Nobody Knows Anything

Welcome to Diane Patterson's eclectic blog about what strikes her fancy

Archives for April 2005

Weird realizations

Posted on April 26, 2005 Written by Diane

I’ve been having trouble for the past week getting back into the flow of my writing—if Darin takes any more vacations (and then promptly falls ill), I’ll probably be done for.

Beyond that, however, I had the weirdest experience last week while writing.

I described it to a friend of mine this way: You know how when you’re driving, you zone out, and suddenly you come to and think, Why am I in Pasadena? (She lives in LA. It’s far more likely she’d end up in Pasadena than, say, I would.)

I had the same thing happen to me last week while writing.

I had the weirdest feeling of suddenly “coming to” and realizing that everything I was writing was MADE UP.

This was not my usual self-flagellation—I wasn’t on my own case for untrue stuff. This was more along the lines of suddenly realizing that writing fiction is the act of making shit up.

I’ve been writing fiction since I was 4. (Yes. This is true. I wrote—in my own handwriting—a short story for my grandparents about a magic well.) And only last week did I have any sense of how deeply odd this little occupation of mine is. These images in my head? Not really there! These words I put down on the page? Describing things that are beyond not true—they’ve never happened!

It was easily the weirdest out-of-body experience I’ve ever had.

I’ve gotten over it. Well, not the point where the words are flowing again—more like being expelled, one bloody painful syllable at a time, instead of my usual typing mania—but I don’t feel quite so strange about it.

Still: I remember the sensation of looking at the screen and thinking, What the hell? No wonder people believe in possession. When your POV switches like that, it’s deeply disconcerting.

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Writing

Stephenson vs. Gibson

Posted on April 25, 2005 Written by Diane

Maybe everyone else in Christendom has already read this, but I don’t read Slashdot as a rule, so I hadn’t. Via Rachel Caine, I read a great interview with Neal Stephenson, which happens to include one of the funniest answers to a question I’ve ever read. I had tears in my eyes:

#4: In a fight between you and William Gibson, who would win?

You don’t have to settle for mere idle speculation. Let me tell you how it came out on the three occasions when we did fight.

The first time was a year or two after SNOW CRASH came out. I was doing a reading/signing at White Dwarf Books in Vancouver. Gibson stopped by to say hello and extended his hand as if to shake. But I remembered something Bruce Sterling had told me. For, at the time, Sterling and I had formed a pact to fight Gibson. Gibson had been regrown in a vat from scraps of DNA after Sterling had crashed an LNG tanker into Gibson’s Stealth pleasure barge in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. During the regeneration process, telescoping Carbonite stilettos had been incorporated into Gibson’s arms. Remembering this in the nick of time, I grabbed the signing table and flipped it up between us. Of course the Carbonite stilettos pierced it as if it were cork board, but this spoiled his aim long enough for me to whip my wakizashi out from between my shoulder blades and swing at his head.

Read the whole thing. Trust me.

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Those Darned Links!

Van Helsing: the review

Posted on April 23, 2005 Written by Diane

I have a new criterion for evaluating someone’s critical taste. I will ask, “Did you see Van Helsing?” If the answer is “Yes,” I will ask their opinion of the movie. If they say anything other than, “Wow, that was irredeemable trash, wasn’t it?” I will have no respect for this person and need never listen to a damn thing they have to say on the subject of movies, stories, or the best way to spend two hours of one’s life.

Good God, what a bad, stupid, insulting movie. Seriously. Terrible script. Terrible. No story. Awful acting—and not in a fun sort of way either. No sense of pacing. Nothing fun to do with the beloved monsters of Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, and the Wolfman. Nothing makes sense—and not in a fun sort of way either.

Ugh. Unbelievable that this made any money at all.

Later: I posted on a mailing list more details about why this movie bugged me so much. Here’s basically what I posted (edited a bit):

(Sorry if there are any spoilers in what follows, but seriously — if
this movie can be spoiled for you, it should be.)

The movie wants to make use of the Big 3 Universal monsters: Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, and the Wolf Man. Okay, that lends itself to diluting the overall thrust, so we’ll divvy them up: one will be the good guy, one will be the bad guy, and one will be…hmmm. Something.

Dracula will be the main bad guy. It’ll turn out that he can only be killed by the Wolf Man. That’s kind of an addition to the mythology, but since other things we know about the Wolf Man—how you turn into one, for example—are the same, we’ll allow it. Also, this allows us a reason why Our Hero becomes one of the three monsters. So, while the Wolf Man isn’t good, he’s necessary to kill Dracula. Frankenstein’s Monster will be a good guy. He’s intelligent, he’s scared of Dracula, he wants to help Van Helsing.

So far, it’s okay. Nothing terrible, nothing special.

Then the movie goes off the deep end.

In Van Helsing, Dracula desperately wants to get his hands on Frankenstein’s Monster. Something about how Frankenstein’s Monster was raised is important, which is why Dracula needs to get his claws on him.

And why is that? Turns out Dracula needs the tech used to make the
Monster in order to create his offspring.

I’m sorry…what the fuck?

We all know vampire mythology — we know how Dracula makes his “children.” We know, in fact, that that’s how he does it in this movie too, because one plot point involves Dracula threatening to turn Princess Black Latex into one of his wives. So what’s all this crap with electricity and Frankenstein’s Monster and sacs of bats (seriously)…? Why was that again?

(When we saw the sacs of batlings, Darin said, “I know the queen Alien is around here somewhere.” It was that obvious a rip-off of Aliens. I responded, “What are we supposed to use, harsh language?”)

So the entire point of this movie, ostensibly to use the three stars of the horror movie canon, comes up with a stupid and completely unnecessary addition to vampire lore as the engine of the story.

Oh yes: and everything else about the movie sucked too. But it’s hard to rise above complete stupidity, so that’s not that surprising.

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Movies

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 7
  • Next Page »

Search

Recent Comments

  • Nina: I love that you have footnotes for you blog post.
  • John Steve Adler: I reread it now that you are published. I still like it! It’s great to have so many loose...
  • Diane: Holy moly! I haven’t heard the term “tart noir” in a long time! I looooved Lauren...
  • Merz: “My main problem with amateur sleuths is always they’re always such wholesome people. How on Earth do...
  • Diane: 1) I’ll have to give Calibre another try for managing Collections. Do you know of a webpage with good...

Copyright © 2026 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in