Matt Zimmer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
matt_zimmer) wrote2024-02-02 02:09 pm
matt_zimmer) wrote2024-02-02 02:09 pm
Entry tags:
"Godzilla" (1954) Review (Spoilers)
Also reviews for the latest episodes of Night Court, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and Law & Order: Organized Crime, the novel Gwendy's Magic Feather, the novella collection If It Bleeds, and the novel Later.
Godzilla (1954)
Note about this review: I will be reviewing this like a normal film. Not a punchline. I will treat it like any other movie.
Me seeing this was long overdue. I confess I didn't much enjoy it. But I admired it a lot.
It doesn't mess around. As bad as the visual effects are (and they are atrocious) the thing I respect most about it how seriously it treats the subject matter. For many people, that's the precise reason to make fun of it. I won't even flatter those types of people by calling them cynics. I'll just say they have bad taste in what is important in entertainment and leave it at that. A film treating its own subject matter seriously is something to praise, ESPECIALLY if the subject matter is ridiculous. That gives the film MORE credit from me, not less. It's weird most people view that the opposite way.
Clearly Japan in 1954 was still undergoing shellshock from Hiroshima. And the PTSD of that event can be felt in every frame of the film.
Godzilla is not a hero monster protecting the populace from worse monsters. Godzilla is the creature that leaves a little girl screaming for her dead mother in a triage tent. The idea that there could be a monster who goes around destroying cities potentially on the side of humanity is ridiculous on its face, and as serious minded as the Titans Monsterverse films are, they still feed into that. And it's bogus.
The score is magnificent.
The film is imperfect. Usually I like that about great films. But it's only a GOOD one, so some of these flaws bugged me.
Once they revealed the existence of the "oxygen destroyer" I was like, "Really?" Besides it following no logical measure of science, it's the most boring and lazy name for the device ever. I sincerely hope the actual problem is the American subtitle translators had a lack of imagination. If that's the literal translation of the Japanese in the film, that's a failing. I especially groaned when Serizawa said he wanted to keep it secret until he could find a way to make it "benefit humanity". Right, guy, because you just KNOW something called an "oxygen destroyer" could TOTALLY someday benefit humanity. Dave Barry is not making this up. Let's get right on to brainstorming on that.
But because the film doesn't suck, despite that misstep, I appreciate that the actual emotional climax of the film is Ogata and Emiko having the dramatic ethical and philosophical argument (and later fight) about using it. I especially like the solution Serizawa came up with: Destroy the notes, and make setting the thing off a suicide mission so nobody could build another one. It probably should have been made a little more explicit in dialogue that was why he was making that specific sacrifice, but I got it without it.
When watching old movies for the first time, I am always wary of gender dynamics, and how invariably messed up they always were back then. Emiko IS a bit docile, but she's still a major part of the plot. I think the thing I liked best about this part of the film is at the diplomatic conference where one Japan's leaders was insisting on keeping this catastrophe quiet, the person screaming at him to tell the public the truth is a strong and confident young woman. That was not lost on me.
I appreciate that Ogata wept over Serizawa's death at the end. He's wasn't blubbering or anything, but tears were present. And it makes me find all other American male movie heroes of the era lacking for never being willing to let them do that.
I'm not going to watch any of the increasingly campy and ridiculous Toho sequels but I heard somebody say nice things about this recently, and checked it out. Surprise. It's a nice thing. ****.
Night Court "Wrath Of Comic-Con"
When I saw John Larroquette dressed up as a Klingon, I knew I'd give the episode a positive grade. A lot of people believe the old show is superior to this. But they would never think to do that. He even calls himself Maltz. For God's sake's Brent Spiner was a recurring actor back then and Data wasn't brought up once. So respect.
I love that Wyatt's beef with his Paw Patrol costume is that the garbage superpower makes no sense. Interesting note. I'll file that away for later consideration.
Abby's plot with the friend she hates was surprisingly decent too. What I love is that Heather is in no way hurt or mad at the end, which is both not remotely believable and utterly refreshing at the exact same time.
I loved the episode. I wish more of them were like this. ****1/2.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit "The Punch List"
I remember David Krumholtz. Big part of the 1990's. He's turned into kind of a shlubby by guy in middle age. I thought him enjoying going undercover was fun, especially him charming himself back into his wife's good graces. I took note of how fun it was because very little on this show is ever fun.
