![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matt_zimmerAlso reviews for the latest episode of Doom Patrol and the novel Pet Sematary.
Star Trek: Prodigy "Supernova, Part 1"
Nicely done. The drama was played to the hilt and the arc of things getting progressively worse was expertly built into the writing.
And I love Dal kissing Gwyn because it was a complication she didn't see coming in a situation that was already beyond complicated.
Also nice and refreshing to see a bit of redemption for the Diviner before he died. But seeing how his arc was progressing this season, it also wasn't unexpected. It felt like a natural progression for his character.
I have a hard time understanding how English is referred to as "standard." Universal translators are the one bit of futuristic tech you never want to pull threads about, but even I think that sounds unlikely.
Janeway making friends on Voyager continues to pay off.
Really looking forward to next week. ****1/2.
Doom Patrol "Casey Patrol"
That was amazing. No other qualifiers necessary.
I think my problem is this show is this specific level of amazing so infrequently I always forget it is totally capable of it. Outside of the nonsense, the show can make me feel things if it wants me to. And maybe remembering that this week might make me a bit more demanding of future episodes. This show can be amazing. I don't like the fact that it stingily doles out its amazingness only for special occasions. Amazing television is nothing to be ashamed of. It needs to be normalized, in fact.
I loved Dorothy's rant against her father. And I also loved the character of Casey. Child actor Madeline Zima has built quite a respectable acting career for herself and I liked her earnestness and squareness in the role, so unlike her usual tweakers and freaks, because her acting was solid, and she obviously isn't some unaffordable name guest star they can only get back schedules and budgets permitting. Zima, a solid actress not known for ever turning down a role means they can essentially bring her and Dorothy back whenever they like.
I forget this show is sometimes amazing, and this episode reminded me. But I must insist from this point forward that the show being amazing should become a common occurrence from now on. It's really not too much to ask. *****.
Pet Sematary by Stephen King
We have a lot to talk about.
As praised as this book is as the scariest thing Stephen King has ever written, in interviews and even the forward here, I get the deep sense King greatly dislikes the book. If it had sold as poorly and gotten as bad of a reception as Rose Madder or The Tommyknockers I can picture King talking your ear off over how much he hates it. Because it resonated with so many people, King actually uses the forward to explore why he wrote such a horrific book, and suggests the book terrifies him so much because it is a dark real life "What If?" scenario from an actual moment in his life.
I have my share of grievances with Stephen King and the things he chooses to portray in his writing. Knowing however, that he is the kind of person who occasionally gets upset over something he's written makes me forgive a LOT I otherwise wouldn't.
My take on the book is closer to King's than his fans'. Rereading every King book and story I own is daunting, especially knowing I'll have to reread things I don't want to. Pet Sematary was near the top of the list of King books I hate revisiting (second place is Revival). It's a bigger bummer to me and harder to get through than some books he's written that are legitimately terrible. It's the conviction and surety King uses when writing this horrible book that sets it apart from the random downer endings from his short fiction in Night Shift and Skeleton Crew. I will argue the bad endings King show there are done because King was a crappy writer at that stage of his career, or at least as far as short fiction usually went. It's super easy to pile on horrible things and end the story with the main character dying. It takes no talent to tell that kind of story. King is a MAJOR fan of EC horror comics, but I'm not. I find their stories incredibly lazy, and the comic adaptation of Creepshow solidified that opinion. But Pet Sematary is memorable because it's a well-written book that has the horrible things occur in a logical fashion to strengthen the characters and the narrative. The characters don't all die at the end because King was stuck for a way to get them out of their perils. Instead, the entire book, and Louis Creed's escalating madness is leading up to it, and as everything goes just as badly as it possibly could in the climax, you realize it couldn't have ended any other way.
