose to live.

Sometimes they choose to live in ways that don’t always prioritise their own well-being. The artist protagonist of “Five is the Other Shade of Red” finds themselves in a different world— an alternate universe, perhaps, where water is clean and can be drunk from a tap, where climate change doesn’t exist, where the sky isn’t orange from wildfires. In comparison to their own, the world is idyllic. Many of their friends are there, or versions of them at least. Yet all they want is to go back.

This is a speculative commonplace, albeit rather more beautifully written than usual. We’ve all read versions of this story. Dozens of versions, most likely: There’s no place like home, even if home is sometimes shit. (Even if home is, in this world, most definitely shit.) There’s something both terribly optimistic and terribly horrifying about this. Community, of course, is the reason for return. Relationships, love. That’s the upside, the reason that makes us feel better about ourselves.

Maybe we’re just too used to the shitty life and are papering over our acceptance of it with assumed nobility. Take the chance for another life, another world, or live in this one, in which the vines are strangling everything and the ecology is shot: That’s the fundamental conflict in this novella. Accept what is, no matter how impoverished it might be, or leave it behind in the hope that something else is better. Jay and Seb, one of whom chooses to stay on Earth and the other to depart on the spaceship, are on opposite sides of this equation, and their ongoing conversation throughout the book—a conversation that can be both frustrated and hurtful—was never going to have a happy ending. Not a singular happy ending, anyway. In a letter to Seb, Jay writes, “The apocalypse is like you—never a single ending: the oceans rising, the rearranging, the big wave, the one with the vines, the one with the fallings birds, the one with a million tiny fights about nothing.”

I don’t think anyone reading this book will suffer at any point from the delusion that Seb and Jay will come to share a decision: stay or go together. Their yearnings are too different, and agreement just isn’t possible. Reconciliation is, however: The ability to love someone, and to watch them navigate apocalypse and build their own refuge in a way that is so fundamentally different to your own, has value. Not everyone can or should be made to leave Earth. Not everyone is excited by Red Riding Hood and the Snow Queens and how they see the world. They don’t have to be.

We are used, when reading dystopias, to giving a lot of attention to different pathways to cruelty. Usually, someone strong gets in power and builds a system which crushes dissent. The most interesting thing about What A Fish Looks Like is that this doesn’t happen here. For all the dissension, for all the incomprehension and the hurt—because there is hurt and grief and loss—there’s very little focus on cruelty. People are trying to live in different ways, using different stories and different methods of storytelling—and that is, I think, where the resilience is. The hope as well, because this is a fundamentally hopeful book. People try to be generous. They try to be loving. They host polar bears in their own bodies and make art and build bars and break people out of ice-cream vans when they’re trapped inside them, because apocalypse is never about a single way of doing things. It’s never one-fairy-tale-fits-all.

It's about surviving it together, whether you’re apart from your loved ones or not.


conuly: (Default)
[personal profile] conuly
So, I'm reading something about an abusive relationship. So toxic, in every tiny respect. But the commenters! You've got a handful of them happily chirping things like "Oh, Abuser is trying so hard! He's really just controlling because he's worried, but look, he's trying to make Abusee happy!" and we've got another handful saying things like "I don't get why Abusee doesn't just leave. I mean, he's in public, is he scared of getting hit? In public? Like, geez."

Like... do you people know what sort of story you're even reading? Or, in the latter case, do you know anything about humans!?

Some people should not be allowed to comment on anything. WTF.

(Though, that having been said, the very first rule of running away and changing your name is never pick a fake name that has any connection to your real life. And because of this, our protagonist got kidnapped back by his abuser and his goon squad. Again. Well, the plot had to happen somehow, I guess, but still.)

***********************


Read more... )
[syndicated profile] aqueductpress_feed

Posted by Timmi Duchamp

 


The Pleasures of Reading, Viewing, and Listening in 2025

 by Cheryl Morgan

The trouble with running a publishing company is that you end up reading lots of books that you can’t review. Not to mention a whole bunch of books that may never get published. This has been cutting down the amount of reading for review that I can do a lot.

Having said that, I’d like to start this year by heaping praise on something we did publish. I am truly honored to have Chaz Brenchley’s Of the Emperor’s Kindness in our catalogue. It is an amazing piece of work.


Chaz, of course, has been around a long time. One of the dreams for a small press is to discover someone brilliant at the start of their career. My friend, Francesca Barbini, who runs Luna Press Publishing, did that with Lorraine Wilson. Raine, as she prefers to be called, has now made the step up to working with Solaris, and she has produced two fabulous novels for them. We Are All Ghosts in the Forest and The Salt Road are set in a post-collapse world which is haunted by the ghosts of things on the internet. Quite how that can be is never explained, but I think that just adds to the atmosphere.

This has been a year in which there is a new novel by Guy Gavriel Kay. That’s always a cause for celebration. Written on the Dark lives up to the very high standards that Kay sets for himself. Novels by Nalo Hopkinson are rather less frequent, but Blackheart Man has finally seen print and is well worth the many years I have been waiting for it.


I am trying to read more books by trans people because I worry that, in the current political environment, they will be finding it very difficult to sell new work. Charlie Jane Anders is perhaps the highest profile trans writer these days, and I think that Lessons in Magic & Disaster is the best thing she has done. M M Olivas is at the start of her career, but Sundown in San Ojuela is a very promising piece of horror that I think should appeal to fans of Liz Hand.

 

Other novels that have stood out for me over the past year are The Tapestry of Time by Kate Heartfield, Alien Clay by the amazingly prolific Adrian Tchaikovsky, The Folded Sky by Elizabeth Bear, and Tomb of Dragons by Katherine Addison.

I have been reading a lot of novellas because they are short and that enables me to up my review count. I had to do some catch up for award season, and very much enjoyed The Dead Cat Tail Assassins by P. Djèlí Clark. However, it is my personal opinion that The Practice, The Horizon and the Chain by Sophia Samatar should have won all the awards.


For this year I am continuing to enjoy various ongoing novella series including The Potency of Ungovernable Impulses by Malka Older, The Gnomes of Lychford by Paul Cornell, What Stalks the Deep by T Kingfisher and A Mouthful of Dust by Nghi Vo.

I have been reading a lot of Welsh folklore of late, primarily because of an anthology we will be publishing next year. Most of these tales are at best short story length, and often mere vignettes, but there is plenty of potential in them. To experience the true weirdness (and queerness) of Welsh myth, however, you need to read The Mabinogion. It is seriously strange and has some amazing gender explorations.

 


Most of my non-fiction reading has been about the ancient world, and feminist. Immaculate Forms by Helen King is a history of medical views of women’s bodies from Classical Greece forward. Honestly, men, what were you thinking? Mythica, by Emily Hauser, is a wonderful history of Bronze Age Europe told through the lens of the women of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. And Carthage by Eve MacDonald asks what we can know about this famous ancient civilisation (founded by a woman) given that the Romans utterly destroyed its written culture.

More generally I enjoyed Queer as Folklore by my friend and sometime colleague, Sacha Coward, which won the non-fiction prize in this year’s British Fantasy Awards. I also liked Patriarchy Inc. by Cordelia Fine, despite the unfortunate fact that a book that points out the shortcomings of DEI initiatives is now rather redundant.

The standout TV series of the year was Kaos. All of my Classicist friends absolutely loved it, and I can see why. I am distraught that it got cancelled because it robbed us of a resolution of the storylines. Ari & Dion 4 Ever!

The TV version of Murderbot seemed to work well, though I will always prefer the books. Somewhat to my surprise, the TV version of Foundation (to which I am late, and of which I have only seen season 1 so far) is not a hot mess, and is much better than the books.


There have been various Marvel TV shows and movies released this year, but the only one I would recommend is Thunderbolts. Here’s hoping that, after all the build-up, the new Avengers films work well. Personally I am looking forward to Young Avengers. We have seen a lot of the cast now, and anything with Kamala Khan in it is going to be good.