Liv's stuff however was much less successful. Speaking a viewer and person who cares about Liv's well-being, it's not really fair for the writers to have her obsessed over the Maddie investigation while there are no new leads or breaks in the case. It's punishing not just to the character but to the viewer. I do not think a show about sex crimes lends itself to arc-based storytelling, and a kidnapping certainly does not. Law & Order: Organized Crime rocks the serialized storytelling. SVU needs to stay in its lane. ***1/2.
Law & Order: Organized Crime "End Of Innocence"
So Stabler has TWO brothers we never heard of. I'm calling retcon.
Glad Reyes is sleeping in his car. If his wife was in the dark about this I'd be unable to forgive him.
Gruesome gimmick for the crime.
The woman renting the guns strikes me as an ever bigger sociopath than the assassin. At least the assassin likes quiet kids. But he raised her ire by cashing lottery tickets he didn't buy in her store and didn't buy anything else either. After seeing those crime scene photos it is VERY telling to me that THAT specific thing is what actually strikes her as ill-mannered. Sociopath. No question.
I'm not saying Reyes definitely would have successfully navigated the gun deal without blowing his cover. But he might have. Jet went in too soon.
I don't like hearing about never-before-mentioned relatives, especially for TV characters that have been around for nearly 25 years. I'm resisting the episode for that reason. ***.
Gwendy's Magic Feather by Richard Chizmar
Lovely solo Gwendy outing by Chizmar. I love the concept of the Magic Feather because it's not a McGuffin like the Button Box. It's just a lucky talisman. It has no real significance. And yet, when Richard Farris leaves it for her at the end I break out in a wide grin. It's the perfect ending to the book.
I REALLY love Richard Farris, and while at this point I still believe Chizmar was under the impression he was Randall Flagg, that just makes his kindness interesting to me. King later on decided in the final book that Farris worked for The White, and R.F. was a coincidence instead of a secret ID. I think Farris working for The White is the right move. Him not being Randall Flagg is a missed opportunity. I will go further into my thoughts there when I review the final book of the trilogy "Gwendy's Final Task".
King Connections Of Note: It's a Gwendy book, so legion. Chizmar IS a nerd. Sequel to "Gwendy's Button Box". The events of "The Dead Zone", "Cujo", and "Needful Things" are alluded to. Reginald "Pop" Merrill from "The Sun Dog" is mentioned. R.F. again, although again, the next book reveals that's a red herring. Also Dorrance Marstellar from "Insomnia" really gets around.
Other thoughts of note. I feel like the stuff with President Hamlin feels unresolved, and it makes the story take place not just in an alternate Universe from ours, but probably one in an alternate Universe from the books it alluded to. I have a feeling that in the continuities of the other books I mentioned (besides "Gwendy's Button Box") Clinton became President. Hamlin makes a good excuse to tempt Gwendy with the button though. The disappointment is nothing comes of it, good or bad, either way.
The Alternate Universeness of this makes the third book go down easier, not just the stuff with the Pyramids, but the stuff in Derry too.
I love this book. The best Stephen King book Stephen King never wrote. ****1/2.
If It Bleeds by Stephen King
I mostly like this collection of novellas. Holly Gibney stars in her first solo outing in the title story, although it's technically long enough to have been published by itself. Wee bit too long to be called a novella.
"The Life Of Chuck" is just amazing all around, and "Mr. Harrigan's Phone" is memorable too (or at least the first half is).
"Rat" however just plain sucks. I bet a lot of people like it, which makes me hate it even more. There is something infuriating to me about a crappy project clearly being designed to be loved by the popular masses. Those piss me off far more than honest failures.
3 good stories, 1 bad one. That's a pretty good ratio for one of these collections. Collection Overall: ***1/2.
Mr. Harrigan's Phone
It's a great and sweet and wonderful story, but if I am being brutally honest (and when I review stuff I always am) it's really only dynamite while Mr. Harrigan is still alive and imparting life lessons to Craig. Once he's died, the story loses a great deal of its punch and never gets it back. This happens in fiction sometimes. I have yet to see Full Metal Jacket, but everyone who has seen it has told me you might as well shut it off after Vincent D'Offrio's part is done. It's the only really interesting thing, and the same thing is true of Mr. Harrigan.
King Connections: Castle Rock and Harlow.