I'm speaking of the story King has told by the way. King is sort of hinting around the edges that the evil forces of the Micmac Burial Ground and the Wendigo are deliberately setting things up to bring back a demon Gage Creed and drive his father insane. And while I respect the Narrative for following its own path it set out to, I must say I don't believe Jud's idea that larger forces than he could possibly fathom are conspiring to allow this horror to occur. I think the horror occurring is down to one guy: Louis Creed. A selfish, weak, cowardly man who actually knows better the entire time. He isn't tricked into this. He's made deliberate and poor choices of his own volition. Steve at the end was able to resist the temptation of the force and that was it for him. If Louis had even attempted that once, none of that nonsense would have happened.
King has a knack for creating and writing famously crappy husbands. But unlike Jack Torrance and Burt from Children Of The Corn, Louis' failings in his marriage aren't down to malice or passive-aggression on his end. It's in his cowardice and weakness. I found it very interesting that King essentially told this "That coulda been me!" cautionary tale using a hapless schmuck for his stand-in. And from what I know of King, he would never have made the same terrible decisions Louis Creed does in his place. I'm wondering if he "jerked up" the surrogate character a bit to feel a little more comfortable in punishing him. To be honest, I hate the grim ending myself. But I thank God it happened to a character I widely disliked and half-believed had it coming to them rather than someone I cared about.
Truly the thing I hate and resent most about Louis is that King also handed us a character with almost NO redeeming virtues in Rachel's father. His behavior at the funeral is disgusting and unforgivable. I resent the fact that Louis basically spent the climax of the book proving that loathsome monster right about how worthless he was and how he ruined his daughter's life. That jag should not be right about ANYTHING, much less the biggest, most significant thing.
What especially kills me is how outraged Louis is on child Rachel's behalf over her parents insensitivities to Zelda's death. And while he's bemoaning what a sack of crap his father-in-law is for putting his wife through that, Louis himself does the exact same damn thing to her and daughter Ellie later on. It's infuriating.
King does a LOT of subtle things in the book to hint that Louis sucks all along. There is a throwaway line I am astounded exists, and I think it's equal parts sucky and brilliant. I think King knows how bad it is and is making a statement by including it. But the idea that Louis once visited a whore 6 years ago, believes it meant nothing, and only remembers it the once says that Louis is a terrible husband and father. Jud has a similar perspective regarding his extramarital dalliances, but I get the sense that Jud regrets them, and that King is using them as an example of a bad thing about the character. Louis not actually have a bigger reaction to having done that, much less guilt says a LOT to me about what kind of man he actually is.
Rachel saying she learned THAT in the Girl Scouts strikes me as far scarier than anything else in that book. Real crowd-pleasing laughline back in the day, in a book not known for its humor.
Whenever I read Jud Crandall's dialogue in my head, his voice is Sam Elliott's. Not sure why.
I think King takes complaints of any bummer endings he delivers very seriously from his fans. And regardless of those complaints, as far as this book goes, his canon is better for it existing. He is a horror writer. He's a weirdly optimistic one, unafraid to let the heroes win or even given them a happy ending. But there is no actual horror or stakes involves if ALL of his heroes make it through to the other side. He needs to show actual losses for protagonists in his work occasionally, or any horror tension the reader is invited to feel isn't real. King is usually a kind enough writer to pull back on the horror by the end of the book. But sometimes he HAS to simply go for it, as ugly as it is, to give everything else proper stakes. I don't much enjoy reading this book, but I do admire it for that reason.
And the truth is, despite me talking down the idea that the predestiny element is a sham, King's writing has seldom been this assured. The brutal things he shows are devastating because they are things that SHOULD be happening in this particular story with as lily-livered a "hero" as Louis Creed. King dislikes what the book reveals about himself. I actually find his writing in it quite truthful. And yeah, I agree a lot of it is so gruesome I won't think better of King's mental health for it. But the bad things happening in the book SHOULD happen, which is the highest compliment I can give a book that goes the exact opposite way anyone reading it could ever have wanted it to.
I'm not inclined to give something that unpleasant a high grade. But I also won't dismiss it or pretend it is without merit. And I think King occasionally refusing to pull back on the horror is the reason his reader's know that when it comes to horror, he DOES actually mean business. **1/2.
