The Last Great Cartoons

On Monday my wife and I went with a friend to see Toy Story 3. It was a great movie, just as good as the other two (it's impossible to pick a favorite, as they're all great, which says a lot as usually sequels suck), and I will admit, I got a little teary-eyed at the end. See, the first Toy Story came out when I was in the 8th grade. Toy Story 2 came out right before I graduated high school. In a sense, I grew up with those characters ... though that doesn't necessarily excuse the tearing up. Hell, I teared up at the end of The Iron Giant. I even teared up at at first ten minutes of the newest Star Trek. I mean, if you didn't find the scene where George Kirk listens to his baby being born seconds before he dies, then you're a robot (and no, I didn't ruin anything in case you haven't seen the movie yet; it all happens in the first couple minutes).

But anyway, seeing the movie made me think about the movies I saw when I was a kid, namely the cartoons, and how back in the day Disney used to make some really great movies. Classics like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King come to mind, mostly because they came out when I was a kid. Jeez, I'll even include the Duck Tales movie and The Rescuers Down Under, and pretty much anything that Disney made before, oh, 2000 or so. From there it always seemed like the Disney movies went downhill. The quality just wasn't there anymore. No longer were those movies events to go to, but just movies, a way to waste an hour and a half. Movies that you saw and then forget the next week.

Or am I wrong? Obviously I'm older now, and maybe can't enjoy some of the cartoons for what they are, but it just seems like nowadays Disney and other movie houses making cartoons try to dumb down the films as much as possible. They want to please everyone, be as politically correct as they can, so nobody -- nobody -- gets offended. And in doing so, they sacrifice the chance to make great stuff like they used to. Which is odd, because I don't remember that much offensive stuff in those early Disney movies, though I do fondly remember those rumors about the subliminal messages throughout some of the cartoons.

Anyway, what made me think about all this? Because the attached trailer on Toy Story 3 is for a movie called Tangled, which is about Rapunzel, and while it might be a good movie, the trailer I saw just seemed to lack that spirit the cartoons made twenty years ago had. Plus, it's in 3-D. Of course it's in 3-D! Everything just has to be in 3-D now, doesn't it?

So ... maybe I'm not being fair. You tell me. Is it a generational thing? If I were growing up now, would I think these Disney cartoons like Home on the Range and Meet the Robinsons and Bolt would be instant classics? If I'd grown up fifty years ago, would I think less of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King?

Oh, and Toy Story 3? You better believe we saw it in 2-D.

We All Go A Little Mad Sometimes

Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake of Psycho was an interesting experiment that failed, despite being a reverent, shot-for-shot remake. The reason was simple: It's impossible for us to be that shocked, surprised and horrified a second time. Not just because we know what's coming, but because we can't forget what we know and imagine what moviegoing was like before 'Psycho' changed the rules. We live in the world 'Psycho' made, and we can't go back.

I'm not a big fan of remakes. Occasionally you'll get a decent remake, but most times you just can't beat the original ... unless the original sucked pretty bad. Of course, the reason so many remakes get done is because the studio (oftentimes) already owns the rights and hope they can capitalize on a film that had done well previously. Some movies just can't be remade, though I'm sure people have thought about it and some will try. Like Citizen Kane and Casablanca. You just can't remake those. And Psycho, you can't remake that either, right?

But they did, and I'll admit I went and saw it, though now I wonder why. I disagree with the assessment in that article that says the reason the remake bombed was because it's impossible for us to be shocked again. I think we can be shocked again. Just as long as it's done right. But a shot-for-shot remake? What's the point? The idea behind remaking movies is remaking them. Doing something different. Trying to improve upon. Otherwise if you're just going to copy exactly what was done before, but with new actors and make it in color ... that's just a waste of time. And hence, that's why I believe the Van Sant Psycho is the worst remake ever.

But whatever. Be sure to check out the article. Some really interesting fun facts. Like how Hitchcock "bought the rights to Robert Bloch's source novel on the cheap, then bought as many copies of the book as he could to keep the plot twists hidden from potential moviegoers." Hey, at least the book was selling well, right?

Flossing Sharp Teeth

I just finished reading Sharp Teeth by Toby Barlow, and boy oh boy what a great book. It's like nothing I ever read before, a horror thriller written in free verse. In fact, the style is what really makes this book unique. After the first few pages, you hardly even notice it anymore. Some of it reminds me of James Frey, that stream of consciousness writing, but it's very lyrical at times:

There's blood everywhere, but it's the creatures at the edge, licking the corner of the ruby pool, that hold your curiosity. So get this straight it's not the full moon. That's as ancient and ignorant as any myth. The blood just quickens with a thought a discipline develops so that one can self-ignite reshaping form, becoming something rather more canine still conscious, a little hungrier. It's a raw muscular power, a rich sexual energy and the food tastes a whole lot better.