I DO love the story but the truth is it's only truly amazing for the first half. ****.
The Life Of Chuck
This is one of those stories, that the more I reread it, the more I outright love it. It's about a guy's death, which makes it depressing on some level, but the whole "I contain multitudes" things is how I've always viewed the human brain and experience. Each person on Earth is a world in and of themselves. I think in the Mr. Harrigan story Craig remarked that every time an old person died, a library was destroyed. Well, I think King took that idea and really got the ball rolling here.
The busker scene is a pure delight, and one of the more joyful things King has ever written. Chuck is kind of a cipher in the story. We know he's a nice guy, a great dancer, faithful to his wife and family, but outside of knowing he's a good guy who is dying, we don't get details of his actual personality. But the busking makes you instantly love him, and one of your favorite King characters EVER, indistinct personality or not.
I also love the narrative chances the story took in each part being told out order, and from a slightly different perspective from different points in Chuck's life. Dying is a sad thing, and we know King he has the ability to make it ugly. But this story proves King also has the ability to make it beautiful, and open up the whole world for the Constant Readers. It's a wonderful and uplifting story about the saddest topic possible. Those contradictions are why I responded so positively to it. Probably the best story in the collection.
Fun fact: Each of the three parts was written separately, and King put them together for this collection. Usually if something like that happens I review each part individually. But each feels as equally important to the experience as the others. Even if King wrote them as individual stories, together they really aren't. This story is really something. *****.
If It Bleeds
I'm not going to say it's great or perfect. But it's the first Holly Gibney story where King has such a firm handle on the character. It's really cool as a writer when you have a unique character you love and are protective of, and this is the first story I don't just feel it, I believe it. King has claimed Gibney is his favorite character before this, but "Mr. Mercedes" sucks, the other two Bill Hodges books were hit and miss, and "The Outsider" was shockingly terrible. You can call all that practice if you like, but King is determined to do right by Holly in this story. And for me, it's the first one he does.
King Connections: Holly Gibney was introduced in The Bill Hodges Trilogy, and this seems to be an indirect sequel to "The Outsider" (including a cameo from Ralph Anderson at the beginning and end). Inside View and "The Night Flier" are also mentioned.
If I have any complaints, it's the fact that the franchise goes right back to the notion of an Outsider. I feel like it should be more than this at this point. And King's future novel "Holly" agrees with me here, but the biggest problem with "If It Bleeds" is we are already treading familiar ground. That's not usually a bad thing for recurring characters. But it shouldn't happen in back-to-back projects either.
Still, Holly's voice feels surer and more real than ever. King has gotten the knack of a character he loves, and as a writer and creator of characters I love, I recognize and appreciate the feeling. ****.
Rat
Why do I hate this story? I should like it. But I don't. It pisses me off as writer. Drew Larson pisses me off.
Just so we're clear when it comes to unlikable / despicable protagonists in Stephen King books, the bulk of them are usually writers. I don't know if it's because King is self-loathing on some level, but as a writer myself it annoys the hell out me.
Are we doing this? Am I really spending the bulk of the review of this collection griping about a story about a talking, Faustian rat? This is who I am now apparently. That's just terrific.
As far as protagonists go, King's writers are rarely nice, much less heroic. Bill Denbrough from "IT" has heroic qualities, as does Gordie La Chance from "The Body", but I find both characters loathsome for other reasons. Denbrough because he's a philanderer, Gordie because he is the poster boy for toxic masculinity. Gordie irks me especially for this because I don't remotely believe when King wrote "The Body" he ever believed anyone would perceive him that way. While I'm taking down King's writer characters, might as well point out King is too dumb to understand the autobiographical one is super gross, which suggests on some level, he is too. If Gordie's toxicity were to be considered a character fault it would be one thing, but I honestly don't believe King saw anything wrong with the character when he wrote him, which boggles my mind.
Paul Sheldon from "Misery" is a drunk and a drunk driver, but he is one of the only two writer characters King has done that I actually liked. The other is Mike Noonan from "Bag Of Bones" who is the only one I have no negative notes on.