Star Trek: Prodigy "Supernova, Part 1"
Nicely done. The drama was played to the hilt and the arc of things getting progressively worse was expertly built into the writing.
And I love Dal kissing Gwyn because it was a complication she didn't see coming in a situation that was already beyond complicated.
Also nice and refreshing to see a bit of redemption for the Diviner before he died. But seeing how his arc was progressing this season, it also wasn't unexpected. It felt like a natural progression for his character.
I have a hard time understanding how English is referred to as "standard." Universal translators are the one bit of futuristic tech you never want to pull threads about, but even I think that sounds unlikely.
Janeway making friends on Voyager continues to pay off.
Really looking forward to next week. ****1/2.
Doom Patrol "Casey Patrol"
That was amazing. No other qualifiers necessary.
I think my problem is this show is this specific level of amazing so infrequently I always forget it is totally capable of it. Outside of the nonsense, the show can make me feel things if it wants me to. And maybe remembering that this week might make me a bit more demanding of future episodes. This show can be amazing. I don't like the fact that it stingily doles out its amazingness only for special occasions. Amazing television is nothing to be ashamed of. It needs to be normalized, in fact.
I loved Dorothy's rant against her father. And I also loved the character of Casey. Child actor Madeline Zima has built quite a respectable acting career for herself and I liked her earnestness and squareness in the role, so unlike her usual tweakers and freaks, because her acting was solid, and she obviously isn't some unaffordable name guest star they can only get back schedules and budgets permitting. Zima, a solid actress not known for ever turning down a role means they can essentially bring her and Dorothy back whenever they like.
I forget this show is sometimes amazing, and this episode reminded me. But I must insist from this point forward that the show being amazing should become a common occurrence from now on. It's really not too much to ask. *****.
Pet Sematary by Stephen King
We have a lot to talk about.
As praised as this book is as the scariest thing Stephen King has ever written, in interviews and even the forward here, I get the deep sense King greatly dislikes the book. If it had sold as poorly and gotten as bad of a reception as Rose Madder or The Tommyknockers I can picture King talking your ear off over how much he hates it. Because it resonated with so many people, King actually uses the forward to explore why he wrote such a horrific book, and suggests the book terrifies him so much because it is a dark real life "What If?" scenario from an actual moment in his life.
I have my share of grievances with Stephen King and the things he chooses to portray in his writing. Knowing however, that he is the kind of person who occasionally gets upset over something he's written makes me forgive a LOT I otherwise wouldn't.
My take on the book is closer to King's than his fans'. Rereading every King book and story I own is daunting, especially knowing I'll have to reread things I don't want to. Pet Sematary was near the top of the list of King books I hate revisiting (second place is Revival). It's a bigger bummer to me and harder to get through than some books he's written that are legitimately terrible. It's the conviction and surety King uses when writing this horrible book that sets it apart from the random downer endings from his short fiction in Night Shift and Skeleton Crew. I will argue the bad endings King show there are done because King was a crappy writer at that stage of his career, or at least as far as short fiction usually went. It's super easy to pile on horrible things and end the story with the main character dying. It takes no talent to tell that kind of story. King is a MAJOR fan of EC horror comics, but I'm not. I find their stories incredibly lazy, and the comic adaptation of Creepshow solidified that opinion. But Pet Sematary is memorable because it's a well-written book that has the horrible things occur in a logical fashion to strengthen the characters and the narrative. The characters don't all die at the end because King was stuck for a way to get them out of their perils. Instead, the entire book, and Louis Creed's escalating madness is leading up to it, and as everything goes just as badly as it possibly could in the climax, you realize it couldn't have ended any other way.
