The Week in Geek: 9/14 - 9/20

Not a lot in the journal.  Between the depression over DFW's suicide and life in general there wasn't a lot of writing last week.  That'll be rectified as we're gearing up for the 3rd Annual Hail Horror! marathon of movie review beginning next week.

In case you missed it, here's what happened last week on GEEK MONKEY (click the highlighted portion to read the post)...

Book #37: The Last Colony

I find myself incapable of writing a lengthy review for a John Scalzi book. Not because I don't like his books: with each novel I think he only gets better and better, and if anything I think The Last Colony, the third novel to take place in the Old Man's War universe, may be his most accomplished to date. I think the simple fact is I prefer to just let Scalzi's magic percolate inside me, where the feelings and impressions can remain potent, rather than diluted by meager attempts to write it down.

How do you categorize a book like this? In a broad sense it's SF, but underneath that glossy veneer is a novel about family and the things we're prepared to sacrifice for in the name of family. It's also about power, and about governments, and how people can be used as any piece on the chessboard to win the game, but are most often used as pawns. It's also about home: leaving home, and finding a new home. And yes: there are aliens and fantastical weapons and epic battles and superhuman feats of strength and agility. But Scalzi uses all of that for a single goal: to serve the story he wants to tell. If ever a book subscribed to the Atkins Diet, it would be The Last Colony. Even the dialog, which can fall anywhere from snappy banter a la old Howard Hawks films to more poignant, sentimental moments, serve to strengthen the characters and propel the story forward.

Ex-military hero and "Old Man" John Perry, his ex-Special Forces wife Jane Sagan and their adopted daughter Zoe (you can read Scalzi's previous novels Old Man's War and The Ghost Brigades to get their stories, but it's not necessary - one of Scalzi's strengths is making his connected novels work as stand-alone entities as well) are asked to lead a group of colonists preparing to settle on a new world. Reluctantly they agree, only to find the world they're settling is not the one they thought they were, and the reasons for settling there have to do with a power struggle against a conglomerate known as The Conclave - a group of races who for reasons of their own are halting the future colonization of any planet by any race not part of the Conclave. Caught in the middle of this war, Perry and his family have to do anything they can to protect the settlement as they race to understand what's happening, why they were specifically chosen, and who, if anyone, is in the right of things.

There's a lot at play here - Scalzi juggles numerous faction and ideas that don't become fully clear until all is said and done. but he never loses sight of where the actual drama unfolds, in the dangers faced by his protagonists. John Perry is a great "everyman" - seeing the situation through his now-human eyes allows the reader an immersive experience, and seeing how his family and others react to the humanity of his actions makes for some wonderful interplay in the book. How it all ends was a fantastic surprise, and more proof (as if any was needed) that Scalzi is a major writer worthy of comparisons to the greats in the field.

Burn After Reading (2008)

Life is funny, isn't it?  You can try to make sense of things, but sometimes it's best to just sweep things under the rug and move right along to the next thing.

At least, that's the impression I left with after seeing BURN AFTER READING, the new film from the Coen Brothers, and an interesting choice coming off the heels of last year's multi-award winning NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.  The final film in their "Idiot Trilogy" starring George Clooney, BURN AFTER READING is a slice-of-life served up with very little in the way of judgment or interpretation, instead presenting a series of misadventures surrounding a computer disc ("PC, not"Mac" as noted in the film) that may or may not contain the memoirs of a disgraced CIA analyst.

But like the best Hitchcock movies, the disc isn't the story at all, rather it's the MacGuffin which allows us to view the absurd lives of the people who become affected by its presence.  To summarize the plot doesn't do any service to the movie: people find the disc, attempt to get money in exchange for not releasing the information, and fail utterly.  But life, like BURN AFTER READING, is more than just a simple story arc.  It's a messy, often tragic and hilarious series of events and circumstances that, taking on its own with context, ultimately means nothing.  The biggest laugh in the movie comes from Clooney's reveal of a machine he's been building in his basement, but what impressed me more than the laugh was how incredibly tense and fearful everyone in the audience was leading up to the big reveal.  The scene, in which the married Clooney goes on a blind date with Frances McDormand's plastic surgery obsessed Linda Litzke, Clooney leads her down to the basement to view his accomplishment.  It's a terrifying moment, and time and again throughout the film the Coens play with expectation, manipulating your feelings one way only to do a complete reversal.  And time and again they manage to do it without telegraphing a single hint.

A few days after seeing it, I'm still trying to get my head around everything.  I haven't mentioned how loathsome (and great) John Malkovich and Tilda Swinton are as the CIA analyst and his wife who get the ball rolling.  Or how wonderful JK Simmons is in his small but pivotal role as the CIA chief who really just wishes this business with the disc would just go away.  There's a scene that follows a pair of feet through the halls of Langely as information about the disc travels, and it's brilliant not only for it's visual composition, but for the sound design as the footsteps echo differently in different places.