 

Viewing also includes museum exhibitions. This year the British Library put on Mediaeval Women. There was an amazing collection of original documents on show, including those pertaining to the 14th Century English trans woman, Eleanor Rykener. Much of the exhibition did take a rather stereotypical view of what a woman is, and what her role in society should be, but the stand-out exhibit for me was the letter signed by Joan of Arc herself.

I also got to visit Copenhagen. The Danish National Museum is worth a look just for the Gundestrup Cauldron. It is an astonishing piece of metalwork.


The highlight of my music year has been Solas, a new double album from our local heroes here in Carmarthenshire. Adwaith is a female rock trio who have built up a stellar reputation in Wales. Their lyrics are all in Welsh, but the music can be enjoyed by anyone who loves a good guitar and drum band.

If you must have lyrics in English, you will be pleased that the new album from Gwenno has a lot of that – a marked departure from her previous song writing in Welsh and Cornish. Utopia is her poppiest album yet. Here’s hoping that it wins her some fans outside of the Celtic countries.

 

 Cheryl Morgan blogs, reviews and podcasts regularly at Cheryl’s Mewsings and Salon Futura. She is the owner of Wizard’s Tower Press. She also lectures regularly on topics of SF&F literature, and on queer history.

a grip-and-grin

Dec. 22nd, 2025 09:22 am
[syndicated profile] file770_feed

Posted by Mike Glyer

Let’s celebrate The Universe Box‘s February 3rd release by Tachyon Press! I have opened the universe box that is my life, and will be sharing a piece of it every Monday. By Michael Swanwick: My British friends think it’s hilarious that Philadelphia … Continue reading
[syndicated profile] file770_feed

Posted by Mike Glyer

(1) THREE BRITISH SHOPPING DAYS ‘TIL CHRISTMAS. [Item by SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie.] There are still three shopping days till Christmas!  So, if you are stuck for a last-minute present for a friend, or even life partner of the moment, … Continue reading
conuly: (Default)
[personal profile] conuly
The music is great, but the plot + worldbuilding raises some issues that they don't bother to even attempt to address properly.

Read more... )

*******************************************


Read more... )

Happy Solstice!

Dec. 21st, 2025 09:08 pm
[syndicated profile] nicola_griffith_feed

Posted by Nicola Griffith

Over on Patreon I’ve posted three short stories—my gift to those who’ve supported me this year. If you’d rather, you can just buy the PDF or epub, WHAT MATTERS—monsters and heroes, dragons and princesses, and a young girl’s chemistry experiment going global—for $9.

Happy Solstice!

https://www.patreon.com/posts/happy-solstice-146324240

[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

There are better movies that Quentin Tarantino has written and directed than Kill Bill: Vol. 1, but I strongly believe there no other film of his that is more him than this one. Most of those other films — Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and of course Pulp Fiction, are about other things, ranging from a day in the life of various petty criminals, to rewriting history because it’s just so much cooler that way. And while those other films are very clearly done in a way that only Tarantino could or would choose to do them, this is the one film above all others (even and including Kill Bill: Vol. 2) where it is all about what Quentin Tarantino wants. His wants. His needs. His desires. This film, from the top of Lucy Liu’s head to the bottom of Uma Thurman’s feet, is a distilled cinematic trip through Tarantino’s id. And what a trip it is.

The plot, which is really just the thinnest of scaffoldings for Tarantino’s obsessions: Uma Thurman (whose character is not given a name in this film, and when and if anyone says it, it’s bleeped out) plays a super mega badass hot assassin chick who after years of, you know, killing the shit out of people, decides to leave it all behind when she finds out she’s pregnant. This does not thrill Bill (David Carradine), her boss and also boyfriend, and he makes that point known at her wedding, not to him, when he and the other members of the super mega badass hot assassins he fields into the world show up and shoot everyone and every thing at the venue, including the bride. When she wakes up from a coma a few years later, babyless, she naturally does what anyone in her position would do: Makes a list of everyone who tried to kill her with the goal of returning the favor.

That’s it! That’s the movie! Thank you and good night!

But of course that’s not actually the movie. The movie is not the plot, the movie is how the plot gets done. And for Tarantino, who is a pop culture magpie and has also fundamentally never stopped, in his heart, being a thirteen-year-old boy, how it gets done is by piling on every single movie and television genre he’s ever loved. Japanese anime and crime films? In here. Hong Kong action cinema? Absolutely one hundred percent on call. Spaghetti westerns and blacksploitation? Present in visuals, score and sound design. The actors from these genres that Tarantino idolized? They’re in the cast. From Michael Parks’ aping of Charlie Chan to Thurman wearing Bruce Lee’s yellow athletic apparel, this film is not just filled with cinematic Easter eggs, it’s a whole goddamned Easter parade.

Why did Tarantino do this? Because this is who he is, man. He is the first superstar Hollywood director to have come out of the video store era — he even worked in a video store for a while in Manhattan Beach before making a go of it in the film industry — and he’s a self-taught filmmaker. Not for him the hallowed halls of USC or NYU’s film schools; he just watched a boatload of movies, from classics to complete crap, and gave each of them equal weight in his weird little brain. It’s very clear that Tarantino does not have a bias against genre for agreed-upon “important films.” He likes what he likes, and fuck you if you don’t like it, too. It’s not his problem if you don’t.

Which I think is fine! At the end of the day, there is no high culture or low culture, there’s just the culture that sticks, and that’s what’s used as the building blocks in the next round of creation. One era’s pop culture is another era’s “classic” culture — and here we haul Shakespeare and Dickens onto the stage to wave before unceremoniously shoving them into the orchestra pit with a crash — and ultimately what sticks, what makes it through the sieve of time and the sheer mass of creative output, is what the new generation of creative people love, champion, reference, combine and in some cases just flat out imitate.

What’s in Kill Bill: Vol. 1 is everything that made Tarantino. At this point, he’s made Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, won an Oscar and is a reliable (if not staggering) box office draw, and was responsible, directly and indirectly, for a whole cottage industry of mostly violent, mostly indie, mostly dude-centric films in the 90s. If anyone is at this point allowed to make a film that is basically them playing with all their favorite cinematic toys, it’s going to be Tarantino.

There’s one other thing, not to be discounted: Tarantino may be crawling both into his mind, a bit up his own ass, with Kill Bill: Vol.1, but he also remembers that he’s got to make the film actually entertaining to the people who are not him. Kill Bill was originally written and shot as a single film, but during the assembly process, Miramax studio head Harvey Weinstein (in the days when the only way women got told he was a raping creep was through whisper networks) suggested making two films out of the material. Weinstein is criminal scum who will hopefully die in jail, but his film instincts here were correct; it allowed Tarantino to overweight the really cool action stuff into Vol. 1, while letting the more somber and emotional aspects of the tale carry Vol. 2, i.e., the one everyone saw because they had bought into the first film and were left high and dry by one of the best cliffhangers in cinematic history.

(There is now a Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair, which unifies the two volumes into a single long film, with a couple scenes added, some amended, and some others dropped, including that banger of a cliffhanger. I have not seen this version yet but this will not stop me from suggesting that a more-than-four-and-a-half hour version of the film is not what Tarantino would have been able to get away with had Weinstein not allowed his film to be split into two. I for one would be curious to see what a no-longer-than-three-hours edit of Kill Bill would have been, using footage from both volumes, as it would have had to have been. We will never get that, though, and in any event I think the film was best served being twain.)