Mort Rainey from "Secret Window, Secret Garden"? Blames his wife for his own problems so badly he goes insane and kills a bunch of people. Jack Torrance from "The Shining"? Another supposedly autobiographical character King is dumb enough to believe is sympathetic, while at every point he is on the page he is rude, manipulative, and incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions. Jim Gardner and Bobbi Anderson from "The Tommyknockers" aren't actually all bad, but they sure as hell did a LOT of damage in that book. Thad Beaumont from "The Dark Half"? Not A Very Nice Guy. Lisey Landon from "Lisey's Story" may have loved her late husband Scott, but he always struck me as a loon. About the only protagonist King wrote that I hate on the level of these jerks that ISN'T a writer is Burt from "Children Of The Corn". Of course, Burt's profession was never specified. He may have been a writer after all.
Why do I hate Drew Larson so much?
Because he's stupid. And he's stupid in ways that make me believe King is stupid. And he might be.
The shaking the hands with the sneezing shopkeeper with the snotrag thing is the stupidest thing I can't get over. It pisses me off. Drew chastises himself over and over for being dumb to do that, and not washing his hands after, but that's not a reasonable thing to realize in hindsight. I would never get NEAR the guy much less shake his hand. It's one of the biggest examples of Drew creating his own problems because he lacks even basic common sense.
The other thing that pisses me off about Drew is the reason I think maybe King is stupid. King's how-to writing guide "On Writing" is not something I remotely recommend. It has good advice on how to shop for an agents, but when it comes to how to actually write a book, King doesn't understand the way he writes is a handicap for most people, so he's telling them all to write in a very stupid fashion because it doesn't occur to him there are other better ways to write a book or a script. It never crosses his mind that just because he hates outlines that they aren't useful for almost every other writer. Which makes every single damn writing tip in that book completely useless.
Drew's fear of losing the book is not a real writing fear for a person who isn't stupid, or at least doesn't write in the stupid way King does. You have a good idea. You put it down and build the rest of the story around it. You don't keep it in your brain like some kind of magical talisman and hope the writing goes well enough that you don't lose the point of what you were trying to do or the very spark of the idea. I will entertain the notion that writer's block exists for some people. But the kind of block Drew is suffering from is due solely to the fact that he's writing the story in a stupid fashion. And he's only doing so because King doesn't understand you can actually write your story any damn way you please, and that he is not the arbiter of that, and does not speak for all writers. Why should he? He writes in a stupid way, figuring out the book blind as he goes along. Miraculously most of King's books don't actually suck. A few are even great. But there quite a few clunkers in the canon that would not exist if King was able to plan better endings instead of just hoping for the best and that things would eventually come together.
Drew is causing so much stress in his family because he writes in the same stupid way King does. Forget shaking the hand of a clearly sick guy. The reason the book is in trouble and he's in danger of losing it is he's not writing down the important beats as they come to him immediately. Which I contend is super dumb.
King Connections: TR-90 from "Bag Of Bones". Derry is also mentioned.
There a rat way to write a story and wrong way. For a story about a rat, King should learn to write the rat way. *.
Later by Stephen King
I love all of Stephen King's Hard Case Crime books, but "Later" might be my favorite. The thing I love about them is he's done three (so far) and all three have broken the rules of the crime / mystery genre for various reasons. "Later" is the one that's a horror novel, but both "The Colorado Kid" and "Joyland" are refreshing for being unlike any other book being published by that company too. I dig storytellers who break the rules. I like breaking 'em myself.
Uncle Harry's "I am," at the end a great twist. What's ironic is that there really isn't an overreaching mystery to this book, at least not one involving a crime needing to be solved. There is no real mystery-style wrap-up prose necessary. And yet I think the fact that Uncle Harry is Jamie's father is as big a surprise bombshell as the most unpredictable of legit mystery books, even if it has nothing to do with a crime. Or does it? Jamie doesn't want to know the whole answer and neither do I.
Liz is a VERY good villain because Jamie is absolutely right that she used to have legit good points. That's what makes her falling apart so horrible.
The gimmick of seeing dead people is also unusual for Hard Case Crime (although ghosts are present in "Joyland"), but I really dug King sort of connecting this book to "IT",(a book I otherwise detest). But it was still sort of amazing to hear the concepts of the Ritual of Chud and the Deadlights brought back for characters outside of the Losers' Club. That's a pretty neat treat for longtime King readers. Neither "Joyland" nor "The Colorado Kid" connected FIRMLY to other King stuff, so that's another rule this book broke.