And Frances McDormand is, well, Frances McDormand.  She's brilliant, and more than any other actor knows how to deliver Coen Brother dialog.  If there's an arc in this story it's hers, but where it goes will surprise you.

I could keep going, but there's really no point.  BURN AFTER READING is vintage Coen Brothers, and either you'll go for it or you won't.  I left feeling like it was on the lower spectrum of their films (comparable in quality to THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, although perhaps closer in tone to FARGO - only not as good) but a day or two's reflection coupled with some conversation with friends has warmed it in my mind.

The Week in Geek: 9/7 - 9/13

In case you missed it, here's what happened last week on GEEK MONKEY (click the highlighted portion to read the post)...

RIP, David Foster Wallace

(Now updated with aftershocks)
  • There's an appraisal in the New York Times here.
  • I first read the news in an obituary on Ain't It Cool News here.
My hands won't stop shaking, and it feels like something low and mean sucker punched me in the solar plexus.  Five minutes ago I read David Foster Wallace was found dead in his home Friday, apparently having hanged himself.  Few authors have had such a profound effect on me; not only on what I read, but in how I write.  David Foster Wallace was one of those people.  The first book I reviewed this year was Consider the Lobster, a collection of essays that was manic in its exuberant show of genius.  He was a writer incapable of reigning in his talent, and whether he was indulging in towering 1,000+ page novels (Infinite Jest), relating his experiences on the set of a David Lynch film (A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again) or simply editing The Best American Essays (the 2007 edition), he was a brash, electric spike that challenged me to be a better writer and, more importantly, be a better reader.

After reading an advance review in Time Magazine back in 1996 I picked up Infinite Jest the day it was released.  At almost $30, it was a juggernaut my post-college finances could barely afford, but buy it I did and over the next few months devoured every word.  A few years later I read it again.  Every page, every copious footnote caused a single synapse in my brain to re-wire.  Debate swirled constantly about his style - detractors called upon the constant self referencing, the footnotes, everything being chalked up to a massive arrogance and ego that was a mask for larger literary errors.  I never thought so - to my mind it was an uncanny echo of how I related to the world, doing something and knowing that you're actively doing it and the doubt that comes with the conscious knowledge of participating in an act or thought.  Laura Miller, in her essay about Wallace over at Salon.com, was able to express this much better than I ever could:

He wrote about the maddening impossibility of scrutinizing yourself without also scrutinizing yourself scrutinizing yourself and so on, ad infinitum, a vertiginous spiral of narcissism -- because not even the most merciless self- examination can ignore the probability that you are simultaneously congratulating yourself for your soul-searching, that you are posing. He tried so hard to be sincere and to attend to the world around him because he was excruciatingly aware of how often we are merely "sincere" and "attentive" and all too willing to leave it at that. He spoke of the discipline and of the abrading, daily labor such efforts require because the one imperative that runs throughout all of his work is the intimate connection between humility and wisdom.

Knowing that he's gone, and that he's gone for reason that we'll never know, feels like too much. It's cliché that often you don't know the effect people have on you until they're gone.  And David Foster Wallace is gone and his words are still here but right now I can't read them without feeling angry and sad and confused because it just feels like the color drained out of the world.

Fuck.

__________________________________________________________

I wrote the above (with a little editing this morning) last night while my wife was visiting her Aunt with Jack.  Afterward I sat downstairs, unable to much except visualize again and again someone roughly looking like Wallace stepping off a chair and killing himself.  I don't know if that's what happened, but for some reason I couldn't stop thinking about it.  When my wife came home and put Jack to bed, she sat down next to me on the couch and I told her what had happened.  When I got to the suicide I starting shaking, and suddenly right there with her legs in my lap I couldn't control myself and just cried.

I didn't know him, and really I couldn't see a reason I would be so affected by his death.  Maybe it's the not understanding why someone you admire would do something so foolish, so profoundly stupid (at least in my eyes) that it felt like the world just wasn't the way I had always believed it to be.  And then, for no longer than a second, I had this feeling of utter hopelessness, a combination of different emotions, all negative, beating on the inside of my skull, and I started to think, in that way that Miller describes in her article, about the fact that I was feeling this specific thing, about this specific event.  And instead of getting lost deeper and deeper in some meta-fiction in my own head, I pulled out of it, and realized that I was doing this to myself, and that I could stop thinking like that and think about something else.  I looked over at my wife and did just that. I don't know if Wallace could have done that, or if he even had a choice.  I was sad, but glad I had that choice.