I'm speaking of the story King has told by the way. King is sort of hinting around the edges that the evil forces of the Micmac Burial Ground and the Wendigo are deliberately setting things up to bring back a demon Gage Creed and drive his father insane. And while I respect the Narrative for following its own path it set out to, I must say I don't believe Jud's idea that larger forces than he could possibly fathom are conspiring to allow this horror to occur. I think the horror occurring is down to one guy: Louis Creed. A selfish, weak, cowardly man who actually knows better the entire time. He isn't tricked into this. He's made deliberate and poor choices of his own volition. Steve at the end was able to resist the temptation of the force and that was it for him. If Louis had even attempted that once, none of that nonsense would have happened.
King has a knack for creating and writing famously crappy husbands. But unlike Jack Torrance and Burt from Children Of The Corn, Louis' failings in his marriage aren't down to malice or passive-aggression on his end. It's in his cowardice and weakness. I found it very interesting that King essentially told this "That coulda been me!" cautionary tale using a hapless schmuck for his stand-in. And from what I know of King, he would never have made the same terrible decisions Louis Creed does in his place. I'm wondering if he "jerked up" the surrogate character a bit to feel a little more comfortable in punishing him. To be honest, I hate the grim ending myself. But I thank God it happened to a character I widely disliked and half-believed had it coming to them rather than someone I cared about.
Truly the thing I hate and resent most about Louis is that King also handed us a character with almost NO redeeming virtues in Rachel's father. His behavior at the funeral is disgusting and unforgivable. I resent the fact that Louis basically spent the climax of the book proving that loathsome monster right about how worthless he was and how he ruined his daughter's life. That jag should not be right about ANYTHING, much less the biggest, most significant thing.
What especially kills me is how outraged Louis is on child Rachel's behalf over her parents insensitivities to Zelda's death. And while he's bemoaning what a sack of crap his father-in-law is for putting his wife through that, Louis himself does the exact same damn thing to her and daughter Ellie later on. It's infuriating.
King does a LOT of subtle things in the book to hint that Louis sucks all along. There is a throwaway line I am astounded exists, and I think it's equal parts sucky and brilliant. I think King knows how bad it is and is making a statement by including it. But the idea that Louis once visited a whore 6 years ago, believes it meant nothing, and only remembers it the once says that Louis is a terrible husband and father. Jud has a similar perspective regarding his extramarital dalliances, but I get the sense that Jud regrets them, and that King is using them as an example of a bad thing about the character. Louis not actually have a bigger reaction to having done that, much less guilt says a LOT to me about what kind of man he actually is.
Rachel saying she learned THAT in the Girl Scouts strikes me as far scarier than anything else in that book. Real crowd-pleasing laughline back in the day, in a book not known for its humor.
Whenever I read Jud Crandall's dialogue in my head, his voice is Sam Elliott's. Not sure why.
I think King takes complaints of any bummer endings he delivers very seriously from his fans. And regardless of those complaints, as far as this book goes, his canon is better for it existing. He is a horror writer. He's a weirdly optimistic one, unafraid to let the heroes win or even given them a happy ending. But there is no actual horror or stakes involves if ALL of his heroes make it through to the other side. He needs to show actual losses for protagonists in his work occasionally, or any horror tension the reader is invited to feel isn't real. King is usually a kind enough writer to pull back on the horror by the end of the book. But sometimes he HAS to simply go for it, as ugly as it is, to give everything else proper stakes. I don't much enjoy reading this book, but I do admire it for that reason.
And the truth is, despite me talking down the idea that the predestiny element is a sham, King's writing has seldom been this assured. The brutal things he shows are devastating because they are things that SHOULD be happening in this particular story with as lily-livered a "hero" as Louis Creed. King dislikes what the book reveals about himself. I actually find his writing in it quite truthful. And yeah, I agree a lot of it is so gruesome I won't think better of King's mental health for it. But the bad things happening in the book SHOULD happen, which is the highest compliment I can give a book that goes the exact opposite way anyone reading it could ever have wanted it to.
I'm not inclined to give something that unpleasant a high grade. But I also won't dismiss it or pretend it is without merit. And I think King occasionally refusing to pull back on the horror is the reason his reader's know that when it comes to horror, he DOES actually mean business. **1/2.