As well as suspenseful:

Closing her eyes and breathing deep, concentrating, she can now hear the dog's soft breath just outside the door. She measures this moment, weighing the fear and the quickening sense of desperation, knowing that no matter what happens next, so much is ending. She times her moves fast, sliding the gun out, squinting deep for the moment that is ripe to explode one, two, three--- she pulls open the door full and fast falling back as sure enough the dog lunges in fierce and snarling. So first she fires one very loud bullet directly into the dog's skull sending him down empty and sudden. Then, as the delivery girl leaps over, screaming shrill, she jams the pistol into that open shout of a mouth and pulls the trigger again.

Granted, the book won't appeal to every reader, both in form and subject ... though who can't resist werewolves in Los Angeles? I know I can't.

Beatrice & Virgil & Ripped Off Readers

Last month Erin Fitzgerald was kind enough to send me a copy of Beatrice and Virgil, Yann Martel's latest self-proclaimed masterpiece. Here is the author himself telling you what it's about (don't mind that he comes off as a massive douche; he's just very successful):

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYZH2drbfR8

Last year the New York Times reported that Yann Martel got a $3 million deal for the book:

After a monthlong auction Spiegel & Grau, an imprint of Random House, one of the world’s largest publishers, bought the rights to publish Mr. Martel’s third novel, as yet untitled, in the United States sometime next year. Like “Life of Pi,” the new book is an allegory — this time about the Holocaust — involving animals. It relates the story of an encounter between a famous writer and a taxidermist who is writing a play that features dialogue between a donkey and a monkey, both imprinted on a shirt.

Of course, in the article Martel declined to talk about his advance, saying, “Frankly, with all the years it took to write this book, if you amortize it out, it’s not as much as one would like it to be.”

Uh-huh. But here's the thing. The book itself is about 200 pages. With the font size and layout, I'd be surprised if the word count is anywhere over 60,000 words. So yes, it took him over seven years to write that many words, but the sad part? Not many of those words are very good. You'd think if the publisher was paying him close to $3 million (which, let's be honest here, is a nice chunk of change) they might -- oh, I don't know -- have an editor actually go through the MS and fix it up. And who knows, maybe they did, but the book I read felt like it had been written by a high school student -- and not even an above average high school student.

Also, there are seven pages of Beatrice and Virgil discussing what a pear is. Seven pages!!! I'll admit, I skimmed most of this book, and I'm glad I did. The main problem I had with the story is that the author tries to play up this great mystery of what the taxidermist's play is supposed to mean, while almost every reader going into the book already knows it's supposed to be about the Holocaust. That's like going to see The Sixth Sense already knowing that Bruce Willis is dead (sorry if I spoiled that for anyone; if I did, watch Stir of Echoes instead, it's a much better film).

The book has gotten panned pretty much everywhere. This makes me happy for some strange reason. In fact, the only reason I had any desire to even crack open the book was because of how bad it was supposed to be. And you know what? It's even worse than they say. I recommend everyone read it just to see how bad it is. I'm going to be talking more in depth about negative reviews sometime later, but for now, here's how Martel deals with them (notice how he compares himself to Tolstoy, Shakespeare, and Dante):

Because The World Needs One More Year-End Blog Post

Overall, I'd say this was a very good year. For those of you who have been with me for awhile now, you know what I mean. For those who are new to my ramblings, basically something done on a lark scored me a book deal. I said it before and I'll no doubt say it again -- it's one of those ironies of the publishing industry that after trying to sell four novels, a publisher approaches me about doing a book. So yes, I've been very fortunate. But I also realize I didn't do it all alone. A lot of people helped spread the word of Hint Fiction (even if it was negative), and I am indebted to each and every one of you.

Besides that, I launched my sf action novella The Silver Ring online as an experiment. And the experiment was semi-successful, I guess (the site is linked to enough places that it's getting hits every day). I wasn't really sure what I was expecting. But I'm not done with it yet. In the next month or so there will be some changes coming, all of which I will share here first.