If King did nothing but write Hard Case Crime books for the rest of his career, I wouldn't object. Hell, he could put Holly Gibney in them! She'd fit right in! SO good. ****1/2.
Godzilla (1954)
Note about this review: I will be reviewing this like a normal film. Not a punchline. I will treat it like any other movie.
Me seeing this was long overdue. I confess I didn't much enjoy it. But I admired it a lot.
It doesn't mess around. As bad as the visual effects are (and they are atrocious) the thing I respect most about it how seriously it treats the subject matter. For many people, that's the precise reason to make fun of it. I won't even flatter those types of people by calling them cynics. I'll just say they have bad taste in what is important in entertainment and leave it at that. A film treating its own subject matter seriously is something to praise, ESPECIALLY if the subject matter is ridiculous. That gives the film MORE credit from me, not less. It's weird most people view that the opposite way.
Clearly Japan in 1954 was still undergoing shellshock from Hiroshima. And the PTSD of that event can be felt in every frame of the film.
Godzilla is not a hero monster protecting the populace from worse monsters. Godzilla is the creature that leaves a little girl screaming for her dead mother in a triage tent. The idea that there could be a monster who goes around destroying cities potentially on the side of humanity is ridiculous on its face, and as serious minded as the Titans Monsterverse films are, they still feed into that. And it's bogus.
The score is magnificent.
The film is imperfect. Usually I like that about great films. But it's only a GOOD one, so some of these flaws bugged me.
Once they revealed the existence of the "oxygen destroyer" I was like, "Really?" Besides it following no logical measure of science, it's the most boring and lazy name for the device ever. I sincerely hope the actual problem is the American subtitle translators had a lack of imagination. If that's the literal translation of the Japanese in the film, that's a failing. I especially groaned when Serizawa said he wanted to keep it secret until he could find a way to make it "benefit humanity". Right, guy, because you just KNOW something called an "oxygen destroyer" could TOTALLY someday benefit humanity. Dave Barry is not making this up. Let's get right on to brainstorming on that.
But because the film doesn't suck, despite that misstep, I appreciate that the actual emotional climax of the film is Ogata and Emiko having the dramatic ethical and philosophical argument (and later fight) about using it. I especially like the solution Serizawa came up with: Destroy the notes, and make setting the thing off a suicide mission so nobody could build another one. It probably should have been made a little more explicit in dialogue that was why he was making that specific sacrifice, but I got it without it.
When watching old movies for the first time, I am always wary of gender dynamics, and how invariably messed up they always were back then. Emiko IS a bit docile, but she's still a major part of the plot. I think the thing I liked best about this part of the film is at the diplomatic conference where one Japan's leaders was insisting on keeping this catastrophe quiet, the person screaming at him to tell the public the truth is a strong and confident young woman. That was not lost on me.
I appreciate that Ogata wept over Serizawa's death at the end. He's wasn't blubbering or anything, but tears were present. And it makes me find all other American male movie heroes of the era lacking for never being willing to let them do that.
I'm not going to watch any of the increasingly campy and ridiculous Toho sequels but I heard somebody say nice things about this recently, and checked it out. Surprise. It's a nice thing. ****.
Night Court "Wrath Of Comic-Con"
When I saw John Larroquette dressed up as a Klingon, I knew I'd give the episode a positive grade. A lot of people believe the old show is superior to this. But they would never think to do that. He even calls himself Maltz. For God's sake's Brent Spiner was a recurring actor back then and Data wasn't brought up once. So respect.
I love that Wyatt's beef with his Paw Patrol costume is that the garbage superpower makes no sense. Interesting note. I'll file that away for later consideration.
Abby's plot with the friend she hates was surprisingly decent too. What I love is that Heather is in no way hurt or mad at the end, which is both not remotely believable and utterly refreshing at the exact same time.
I loved the episode. I wish more of them were like this. ****1/2.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit "The Punch List"
I remember David Krumholtz. Big part of the 1990's. He's turned into kind of a shlubby by guy in middle age. I thought him enjoying going undercover was fun, especially him charming himself back into his wife's good graces. I took note of how fun it was because very little on this show is ever fun.
Liv's stuff however was much less successful. Speaking a viewer and person who cares about Liv's well-being, it's not really fair for the writers to have her obsessed over the Maddie investigation while there are no new leads or breaks in the case. It's punishing not just to the character but to the viewer. I do not think a show about sex crimes lends itself to arc-based storytelling, and a kidnapping certainly does not. Law & Order: Organized Crime rocks the serialized storytelling. SVU needs to stay in its lane. ***1/2.