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 is about Tarantino and all the things that make him tick, but it’s Uma Thurman who is in it the whole damn time, save for a few interludes and reaction shots. Thurman was not a passive vessel for this film — the story is credited to “Q & U,” meaning both her and Tarantino — and the whole thing rides on her shoulders. It’s not an exaggeration to say that this film is the defining one in her career, the one where Thurman gets to do it all: Be aggressive, be vulnerable, be a badass, be scared, play tough and play vulnerable. And, also, hack through literally dozens of people with a samurai sword, which is the dream of so many people, regardless of gender. None of the world of Kill Bill is real, none of it can be real (see John Wick for another example of this). But it doesn’t matter if it’s real, it matters if we believe in it while it’s happening. It’s up to Thurman to make us see it. She does.

I’ve noted above that this film is clearly Tarantino’s most personal project, and I would like to point out how absolutely weird it is that this is the man’s statement of being — until, that is, you think about it. If you’re, say, Steven Spielberg, you make The Fabelmans. If you’re Ingmar Bergman, you make Fanny and Alexander. If you’re John Boorman you make Hope & Glory. All semi-autobiographical movies about the early days of the filmmaker in question, or at least, about a stand-in who represents the filmmaker.

The thing is, Kill Bill: Vol 1 is exactly that thing. This movie is all about Tarantino’s early days, all the things, cinematically, that he imprinted upon. And while Thurman’s character cannot be separated from the actress and should not be, a idea of a secret badass in a desperate battle against the legions who want them dead? Oh, that’s absolutely the sort of power fantasy that kept young Quentin up at night, the wheels of his imagination turning.

This is Tarantino. You want to understand him, watch this film. He’s put himself out there for you to see. All you have to do is look.

— JS

james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
[personal profile] james_davis_nicoll
Can they use their abilities in the course of their mandatory voluntary community service? Or maybe, the question is, how to use them without running into the bar on endangering other people or themselves?

Culinary

Dec. 21st, 2025 08:01 pm
oursin: Frontispiece from C17th household manual (Accomplisht Lady)
[personal profile] oursin

This week's bread: a loaf of Bacheldre Rustic Country Bread Flour, quite nice, but not as nice as Dove's Farm Seedhouse.

Friday night supper: ersatz Thai fried rice with chorizo di navarra.

Saturday breakfast rolls: the ones based on James Beard's mother's raisin bread, 50/50% Marriages Golden Wholegrain (end of bag) and Strong Brown Flour, quite nice.

Today's lunch: lamb chops which I cooked thusly, except that as I had no small bottles of white wine I used red, turned out very well; served with Greek spinach rice and padron peppers.

I was today years old

Dec. 21st, 2025 11:02 am
james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
[personal profile] james_davis_nicoll
When I discovered Olivia Newton-John's father took Rudolf Hess into custody during World War II.

This Week's SF news

Dec. 21st, 2025 09:40 am
james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
[personal profile] james_davis_nicoll
It turns out if you really want to raise the profile of your writers' union, all you need to do is announce LLM-generated works are eligible for awards, as long as they are not entirely LLM-generated.
[syndicated profile] aqueductpress_feed

Posted by Timmi Duchamp

 


Theatre and Other Pleasures in 2025

by Tansy Rayner Roberts

 

My year has been a difficult one, and so as always I have turned to the cozy and the funny to get me through when I have time to sink into a little pop culture.

Costume dramas remain my favorite escape. I’m enjoying the new adaptation of The Forsytes, not least because I’m so familiar with the text (and the two previous, plot-accurate TV adaptations from the 60s and early 2000s) that I’m finding the changes to the story-line in this version fascinating rather than infuriating.


On the other end of the media spectrum — my family and I just finished a rewatch of GLOW (Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling), with my 16-year old watching it for the first time, and my 20- year old having (apparently) learned about wrestling since the last time we saw it. It’s a fun, crunchy, complicated show filled with interesting women and indulgent '80s nostalgia. It’s been five years since COVID made Season 4 impossible to shoot, bringing the show to a sudden end, and it’s still upsetting that we didn’t get more.

Back to costume drama — I’ve been a Downton Abbey tragic for so long, it felt momentous to watch the final film in the cinema. I didn’t even rewatch to refresh my memory (ahem, my last rewatch was less than a year earlier), but I did give my husband a crash course so he could join me at the movies.

I loved it — indulgent fan service from end to end, and so many lovely hats. It is an epilogue, of course, not a real story — as is true of all three Downton films, given that the show had a properly satisfying end — so it’s basically a hat on a hat on a hat. But the in-jokes were fun.


What I did discover, in my craving to revisit the show, was my new favorite podcast. Up Yours, Downstairs is a husband and wife (I believe later episodes will be friendly ex-spouses, but I haven’t reached those yet) podcast that first began around Season 2 of Downton (2011 but also, 1914) and recorded its most recent episode this year for the finale.

As well as their passionate, loving, and anti-aristo American takes on the show — hilarious, chaotic, and sometimes devastating — the co-hosts focus on their mutual love of Edwardian history, researching key aspects of the show, and later broadening to reviews of other works including Mr Selfridge (which they love even more than Downton!), various Merchant Ivory films, Parade’s End, Anne of Green Gables, Gosford Park, and pretty much every Titanic film ever made.

Their research starts out at reading-off-Wikipedia levels and grows more complex, reviewing specific history texts and deep-diving into racial and LGBTQ+ perspectives. It’s a joyous romp, but you also get to witness history being absorbed.

Another sheer joy of this podcast is the community of “cousins” who send in telegrams and letters (Twitter & Email) to share their own love, lore, and specialized knowledge of Downton Abbey and Edwardian history.


This has been another wonderful year for cozy fantasy (how I adore and celebrate the rise of cozy fantasy!), with new releases from many of my faves. A.J. Lancaster released How To Find a Nameless Fae, a gentle romantasy retelling of Rumplestiltskin with a middle-aged princess, a grumpy nemesis, and a sentient house with pure Diana Wynne Jones vibes all the way down.

Speaking of middle-aged heroines, Rosalie Oaks brought her Matronly Misadventures series to a close with Lady Avely’s Guide To Guile and Peril, a cozy mystery set in a crumbling Cornish castle with illusion traps, espionage, tiny vampires, and a hot amnesiac Duke for our heroine to contend with… not to mention a reunion with one of her wayward adult children who has no idea she has been sleuthing and flirting her way across the country!

Tilly Wallace released the first two books in her new Regency botanical magic+tiny dragon cozy fantasy series, starting with The Stormborne Vine — a spinster heroine contends with a carnivorous creeping plant (and deep magical roots) at a country manor, in a story can only be described as Mansfield Park meets Rosemary & Thyme meets Little Shop of Horrors.

Closer to home, I wanted to share a few gems of local theatre with you. My little coastal city of Hobart, Tasmania has a thriving independent theatre scene with so many small companies and some powerhouse young people producing really interesting work. I’m a little biased because my son’s ongoing work in art design and stage management makes a lot of our theatre ticket-purchasing decisions for us… but I was raised on loving and appreciating live theatre, so it’s something I am delighted to share with my family now.

Some highlights from this year for me included Emma (Bijoux), which was a lovely production of the classic novel with a pitch-perfect cast and costumes that honestly kept me almost as riveted as the dialogue. (It didn’t hurt that I was in the second row and could enjoy all the bonnets up close)


I also loved a 48-Hour Shakespeare production of Macbeth (Bad Company), which had great, raw performances and also really stood out for its design choices, including a stage wrapped in Christo-style floaty plastic sheeting (illuminated gorgeously with lights and moving with the breeze) and literal interpretations of the blood on the hands of Lady Macbeth and her husband, smeared casually on their white clothing.

Speaking of fake blood, I don’t think I’ll ever forget the recent production of Evil Dead: The Musical (Big Job Productions) — in which “splash zone” seats were charged extra! This one was especially interactive for our family because our son Bailey was art-directing and prop-building: he made several puppets including a giant moose head, a dynamic chainsaw (that can be worn as a hand), multiple weapons, a wearable forest of trees, and two severed heads. 