What do I have to look forward to in the new year? First and foremost, the anthology will be published -- in November, it's looking. Yeah, a long ways off, but still. I haven't been writing much short fiction lately, trying to concentrate solely on a new novel (not to mention putting the final touches on the anthology; I don't envy editors who have to put 20 or 30 stories in order; finding the right order for the 125 stories in this anthology nearly drove me insane). But I do have a few stories forthcoming in some great publications that I'm looking forward to:

A hint fiction piece in The Los Angeles Review; an almost hint fiction piece in the premiere issue of Sententia; flash pieces from Monkeybicycle (an anti superhero story) and PANK (which was a runner-up for their first 1,001 Awesome Words Contest); and a ghost story from Postscripts.

Jess had asked me awhile back on how I choose publications to submit to, and while I don't know if she even reads this blog anymore, here's the simple answer: I submit to publications I really like and respect. I will admit (abashedly) that I used to submit to just about any publication (reviewing their guidelines first, of course), but now I make sure I'm familiar with the stuff that's published there, reading at least an issue or (if online) a couple of the stories. That's very important. This way you're not wasting everybody's time submitting a story that's not at all right. After that, it's always nice to submit to markets that pay something, even if it's a token payment. On the flip side, it's also nice to know that that particular publication is actually read. One of the big debates nowadays is the whole print versus online, and I have to say that while print is always nice, it can also be limiting. After all, as writers we strive to be read, and being published in a journal with only two or three hundred copies limits the amount of potential readers. Then again, just because a story is published online doesn't mean it will be read either, so there's that to take into account as well. And of course Duotrope is a great place to find new markets; looking at the What's New page gives you a great idea about response times, and I find myself submitting to those markets with more reasonable response times than those with insanely long response times.

I used to read a lot. My job at the time allowed me the added bonus of extra time to read. My job now ... not so much. So I don't read nearly as much as I'd like to, but I still read some. Last year I only managed to read 50 books. This year the number is, again, 50. Except that I'm halfway through Under the Dome, which I'm really enjoying so far, though from what I hear it, like most of King's work, peters out in the end. Plus, what exactly constitutes a book? Does a single 20-page comic book count as a book? What about a 15-page chapbook? What about a fiction journal or magazine (maybe I should start keeping track of those next year)? If that's the case, my year-end number would be higher, but right now I'm counting just regular novels and short story collections and graphic novels and audio books (I guess I should also count books by author friends read in manuscript form, but am not).

Anyway, for the past two years I've been tracking what I read. I'm on Goodreads, which is nice, but I also write down every book I read and highlight the ones I really liked (i.e., the ones I would, if given the time and chance, read again). Last year I made a startling discovery: very few of the books I'd read were by women. This was not something done deliberately, of course; it just happened, and I made it a point this year to spread out my reading.

So here are my favorite reads from this past year. They are not a "best of" list by any extent. Just books that I really enjoyed and would recommend to anyone. They are listed in the order in which they were read ... though, looking at the list now, my top two favorites were Bel Canto by Ann Patchett (amazing, amazing novel) and Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned by Wells Tower (amazing, amazing short story collection). Here ya go:

• THE MYSTIC ARTS OF ERASING ALL SIGNS OF DEATH by Charlie Huston
• THE KEEP by Jennifer Egan
• THE LATHE OF HEAVEN by Ursula K. Le Guin
• THE CRIME WRITER by Gregg Hurwitz
• EVERYTHING RAVAGED, EVERYTHING BURNED: STORIES by Wells Tower
• THE GIVEN DAY by Dennis Lehane
• THE INNOCENT by Harlan Coben
• LOWBOY by John Wray
• THE STRAIN by Guillermo Del Toro and Chuck Hogan
• THE DARK TOWER: THE GUNSLINGER BORN by Peter David, Robin Furth, Jae Lee, and Richard Isanove
• LIGHT BOXES by Shane Jones
• BEL CANTO by Ann Patchett

And if I were going to add chapbooks to the list (I might as well), I also really liked The Collectors by Matt Bell. This particular piece is long out of print, but you can view it here for free (which is how I read it, actually).

One quick note about my list: notice how almost all of them fall into different genres. I find it's important, especially as a writer, to branch out in your reading. Just the other week I had lunch with an author friend and it was mentioned how many horror writers seem to only read horror and nothing else. This is true, just as it's true with mystery writers or romance writers or literary writers. Obviously, writing in a certain genre means we should know what's being published in that genre, but it's also beneficial to dip into other genres. Believe it or not, there are gems everywhere; you just need to find them.

Which brings me to my last request of the year (and, I guess, decade) -- as we're starting a new year and I'll be looking for new books to read, what was your favorite book you read this past year?