Law & Order: Organized Crime "End Of Innocence"
So Stabler has TWO brothers we never heard of. I'm calling retcon.
Glad Reyes is sleeping in his car. If his wife was in the dark about this I'd be unable to forgive him.
Gruesome gimmick for the crime.
The woman renting the guns strikes me as an ever bigger sociopath than the assassin. At least the assassin likes quiet kids. But he raised her ire by cashing lottery tickets he didn't buy in her store and didn't buy anything else either. After seeing those crime scene photos it is VERY telling to me that THAT specific thing is what actually strikes her as ill-mannered. Sociopath. No question.
I'm not saying Reyes definitely would have successfully navigated the gun deal without blowing his cover. But he might have. Jet went in too soon.
I don't like hearing about never-before-mentioned relatives, especially for TV characters that have been around for nearly 25 years. I'm resisting the episode for that reason. ***.
Gwendy's Magic Feather by Richard Chizmar
Lovely solo Gwendy outing by Chizmar. I love the concept of the Magic Feather because it's not a McGuffin like the Button Box. It's just a lucky talisman. It has no real significance. And yet, when Richard Farris leaves it for her at the end I break out in a wide grin. It's the perfect ending to the book.
I REALLY love Richard Farris, and while at this point I still believe Chizmar was under the impression he was Randall Flagg, that just makes his kindness interesting to me. King later on decided in the final book that Farris worked for The White, and R.F. was a coincidence instead of a secret ID. I think Farris working for The White is the right move. Him not being Randall Flagg is a missed opportunity. I will go further into my thoughts there when I review the final book of the trilogy "Gwendy's Final Task".
King Connections Of Note: It's a Gwendy book, so legion. Chizmar IS a nerd. Sequel to "Gwendy's Button Box". The events of "The Dead Zone", "Cujo", and "Needful Things" are alluded to. Reginald "Pop" Merrill from "The Sun Dog" is mentioned. R.F. again, although again, the next book reveals that's a red herring. Also Dorrance Marstellar from "Insomnia" really gets around.
Other thoughts of note. I feel like the stuff with President Hamlin feels unresolved, and it makes the story take place not just in an alternate Universe from ours, but probably one in an alternate Universe from the books it alluded to. I have a feeling that in the continuities of the other books I mentioned (besides "Gwendy's Button Box") Clinton became President. Hamlin makes a good excuse to tempt Gwendy with the button though. The disappointment is nothing comes of it, good or bad, either way.
The Alternate Universeness of this makes the third book go down easier, not just the stuff with the Pyramids, but the stuff in Derry too.
I love this book. The best Stephen King book Stephen King never wrote. ****1/2.
If It Bleeds by Stephen King
I mostly like this collection of novellas. Holly Gibney stars in her first solo outing in the title story, although it's technically long enough to have been published by itself. Wee bit too long to be called a novella.
"The Life Of Chuck" is just amazing all around, and "Mr. Harrigan's Phone" is memorable too (or at least the first half is).
"Rat" however just plain sucks. I bet a lot of people like it, which makes me hate it even more. There is something infuriating to me about a crappy project clearly being designed to be loved by the popular masses. Those piss me off far more than honest failures.
3 good stories, 1 bad one. That's a pretty good ratio for one of these collections. Collection Overall: ***1/2.
Mr. Harrigan's Phone
It's a great and sweet and wonderful story, but if I am being brutally honest (and when I review stuff I always am) it's really only dynamite while Mr. Harrigan is still alive and imparting life lessons to Craig. Once he's died, the story loses a great deal of its punch and never gets it back. This happens in fiction sometimes. I have yet to see Full Metal Jacket, but everyone who has seen it has told me you might as well shut it off after Vincent D'Offrio's part is done. It's the only really interesting thing, and the same thing is true of Mr. Harrigan.
King Connections: Castle Rock and Harlow.
I DO love the story but the truth is it's only truly amazing for the first half. ****.
The Life Of Chuck
This is one of those stories, that the more I reread it, the more I outright love it. It's about a guy's death, which makes it depressing on some level, but the whole "I contain multitudes" things is how I've always viewed the human brain and experience. Each person on Earth is a world in and of themselves. I think in the Mr. Harrigan story Craig remarked that every time an old person died, a library was destroyed. Well, I think King took that idea and really got the ball rolling here.