In this case, he also needed to be a prop doctor, cleaning liters of fake blood off the props every night (and in the case of the chainsaw, fixing/rebuilding it). By the time we actually saw the show, we felt like we’d experienced it many times over — but OH it was wonderful. Tight, talented cast with amazing comedic, dramatic and musical talents… armed with squirty bottles for that extra random joy. I particularly admired how many people who bought those front row seats came wearing white for the full splash zone experience…

I started noting all of the shows I’ve seen this year because of Bailey, or because of Inigo (a borrowed son!), and the list got incredibly long! They worked together (B stage-managing, I directing) on Clue: On Stage (Big Job Productions), which used the tiny but wonderful Hidden Theatre stage rather brilliantly, considering that the show is designed for a much bigger space. Our boys worked well together to pull this off with a killer cast.

I also saw fantastic plays like Hedda Gabler, Folk, and Sunday Roast, which I might not have considered if Bailey wasn’t working on the production or Inigo wasn’t performing, because I knew nothing about them going in. A real stand-out for the year was The Master & Margarita (Bad Company & Old Nick), a hugely ambitious, gorgeously staged phantasmagoria using the quirky Peacock Theatre (with cliff-face back wall) to great effect, so intense and strange and beautiful.

When COVID hit and our world shrank around us, one of the first arts industries to be taken out was live theatre. Watching our local community figure out how to stage shows safely and come back stronger than ever over the last 5 years has been really inspiring. Having glimpsed a little of the behind the scenes work happening locally, I’m also impressed to see how indie theatre is growing, while prioritizing cast safety, intimacy co-ordination and accessibility alongside innovation and creativity.

My new attitude is very much “you regret the shows you don’t see more than the shows that you do.” That was what led me to take my 16-year old J to Melbourne for a show of their choice for their birthday (Beetlejuice, starring Eddie Perfect), which was an unforgettable shared experience. It was also what led me to hit an impulsive BUY on tickets when Adjoa Andoh came unexpectedly to Hobart.


Visiting friends in Tasmania, this wonderful actor (whom at the time I only knew as Martha’s Mum, Lady Danbury, and the voice of the Chateau show) decided to throw a one-night only fundraiser for our Hobart Repertory Theatre Society with the loose theme/premise of “celebrating 400 years of Shakespeare’s First Folio.” WELL. This was one of the most interesting, generous performances I have ever witnessed. Adjoa talked about her own long history as an actor, producer and director of Shakespeare, including an all-women-of-color staging of Richard II at the Globe Theatre and a recent opportunity to read from one of the original Folio manuscripts. In between her inspiring and funny and off-the-wall anecdotes, she regularly dropped into full, intensive character readings of her favourite scenes and characters from the Bard.

One woman, her career, her thoughts, her performances, one chair on stage, and she held us all mesmerized for two full performing sets.

Then, Adjoa gave the audience full permission to leave if they needed to go… and opened up for an unexpected THIRD set, this time a more casual Q&A about her career.

I came away buzzing and inspired and elated, and I’m pretty sure the other 300 or so people who got to sit in that theatre for that one-night-only experience felt the same way. Not to get all political as we teeter on the verge of the silly season, but… this is something AI can’t take from us. We’re seeing so many creative industries under attack from slop and copyright theft and most of all, a systematic and deeply mean-spirited devaluing of what we do as artists, as makers, as creators.

Live theatre may have been the first industry to topple under COVID, but there’s no replacing it with an algorithm.

While the enormous big city productions make for incredible experiences — I still dream about the set from Beetlejuice — you don’t have to spend Broadway bucks to see something really fun, or great. Community/independent theatre is an extraordinary gift to audiences, and there’s a reality to it — imperfections, messiness and beauty all squished in together—  that is undeniable.

The moment when a prop breaks but the scene goes on without missing a beat, or the comic timing between two actors just hits, or a performer manages to convince you he is being actively murdered by his own demonic hand… or the cast includes an in-joke one of their friends sitting in the front row… and you realise, this is the only time you or anyone else will EVER see this specific version exactly like this. It’s incredibly special.

If you’re lucky enough to have theatres, however large or small, within a reasonable travel distance of where you live, support your local shows! And when you find a company or a performer or a venue that creates work you enjoy… keep going back.

 

 Tansy Rayner Roberts is a Tasmanian fantasy & SFF novelist, critic, podcaster and -- thanks to her extensive commitment to buying all the theatre tickets -- a patron of the arts. Tansy's recent releases include These Valiant Stars, Crown Tourney, and Time of the Cat. You can also read her essays about masculinity in the Discworld novels at Speculative Insight. Find Tansy at patreon.com/tansyrr

(no subject)

Dec. 21st, 2025 12:50 pm
oursin: hedgehog in santa hat saying bah humbug (Default)
[personal profile] oursin
Happy birthday, [personal profile] lannamichaels!

More K-pop Christmas music!

Dec. 20th, 2025 10:45 pm
brithistorian: (Default)
[personal profile] brithistorian

NMIXX released a video containing both a holiday version of "Blue Valentine" (the same tune and lyrics, but with holiday-style backing music) and a rerecording of "Funky Glitter Christmas." Enjoy!

A couple of fun things to watch for:

  1. At about 1:38, Sullyoon comes out of a doll box, which is fun because people often say Sullyoon looks like a doll.
  2. At about 1:45, the toys have Lily tied to the floor, a la Gulliver's Travels.
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

I have thought a number of films have been riotously funny, but only A Fish Called Wanda made me laugh so hard that I was in very real danger of pissing myself right there in the movie theater. It was 1988, I went to see this movie with my friend Marty Glomski, and — to be fair — I did buy myself a soda to enjoy while I watched the film. Normally such a thing would not be a fraught action, but then there were scenes involving inept assassination attempts, and I ended up laughing so hard and so long that my bladder very nearly couldn’t take it any more. I swear to you I was two seconds from peeing my jeans. I wanted to stop laughing so I could stop spotting. I could not. It was mortifying, and delightful.

I cannot guarantee you will laugh as hard at A Fish Called Wanda. If you did, however, and you fell victim to laugh-related involuntary micturition, just know that you are not alone. There are probably legions of us. John Cleese should have invested in adult diapers before writing this film.

The story of how A Fish Called Wanda came to be is interesting in itself. Back in the 1970s and 80s, when John Cleese wasn’t busy with Monty Python or Fawlty Towers, he had co-founded a company called Video Arts, which created training videos for corporate clients (they were allegedly funny corporate training videos. I’ve not seen any, I can’t say). One of the directors for these corporate videos was Charles Crichton. Having Crichton directing corporate training videos was a little like having Scotty Pippen on your basketball team at the Y. In a past life, he directed films at Ealing Studios, including the Academy Award-winning The Lavender Hill Mob, generally regarded as one of the best British comedies of all time.

What was Crichton doing making training films? Well, look, folks, show business is a tough gig. You’re on top one day and the next you’re trying to spice up a video on how to file reports.

That said, John Cleese was certainly aware who he had on staff, and eventually he and Crichton started scheduling time to think up a comedy crime caper, which would eventually become A Fish Called Wanda. The plan was for Cleese to star and Crichton to direct. One catch: When the film was being pitched, Crichton was well into his middle 70s, which worried the money guys. In order to get the film made, Cleese agreed to be co-director. What did that mean for Cleese? Apparently not much! Cleese was open about not having any experience in feature film directing. He was basically there if Crichton keeled over during filming.

Crichton did not keel over. In fact, for the film Crichton (and only Crichton, not Cleese) was nominated for an Academy Award for best director. Don’t feel too bad for Cleese, he got nominated (along with Crichton) for an Oscar in the screenwriting category. Having landed on top again after years in the corporate training video wilderness, Crichton promptly retired and spent the rest of his life fishing. Good for him.

Plotwise, Wanda is a tale of heists and con-men and women, crosses and double-crosses and one barrister who somewhat befuddledly finds himself in the middle of it all. That could be Cleese’s character, Archibald Leach (film fans will recognize this name, and if you don’t, look it up), a bland tall legal type whose life is lower-wealthy-class boredom. That is, until he meets Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis), who is not a fish, but is an associate of George Thomason, Archie’s client, who has been recently accused of a bank robbery involving quite a lot of diamonds. Wanda enchants Archie, because she is smart and looks exactly like Jamie Lee Curtis at her hottest. But, I think it should be obvious, Wanda has something on her mind other than climbing Cleese.

That’s enough of the plot. You just need to know that the people involved in the heist are all trying to screw each other, sometimes figuratively and sometimes literally. There is no honor among thieves, which is not great for any of them but is fabulous for us, because Cleese and Crichton, as screenwriters, put absolutely fantastic words into their mouths, and make them to grand and ridiculous things. For a movie that at least initially comes off as a small and maybe kinda square bit of British japery, things get weird fast.

A lot of that weirdness comes in the form of Otto, played by Kevin Klein in a bit of ego annihilation so complete that he won an Oscar for it. When I say ego annihilation, I mean no one who was concerned about their ego in any way could have played Otto as he did, as the ugliest of all possible ugly Americans and the platonic ideal of Dunning-Kruger. The first time I saw this performance, I just thought it was funny; in subsequent watches it becomes obvious just how much good work Kline is doing here. The scene where Wanda chews him out for messing up her assignation with Archie is a masterclass of facial acting. His words in the scene are good. What his face is doing got him that statuette.

Be assured, however, that Kevin Kline is not the only one engaging in ego annihilation here. None of the principals, who aside from Cleese, Curtis and Kline also includes Michael Palin, get out of this film with their dignity intact. Short of Melissa McCarthy shitting in a sink, I’m not sure another film has put so many of their actors through the wringer for a pile of laughs. It’s not about gross-out comedy (speaking of that McCarthy scene), it’s about the humiliation of their characters, unstiffening that stiff upper lip, in the case of Cleese’s character especially.

Which — confession time — is not the kind of humor I usually like! Cringe humor (the kind of humor that makes you cringe in sympathy for the embarrassment the characters are going through, not the kind of humor that is eye-rollingly corny) is actually one of my least favorite forms of humor. I think my sympathetic response for people making fools of themselves is too strong for me to enjoy the comedy of it. It mostly just makes me want to leave the room until the embarrassing parts are over. Not here, though, and I think it’s both the skill of the writing from Cleese and Crichton, and actual abandon to which the actors give themselves, that simply overrides my desire to curl up into a ball at their misfortunes. Wanda isn’t exactly farce but it’s near enough to it that, for me, at least, it’s inoculated against cringe.

Wanda remains one of the funniest films of all time, but it’s okay to note that 80s films are gonna 80s, and this film does that. The plot line about a character’s stutter was at the time and now continues to be the least successful attempt at humor in the film, and there’s a bit that Otto does that straddles the line for casual homophobia. Also, truly, if animal endangerment bothers you, go ahead and skip this one. You won’t be happy, even if I find at least one of those scenes one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in a theater. What can I say, I’m a terrible human.

I keep coming back to why it was this film made me almost pee myself in public. I think it comes down to the simple fact that very little about this film was what I had expected when I sat down to watch it. I figured it was going to be funny; after all it had a third of Monty Python in it. But I think I went in expecting to chuckle. This wasn’t Monty Python, it was by all indications just a standard issue mid-80s comedy, and again the first several minutes of the film gave the impression that was where things were going.

But then. And then. And then after that. It kept laughing in the face of my expectations, and I kept laughing in surprise. I just did not see it coming.

— JS

Pixel Scroll 12/20/25 Scrollhide!

Dec. 21st, 2025 01:42 am
[syndicated profile] file770_feed

Posted by Mike Glyer

(1) IT’S ABOUT TIME. Big Finish is bringing back Time Tunnel as an audio drama: “Beloved ’60s sci-fi returning with new adventures as iconic actress cast” reports Radio Times. The Time Tunnel is set to take us on new adventures … Continue reading
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

I felt like trying my hand at a Christmas song, so I did “I’ll Be Home For Christmas,” which was a big hit for Bing Crosby. First I did a pretty traditional version, and when I was done, I thought, why not mess with it a little? So I did a second version, with trap drums and lots of bass.

Here’s the traditional version:

And here’s the NOT traditional version:

I hope you enjoy one or both!

— JS

[syndicated profile] aqueductpress_feed

Posted by Timmi Duchamp

 

 


New Ways of Reading 

by Nancy Jane Moore

 

In mid-December 2024, I embarked on a reading practice unlike any I have ever done before: reading for about 15-30 minutes every day, usually in the morning, and making notes or writing down quotations from what I read. The motivation for the practice was to give myself a period of sitting quietly after doing exercises before checking my blood pressure, but it soon became something I loved on its own, a new way of reading.


 Certain kinds of books lend themselves to this sort of practice. I began with Carlo Rovelli’s The Order of Time, which is a great example of the perfect book: beautifully written (and/or translated, since Rovelli writes in Italian), philosophical, and complex. You really don’t want to read more than a few pages, or at most a chapter, because there’s so much to think about in the book.

 Most novels do not lend themselves to this kind of reading practice. If you get really engaged with a story, you don’t want to stop reading. Rather you need books that make you want to stop and digest what you just read instead of ones where you have to know what happens next.

 I went to a program in the fall where Jenny Odell was interviewing Cory Doctorow and got to talking to the people sitting next to me before the presentation. They had never heard of Jenny, so I waxxed enthusiastic about her most recent book, Saving Time, and explained that it was the perfect book to read for a short period every day. One of them observed that it was “a very specific recommendation.”

 And it is, because I have tried reading some of the books that were best for this practice the same way I read a novel, and it didn’t work well. They are not meant to be read straight through at one sitting.


 Poetry is well-suited for this practice. One of the books I read was Jean Le Blanc’s Field Guide to the Spirits, an Aqueduct Conversation Piece. I’m sure I’d looked through it before, but reading poetry is so different from reading fiction. Read several poems – maybe read each one several times or even out loud – and then stop.

 Rebecca Solnit’s books are also perfect for daily reading. I read both her recent essay collection No Straight Road Takes You There and her older Wanderlust: A History of Walking.

I did read some more reportorial non-fiction as part of this practice, including Ed Yong’s wonderful book on the way animals (including humans) sense the world, An Immense World, but in general I tended toward books that I would define as philosophical – not as works of official philosophy, mind you, which as I learned from reading Solnit are more about arguing with other philosophers – but philosophical writing, the sort of books that both Solnit and Odell write.

 The other reading activity I did this year that was different from my usual pattern was to read for the 100 notable small press books list that was recently published on Lit Hub.  [https://lithub.com/100-notable-small-press-books-of-2025/] I was reading science fiction and fantasy for this list, which included many genres, and was allowed to recommend three books for the final list.


 My choices were Nisi Shawl’s Making Amends, Theodora Goss’s Letters From an Imaginary Country, and Margaret Killjoy’s The Immortal Choir Holds Every Voice. I read many other good books as well; it was hard to narrow it down to three. You can find my capsule reviews on the Lit Hub page.

 It interested me to discover that my favorite books were collections (though Nisi’s is a collection of connected stories that make a novel on its own). I haven’t been reading as much short fiction in recent years and I think I had forgotten how vital it is to the science fiction and fantasy genres.

 I wanted to participate in this list because I normally read a number of small press books and, like Miriam Gershow, who organized the project, feel like they’re all too often overlooked in “best of” lists. I don’t think I’ll do it again, in part because I’d rather read a little more randomly. They are seeking readers for next year, however, and I recommend the practice. 