The busker scene is a pure delight, and one of the more joyful things King has ever written. Chuck is kind of a cipher in the story. We know he's a nice guy, a great dancer, faithful to his wife and family, but outside of knowing he's a good guy who is dying, we don't get details of his actual personality. But the busking makes you instantly love him, and one of your favorite King characters EVER, indistinct personality or not.
I also love the narrative chances the story took in each part being told out order, and from a slightly different perspective from different points in Chuck's life. Dying is a sad thing, and we know King he has the ability to make it ugly. But this story proves King also has the ability to make it beautiful, and open up the whole world for the Constant Readers. It's a wonderful and uplifting story about the saddest topic possible. Those contradictions are why I responded so positively to it. Probably the best story in the collection.
Fun fact: Each of the three parts was written separately, and King put them together for this collection. Usually if something like that happens I review each part individually. But each feels as equally important to the experience as the others. Even if King wrote them as individual stories, together they really aren't. This story is really something. *****.
If It Bleeds
I'm not going to say it's great or perfect. But it's the first Holly Gibney story where King has such a firm handle on the character. It's really cool as a writer when you have a unique character you love and are protective of, and this is the first story I don't just feel it, I believe it. King has claimed Gibney is his favorite character before this, but "Mr. Mercedes" sucks, the other two Bill Hodges books were hit and miss, and "The Outsider" was shockingly terrible. You can call all that practice if you like, but King is determined to do right by Holly in this story. And for me, it's the first one he does.
King Connections: Holly Gibney was introduced in The Bill Hodges Trilogy, and this seems to be an indirect sequel to "The Outsider" (including a cameo from Ralph Anderson at the beginning and end). Inside View and "The Night Flier" are also mentioned.
If I have any complaints, it's the fact that the franchise goes right back to the notion of an Outsider. I feel like it should be more than this at this point. And King's future novel "Holly" agrees with me here, but the biggest problem with "If It Bleeds" is we are already treading familiar ground. That's not usually a bad thing for recurring characters. But it shouldn't happen in back-to-back projects either.
Still, Holly's voice feels surer and more real than ever. King has gotten the knack of a character he loves, and as a writer and creator of characters I love, I recognize and appreciate the feeling. ****.
Rat
Why do I hate this story? I should like it. But I don't. It pisses me off as writer. Drew Larson pisses me off.
Just so we're clear when it comes to unlikable / despicable protagonists in Stephen King books, the bulk of them are usually writers. I don't know if it's because King is self-loathing on some level, but as a writer myself it annoys the hell out me.
Are we doing this? Am I really spending the bulk of the review of this collection griping about a story about a talking, Faustian rat? This is who I am now apparently. That's just terrific.
As far as protagonists go, King's writers are rarely nice, much less heroic. Bill Denbrough from "IT" has heroic qualities, as does Gordie La Chance from "The Body", but I find both characters loathsome for other reasons. Denbrough because he's a philanderer, Gordie because he is the poster boy for toxic masculinity. Gordie irks me especially for this because I don't remotely believe when King wrote "The Body" he ever believed anyone would perceive him that way. While I'm taking down King's writer characters, might as well point out King is too dumb to understand the autobiographical one is super gross, which suggests on some level, he is too. If Gordie's toxicity were to be considered a character fault it would be one thing, but I honestly don't believe King saw anything wrong with the character when he wrote him, which boggles my mind.
Paul Sheldon from "Misery" is a drunk and a drunk driver, but he is one of the only two writer characters King has done that I actually liked. The other is Mike Noonan from "Bag Of Bones" who is the only one I have no negative notes on.
Mort Rainey from "Secret Window, Secret Garden"? Blames his wife for his own problems so badly he goes insane and kills a bunch of people. Jack Torrance from "The Shining"? Another supposedly autobiographical character King is dumb enough to believe is sympathetic, while at every point he is on the page he is rude, manipulative, and incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions. Jim Gardner and Bobbi Anderson from "The Tommyknockers" aren't actually all bad, but they sure as hell did a LOT of damage in that book. Thad Beaumont from "The Dark Half"? Not A Very Nice Guy. Lisey Landon from "Lisey's Story" may have loved her late husband Scott, but he always struck me as a loon. About the only protagonist King wrote that I hate on the level of these jerks that ISN'T a writer is Burt from "Children Of The Corn". Of course, Burt's profession was never specified. He may have been a writer after all.