 One of my very favorite books of the past year was Pat Murphy’s The Adventures of Mary Darling, which does a fabulous job of challenging and reimagining Peter Pan and raising interesting questions about Sherlock Holmes as well. Since this was published by Tachyon Publications, it qualified for the 100 small press list, but given that I am in a writing group with Pat and even rated a mention in the acknowledgements section of the book, I could not honorably consider it.

 However, one of the joys of this report for Aqueduct is that I can freely recommend books by friends and fellow writers from workshops without a shred of guilt, which brings me to another one, or, in fact, a series: Madeleine Robins’s Sarah Tolerance books. She reissued the first three books this year along with a fourth: The Doxies Penalty.


Many people know that I am fond of swordswomen, so it is perhaps not a surprise that I would take to the adventures of a young woman with a sword in Regency England. But I recommend these books even if you care nothing for a good swordfight or the era. Madeleine has tweaked the Regency period just enough to make these alternate history, and they are also good mysteries with compelling characters and complex stories.

 They also make excellent comfort reading in our exceedingly complicated times. Start with the first one, Point of Honour.

 I read a great deal of nonfiction at all times. My favorite this year was Adam Becker’s More Everything Forever, which completely destroys the silly dreams of the broligarch crowd. Becker is an astrophysicist and a science writer, and takes apart such absurd notions as living on Mars and the singularity, not to mention so-called AI, in devastating ways. 


 Becker himself reads science fiction, but, unlike the people he is writing about, he comprehends that the genre is not intended to inspire people to invent the torment nexus or develop a dystopia. If you regularly run into people who rave about AI and the broligarch future, this is the book for you.

 Air-Borne by Carl Zimmer is another important book, especially if one lesson you learned from the pandemic was that good indoor air quality can keep us from constantly sharing respiratory viruses. Zimmer dug into the history of studying the air we breathe in schools and crowded spaces, and provides clear detail of what needs to be done.

 As someone who carries around a CO2 meter – the level of CO2 in a room gives you a good indication of whether you are likely to breathe the lung exhalations of others – and wears a mask when that level starts climbing to about 800, I greatly appreciated Zimmer’s careful analysis of what should be – and can be – done.

 I grew up reading a daily newspaper and have always loved magazines. Although I still pick up the occasional print newspaper (and read others online) and subscribe to New Scientist (which piles up around here way too fast), I have ended up with subscriptions to various kinds of online publications these days, including both individual newsletters and nonprofit or collectively owned publications.

 Two of the publications I subscribe to are national, even international at times: ContrabandCamp, which covers Black issues, and The Flytrap, which is feminist. Otherwise, I’ve just started reading two new publications in my area: Coyote and Oakland Review of Books. And I keep up with local news from Oaklandside.

 My most indispensible newsletters are those from Rebecca Solnit, who is capable of being positive about the current chaos without being foolish, and Dave Karpf, who reads some very bad books by tech broligarchs and skewers them beautifully. I couldn’t read those books, but it’s important to know what those people think and why they’re wrong.

 It is possible that I am getting a skewed view of the world, for which I am very thankful.

 


 Nancy Jane Moore is the author of three Aqueduct books – Changeling, The Weave, and For the Good of the Realm – along with a lot of short stories and a small but growing quantity of poems. She is currently working on the sequel to For the Good of the Realm, which is finally shaking out. She blogs weekly at the Treehouse Writers blog. [https://treehousewriters.com/wp53/] Lately she has been contributing to the work of Unbreaking [https://unbreaking.org/] by digging into relevant litigation. Otherwise she can be found walking around her Oakland, California, neighborhood in the company of many local crows.

 

The Family Jewels: Wake Up Dead Man

Dec. 20th, 2025 02:02 pm
[syndicated profile] plaidder_tumblr_feed

furball-for-a-head:

plaidadder:

So, forging ahead with what looks like it’s becoming the 12 Days of Wake Up Dead Man over here, I have a follow-up post to the last one about the religious stuff which focuses specifically on three earlier mystery stories which I believe are referenced in this film (either intentionally or indirectly) and which don’t seem to have become part of the conversation (possibly because they are not on Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude’s book club reading list). They are:

“The Blue Carbuncle” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins

The Nine Tailors by Dorothy Sayers

There is a common theme here; but if you haven’t seen the film yet, the theme itself is a bit of a spoiler. So I will put the rest of all this behind a cut tag. SPOILERS FOLLOW. BIG SPOILERS. ALL THE SPOILERS.

Keep reading

In re: The Moonstone intertext, I think you’ve pinpointed why the ending felt a bit…different to me, despite following the usual Benoit Blanc formula of sticking it to the rich assholes. (Spoilers!)

Keep reading

Rivers and Dragons and Cats and Books

Dec. 20th, 2025 08:01 pm
[syndicated profile] nicola_griffith_feed

Posted by Nicola Griffith

For the Solstice—which here in Seattle is 7:03 am tomorrow—I’ve made a special fiction bundle, three stories downloadable as either a PDF or epub. Two of the stories are snowy, one is not; one is grim, two are not; and there’s a dragon. That bundle will be available to Patrons, a special thank you for helping fund publicity efforts in the US reissue of Aud, the UK first publication of Aud, and up-coming She Is Here.

Speaking of which, a couple of the February events may have to be rescheduled. I can tell you more about that after the holidays but for now I’ll just say it’s not bad news. In fact it’s gobsmackingly, knock-me-down-with-a-feather, amazing news. Chortle.

Our tree is up and decorated—but not yet destroyed. Mainly because I haven’t had time to figure out any kind of new SFX. This year I may have to resort to a old favourite—maybe that dragon…

The cats are well, though very fighty. I think it’s partly the weather (endless drenching rain of atmospheric rivers, one after another) and partly the latest trio of raccoons who have been trundling fatly around our neighbourhood at night, trying to get into everything, including our house. George, sensibly, hides under the bed, but Charlie takes exception. He desperately—desperately!—wants to get out there and take them on and gets very cross when we won’t let him (pound for pound he’d be outweighed six to one). So he takes it out on George.

And speaking of rivers, Slow River and Ammonite will be reissued with spiffy new covers and bonus content in June next year—just in time for pride. I’m pretty pleased about that.

I have other news, too, some of it very pleasing—but that, too, can wait for January. Meanwhile, for the holiday season, I’m changing my website avatar to a winter wren. I love these little birds: like tiny feathery brown truffles I could pop in my mouth. It’s based on one I created for my black and white zoomorphics series. I really do have an outrageous number of those things now. One day I’ll figure out what to do with them. For now, back to stopping Charlie murdering George because he can’t murder the raccoons…

The Family Jewels: Wake Up Dead Man

Dec. 20th, 2025 11:35 am
[syndicated profile] plaidder_tumblr_feed

So, forging ahead with what looks like it’s becoming the 12 Days of Wake Up Dead Man over here, I have a follow-up post to the last one about the religious stuff which focuses specifically on three earlier mystery stories which I believe are referenced in this film (either intentionally or indirectly) and which don’t seem to have become part of the conversation (possibly because they are not on Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude’s book club reading list). They are:

“The Blue Carbuncle” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins

The Nine Tailors by Dorothy Sayers

There is a common theme here; but if you haven’t seen the film yet, the theme itself is a bit of a spoiler. So I will put the rest of all this behind a cut tag. SPOILERS FOLLOW. BIG SPOILERS. ALL THE SPOILERS.

So all three of the above-named classic mysteries involve jewels. I’m sure all of you have deduced that this post is going to be about that giant freaking diamond that Prentiss spends his whole fortune on and then swallows. We’re gonna take ‘em in chronological order.

First up, Wilkie Collins’s 1868 novel The Moonstone, an early and very popular prototype of the mystery novel which casts a long shadow over the genre in England. This partial summary is going to sound very familiar because it spawned so many imitations: in 1799, while serving as an officer in the British army in India, an aristocratic ne'er-do-well named John Herncastle hears a legend about a diamond that was once fixed in the forehead of a statue dedicated to the Hindu god of the moon in the temple at Somnauth. (The temple at Somnauth is real. The diamond, the statue, and as far as I know the moon god were invented by Collins.) This diamond is known as The Moonstone. During the long period of invasions and regime changes that preceded the arrival of the East India Company, the diamond was stolen out of the statue; and at that point, a legend arose that the diamond itself was cursed and that it would bring misfortune to anyone who possessed it. In 1799 at the Battle of Seringapatam, John Herncastle has the opportunity to loot this diamond, killing three people in the process, one of whom restates the Curse of the Diamond just before expiring. Back in England, John Herncastle becomes a social outcast because of this story; and 20 years later, he dies and leaves The Moonstone to his 18 year old niece, Rachel Verinder. The very night she receives her birthday present, the Moonstone is stolen out of her bedroom and disappears. This causes all kinds of trouble for Rachel and her near and dear until the diamond is finally tracked down and recovered–not by the English family who legally owns it, but by a group of 3 Brahmins whose sacred duty it is to find the stone and return it to the statue in the temple at Somnauth. The epilogue of this very long novel is a description of the ceremony in which the diamond is restored to its original location in the forehead of the statue, and the 3 Brahmins, their mission now complete, part company forever.

Throughout the novel, Collins plays around with the idea that the “curse” that comes with the diamond might be real in a metaphysical/supernatural sense. But the plot ultimately, I think, validates the last words of the witness who describes Herncastle’s theft of it in an old family paper: that “crime brings its own fatality.” The diamond brings misery to its owners because it excites human greed; but also because its status as a spoil of imperialism generates so much fear and guilt. Herncastle’s theft stands in for the larger crime of the East India Company’s ransacking of the subcontinent and the complicity in that of the British government, the crown, and the entire Victorian middle class. And to get to their happy ending, the protagonists of The Moonstone have to ultimately decide that they’re better off without it.

So there are two things about The Moonstone that I see showing up in Wake up Dead Man. One, obviously, is the idea of the diamond as the concrete form of all the evil caused by the love of money. The other is the association of the diamond with Grace, the “harlot whore.” The Moonstone is stolen out of Rachel’s bedroom between midnight and three o clock in the morning, a time when a single Victorian girl definitely should not have anyone in her bedroom. Rachel acts, after the theft is discovered, as if she has something to hide; and this underlines the symbolic connection between her literal jewel–the Moonstone–and her symbolic “jewel,” i.e., her virginity. We are dealing in The Moonstone with a patriarchal society where “virtue” for women is defined almost exclusively in sexual terms, and where a young unmarried woman from Rachel’s class is valued primarily for her worth on the marriage market. The loss of “her jewel,” as narrators keep calling the Moonstone, and Rachel’s refusal to tell anyone what happened in her room that night damages Rachel’s reputation and leads to the novel’s only official detective deciding that Rachel herself must be the criminal.

Prentiss is, if possible, even more creepily patriarchal than Jefferson becomes. He fetishizes the supposed innocence of Martha, the “good girl” who hasn’t yet undergone the fall into puberty. And when he decides to hide his fortune, instead of going and burying it in a secret grotto on the island of Monte Cristo like a normal person, he turns it into a giant diamond–a form which he clearly believes will pose a specific and irresistible temptation to Grace and to all of Eve’s daughters (with the exception of Martha). So, like John Herncastle in The Moonstone, Prentiss leaves the diamond to Grace as a cursed legacy. That is, he bequeathes it in such a way that it prompts her to do more damage to her reputation–by leaving her, not the diamond itself, but the proof that a diamond does exist, and a hint (via the statue of Jesus that replaces the jewel) that it is somewhere in the church. He may believe that he’s protecting future generations from temptation; but he is actually setting a cruel trap for Grace, one which succeeds–spectacularly–in sending Grace to hell, at least in the minds of everyone who knew her.

If you believe in The Moonstone as an intertext for this film, also, Father Jud’s decision to hide it inside the new crucifix he makes for the church picks up some interesting resonances–since it parallels the restoration of the Moonstone to the Hindu temple and to a statue which Collins’s English (and Protestant) narrators usually refer to as an idol.

Doyle was certainly familiar with The Moonstone–that novel very, very obviously influenced the plot of The Sign of Four–and “The Blue Carbuncle” borrows a lot of the ideas that The Moonstone established about cursed jewels. Holmes has a speech about how jewels are “the devil’s pet baits,” and how for the really famous jewels every facet may stand for some bloody deed committed in order to possess it. But in “The Blue Carbuncle” the jewel’s exotic backstory–like the Moonstone and the Agra treasure, it originates in Asia, this time from China instead of India–is given a very perfunctory treatment. The focus is on finding out how the jewel got from the Countess of Morcar’s hotel room into the crop of a dead goose. I like to think that “The Blue Carbuncle” is where Johnson–and who knows, perhaps Prentiss in his own story world–got the idea of hiding a jewel by swallowing it, though of course there are more modern stories about people smuggling things in their GI tracts that could also have inspired this.

And finally, The Nine Tailors, a 1939 mystery novel by Dorothy Sayers, whose 1929 novel Whose Body? is on the Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude’s reading list. (Whose Body?, as far as I can tell, influences this film only inasmuch as the film sort of has a double plot, and its solution involves a doctor, a body swap, and a bathtub.) The Nine Tailors is also about an apparently impossible death that occurs in a church–and it also involves a priceless emerald necklace which was stolen years and years ago, and which turns out to have been hidden in the church. By the time we get to The Nine Tailors, the idea of the jewel as a symbol of Britain’s criminal imperial past has completely dissipated; we don’t know where the emeralds in that necklace came from and nobody in the novel cares. But The Nine Tailors is a mystery that raises a lot of the same Big Questions that Wake Up Dead Man raises. It’s possible Johnson doesn’t know the novel–it is famous, but it’s not super popular because it is very complicated and because it is about a lot more than the actual mystery–but I think it’s also possible that The Nine Tailors served as a model for the kind of mystery Johnson set out to create in Wake Up Dead Man. Anyway, the question of what it means that the jewels wind up hidden in this Anglican church’s one surviving pre-Reformation Catholic art form (its angel roof) is one I don’t really have an answer for; but it is another possible source for Grace’s ransacking of the church.

Anyway, make of all that what you will. It’s possible that nobody’s talking about these as intertexts because Johnson’s not talking about them, possibly because he doesn’t know them. But I find it interesting.

I did run to find out

Dec. 20th, 2025 04:49 pm
oursin: Illustration from the Kipling story: mongoose on desk with inkwell and papers (mongoose)
[personal profile] oursin

And the reporting on the acquisition of the Cerne Giant by the National Trust was very very muted and mostly in the local press. Mention of the sale as part of the Cerne and Melcombe Horsey Estates in 1919 in the Bournemouth Times and Director. The Western Daily Press in June 1921 mentions it as having been presented to the National Trust by Mr Pitt-Rivers; and the Weymouth Telegram's account of a meeting of the Dorset Field Club mentioned that the 'valuable relic of antiquity... had been placed in the custody of the National Trust'. There was also a mention in the report of a lecture on 'Wessex Wanderings' in the Southern Times and Dorset County Herald in 1921. No mention of the Giant's gigantic manhood, though references to his club.

Other rather different antique relics (heritage is being a theme this week....): The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs are getting a glow up (gosh, writer is in love with his style, isn't he?)

(no subject)

Dec. 20th, 2025 12:13 pm
oursin: hedgehog in santa hat saying bah humbug (Default)
[personal profile] oursin
Happy birthday, [personal profile] hafren, [personal profile] holli and [personal profile] inchoatewords!