Why do I hate Drew Larson so much?
Because he's stupid. And he's stupid in ways that make me believe King is stupid. And he might be.
The shaking the hands with the sneezing shopkeeper with the snotrag thing is the stupidest thing I can't get over. It pisses me off. Drew chastises himself over and over for being dumb to do that, and not washing his hands after, but that's not a reasonable thing to realize in hindsight. I would never get NEAR the guy much less shake his hand. It's one of the biggest examples of Drew creating his own problems because he lacks even basic common sense.
The other thing that pisses me off about Drew is the reason I think maybe King is stupid. King's how-to writing guide "On Writing" is not something I remotely recommend. It has good advice on how to shop for an agents, but when it comes to how to actually write a book, King doesn't understand the way he writes is a handicap for most people, so he's telling them all to write in a very stupid fashion because it doesn't occur to him there are other better ways to write a book or a script. It never crosses his mind that just because he hates outlines that they aren't useful for almost every other writer. Which makes every single damn writing tip in that book completely useless.
Drew's fear of losing the book is not a real writing fear for a person who isn't stupid, or at least doesn't write in the stupid way King does. You have a good idea. You put it down and build the rest of the story around it. You don't keep it in your brain like some kind of magical talisman and hope the writing goes well enough that you don't lose the point of what you were trying to do or the very spark of the idea. I will entertain the notion that writer's block exists for some people. But the kind of block Drew is suffering from is due solely to the fact that he's writing the story in a stupid fashion. And he's only doing so because King doesn't understand you can actually write your story any damn way you please, and that he is not the arbiter of that, and does not speak for all writers. Why should he? He writes in a stupid way, figuring out the book blind as he goes along. Miraculously most of King's books don't actually suck. A few are even great. But there quite a few clunkers in the canon that would not exist if King was able to plan better endings instead of just hoping for the best and that things would eventually come together.
Drew is causing so much stress in his family because he writes in the same stupid way King does. Forget shaking the hand of a clearly sick guy. The reason the book is in trouble and he's in danger of losing it is he's not writing down the important beats as they come to him immediately. Which I contend is super dumb.
King Connections: TR-90 from "Bag Of Bones". Derry is also mentioned.
There a rat way to write a story and wrong way. For a story about a rat, King should learn to write the rat way. *.
Later by Stephen King
I love all of Stephen King's Hard Case Crime books, but "Later" might be my favorite. The thing I love about them is he's done three (so far) and all three have broken the rules of the crime / mystery genre for various reasons. "Later" is the one that's a horror novel, but both "The Colorado Kid" and "Joyland" are refreshing for being unlike any other book being published by that company too. I dig storytellers who break the rules. I like breaking 'em myself.
Uncle Harry's "I am," at the end a great twist. What's ironic is that there really isn't an overreaching mystery to this book, at least not one involving a crime needing to be solved. There is no real mystery-style wrap-up prose necessary. And yet I think the fact that Uncle Harry is Jamie's father is as big a surprise bombshell as the most unpredictable of legit mystery books, even if it has nothing to do with a crime. Or does it? Jamie doesn't want to know the whole answer and neither do I.
Liz is a VERY good villain because Jamie is absolutely right that she used to have legit good points. That's what makes her falling apart so horrible.
The gimmick of seeing dead people is also unusual for Hard Case Crime (although ghosts are present in "Joyland"), but I really dug King sort of connecting this book to "IT",(a book I otherwise detest). But it was still sort of amazing to hear the concepts of the Ritual of Chud and the Deadlights brought back for characters outside of the Losers' Club. That's a pretty neat treat for longtime King readers. Neither "Joyland" nor "The Colorado Kid" connected FIRMLY to other King stuff, so that's another rule this book broke.
If King did nothing but write Hard Case Crime books for the rest of his career, I wouldn't object. Hell, he could put Holly Gibney in them! She'd fit right in! SO good. ****1/2.
no subject
According to the Godzilla Fandom Wiki, it's "Okishijen Desutoroiyā." Literally just the English phrase "oxygen destroyer" pronounced with a Japanese accent.
no subject