 To Fly

Dec. 20th, 2025 09:22 am
[syndicated profile] file770_feed

Posted by Mike Glyer

By Lee Weinstein: Volare! To fly! The idea of personal flight had stirred my imagination since early childhood, perhaps triggered by watching The Adventures of Superman or Commando Cody movie serials on TV, but definitely by a deeper seated universal … Continue reading
[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

There was, to be clear, nothing very comforting at all about the 2008 global economic crisis. It was a deeply messed-up time, and even if one was not in danger of losing one’s home in the mess, the reverberations of the collapse of the US housing market echoed through people’s lives in strange and unexpected ways. In my own, there is a line of dominos that goes from the collapse of the housing market to me walking away from a contract for a five-book YA series in early 2009. I was pissed about that, I want you to know. But I assure you that what I experiences was a glancing blow compared to the very real hits lots of other people took. People lost houses. People lost jobs. People’s lives were ruined. And, apparently, no one saw any of this coming.

No, one, that is, but a few finance dudes who, in the mid-2000s, looked at how mortgage-backed securities were being put together by banks and financial companies, realized they were a time bomb waiting to happen, and did what finance dudes do — figured out a way to make a shitload of money when the timebomb went off. These men (and they were all men) were not heroes or good guys. They made money when everyone else had the ground beneath their feet crumble into dust. They did by betting on the misfortunes of others. But no matter what else happened, they did see it coming when no one else could see it, or, more to the point, wanted to see it.

The Big Short is based on the book of the same name by financial journalist Michael Lewis, who, it must be said, has had enviable success in getting his books turned into films; aside from this, his books Moneyball and The Blind Side found their way to the big screen as well. Those books had an approachable hook in that they were about sports as much as they were about money, and everyone (in the US, at least) knows about baseball and football. For The Big Short, the question was: was there actually an audience for a movie about mortgage-backed securities? And how would you find that audience if there were?

Director Adam McKay, who previous to this movie was best known for a series of funny-but-not-precisely-sophisticated films with Will Ferrell, including Anchorman and Step-Brothers, had a two-step solution for the problem of making trading interesting. First, he absolutely packed the film with big names: Brad Pitt. Steve Carell. Christian Bale. Ryan Gosling. That’s a pretty stacked cast right there. Second, any time he had to explain an abstruse financial concept, he gleefully broke the fourth wall and had some other incredibly famous people tell you what the concept was, in a way that didn’t sound like a bunch of boring exposition. So: Anthony Bourdain using fish soup to explain collateral debt organization, Selena Gomez making bets in Las Vegas to elucidate credit default swaps, and, most memorably, Margot Robbie in a bubble bath, explaining how mortgage-backed securities worked in the first place.

Yes! It’s a gimmick! But it’s a gimmick that works to give everybody watching the information they need to know to keep watching and understanding what happens next. McKay has the characters in the main story break the fourth wall every now and again as well, to let the audience know when the story on the screen deviates from what happened in real life, or, in the case of Ryan Gosling, to act as the narrator for the story. This could be obnoxious but it mostly works, largely because the story being told is, actually, gripping.

Why? Because it’s about the end of the world, economically speaking — a financial collapse so big that the only other economic collapse in living memory to compare it to was the Great Depression of the 1930s. Financial folks were taking mortgages, the unsexiest and presumably most stable of financial instruments, and finding new and ever-more-risky ways to repackage them as investment properties, aided by greed and a regulatory system that either didn’t know how to evaluate these risky securities, or, equally likely, simply didn’t care to look. By the time we enter the picture, a few years before the collapse, the downsides are there if someone wanted to look.

The people who looked were Michael Burry (Bale), a clearly autistic nerd running a hedge fund who pored through the numbers and saw the inevitable; Jared Vennett (Gosling), one of the first bankers to look at Burry’s numbers and figure he was right; and Mark Baum (Carrell), who takes a meeting with Vennett, hears his pitch about the collapse, and decides to see how far down this mortgage-backed securities hole goes. Later on we meet Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley (John Magaro and Finn Witrock) two small-fry fund managers who stumble upon Vennett’s pitch and then recruit Ben Rickert (Pitt) to get them the access they need to make their own short bets. All of these folks with the exception of Vennett are total outsiders, and when all of them come around to buy their shorts, every bank and financial firm is happy to take their money, because they think they are fools.

The thing is, none of these people were just working on a hunch. Burry looked deep into the numbers, while Baum had his people go down to places like Florida, where extremely risky mortgages were being written up, specifically so they could be shoved into, and hidden by, these securities that were allegedly low-risk investment opportunities. These scenes in the movie, where exotic dancers own five homes and are unaware how much risk they’ve exposed themselves to, renters are shocked to find their landlords aren’t keeping up with their mortgage payments, and mortgage underwriters simply do not give a shit who they give a loan to, are like a punch in the face. We see what Baum and his people see: all these people are screwed and there’s no way out of an economic slide into the abyss.

Mind you, not everyone understands it in the same way. When Geller and Shipley manage to wrangle a series of shorts on some exceptionally risky loans, they start dancing and pumping their fists thinking about their little victory — until Ricket makes it extremely clear to them what the cost of their being right is going to be. What? Consequences? Yes. Consequences.

We all know how this ends: The housing bubble collapses, century-old banks go under, foreclosures shoot through the roof, and the Great Recession misses becoming the Second Great Depression only by the smallest of margins. There is wreckage, and all of the main characters in this movie get their payday, although in some cases, it’s a near thing indeed. They get what they wanted, and not a single one of them is happy about it.

Damn it, Scalzi! I hear you say. This movie is depressing as hell! How can you say it’s a comfort movie? Because ultimately it’s about smart people doing smart things. These people don’t get where they end up in the movie because they’re lucky, they get where they end up because they of all people are willing to actually pay attention to what’s directly in front of them. They’re not just going with the flow; they understand the flow is actually an undertow, and it’s going to take everything down with it. And because no one else in the world wants to or is willing to see, then they’re going to do what’s available to them: Make some money off it.

Again: This does not make them good people. It makes them opportunists. Baum, at the very least, seems to be appalled by it all, not that the opportunity exists, but that it exists because other people can’t see the disaster they’re helping to make. He seems genuinely angry that people really are just this stupid. He still shoves his chips onto “collapse,” like everyone else in this film.

Here is the film’s implicit question: Even if any of these guys had screamed to high heaven about the risk of collapse, who would have listened? They weren’t going to do that — these are not those guys — but if they did, would it have mattered? The banks and the regulators and the financial gurus were all on board for everything being great. And there were Cassandras, people who pointed out that these securities were primed to explode, and just like the actual Cassandra, no one listened. If you could yell at the top of your lungs and still no one would give a shit, what’s left? As an investor, either find some part of the market that’s going to weather a global collapse, or short the crap out of it and fiddle while everything burns. We know what these guys did. What would you do?

The Big Short changed the career of Adam McKay, who walked away from this film with an Oscar for screenwriting and a license to make movies that aren’t just goofy (his films in the aftermath of this one: Vice, about Dick Cheney, and Don’t Look Up, about the actual end of the world). Good for him. I would like to say this movie also served as a warning about the dangers of blind and heedless capitalism, but look at the AI Bubble, where seven tech companies, all besotted by “AI,” are 40% of the S&P 500’s market capitalization, and are sucking the US dry of energy and water. The look at the current state of the housing market in the US, where in most states buying a home is unaffordable on the average income, and tell me what we’ve learned. The tell me whether the people running the country right now are equipped to handle the collapse when it happens, or will just try to short it themselves.

This movie isn’t a comfort movie because it has good people or a happy ending. It’s a comfort movie for one reason: Some people actually can see what is going to happen before it all goes off the rails. It’s comforting to know that in this, one is not alone.

— JS

March 2022

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
131415 16171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Dec. 23rd, 2025 09:21 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios