An Enthusiastic Audience in 2012?

First things first, I need to apologize for a general lack of bloggery lately. I could write up a laundry list of excuses, but I won't bother. I'll be updating on my reading schedule soon (the short version: complicated), but today I want to do what everybody else on planet Earth is doing: talk about The Avengers.

This isn't a review of the movie, though. The movie has been dissected, picked apart and minutely examined ad nauseam on the Internet. With good reason: it's fan-freaking-tastic. For a geek-ette like myself, it has absolutely everything: mind-blowing visuals, a hilarious script, great acting, a terrific story and JOSS WHEDON, the Lord of Awesome. Okay, I would have been fine with more shirtlessness from Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans, but you can't have everything in life. Avengers is definitely in the top tier of the superhero movies I've seen, and it's the most fun I've had in a movie theater since. . . . the last Harry Potter film.

But honestly, one of the things that I was most surprised by was the audience.

I went to the midnight showing with a few friends, something I don't do very often. I am kind of a night owl, but I'm usually in bed reading at midnight, not sitting in a movie theater. Still, I was excited about the movie (95% Whedon-related), and I figured it would be fun.

Around 10:30, a certain kind of person started filing in. These people were, to be blunt, geeks. Coming from me, this is an affectionate label, since I am a proud nerdgirl and my Buffy coffee mug and toy X-wing fighter would put me pretty firmly in most people's geek camp. Still, these people could not have fit the stereotypes any better. Most of them looked right out of Central Casting: glasses, acne scars, goofy T-shirts and the occasional costume. They were a fairly loud group, cheerfully and palpably excited. Yes, most of them looked as though they could probably have an in-depth conversation about World of Warcraft, and yes, Mom's basement was quite possibly the living quarters of a few of them.

Even before the movie started, there was plenty of entertainment. Seemingly ordinary women carrying Captain America shields, carrying conversations about Batman, a young man with--inexplicably--a Darth Vader helmet on his head, multiple butt cracks. There was a guy dressed as a sort of drag queen Thor, and another one with a wildly impressive Iron Man costume. Two grown men got into a shockingly loud and intense argument about the origin story of Ant-Man.

When the previews started, the audience absolutely went nuts for the new Spider-Man trailer, and were even more excited for The Dark Knight Rises-- cheering multiple times throughout the brief trailer. When the movie started, though, the packed theater was totally silent, almost rapt. You could feel the genuine anticipation. This audience cared about the movie they were about to see.

I honestly don't think that anyone in the theater was disappointed, from the most casual viewer to the most skeptical fanboy. The movie was so good, so satsifying, on so many levels. Although the audience was almost uniformly quiet during dramatic scenes, the place went absolutely nuts for the comedy. That patented Whedon dialogue was very much in evidence, and it was as incisively hilarious as ever. Robert Downey, Jr absolutely brought the house down with his quips.

The action scenes had the feeling of a sporting event. Everyone was on the edge of their seats, totally absorbed. The finale was just exhilarating. When the Hulk smashed Loki into a pulp, the theater absolutely exploded with cheers, laughter and applause. It was just that awesome.

When the movie ended, there was an enormous cheer. The entire theater remained for the first post-credits scene, and they cheered again, even more enthusiastically, when it ended. About half the audience stayed for the final tag, and the laughter and applause when it was over was deafening.

Here was an audience that was fully engaged with a movie. No texting, no whispered conversations. Nobody checking their watches. They were following it carefully, and they were enjoying it immensely. Much of the credit has to go to Whedon and his crew for putting together such an excellent movie, but I have to give these guys credit, too. Some of them may be a little socially inept (I said may), but they know how to watch a movie, dammit.

You don't see that kind of commitment and devotion that much these days. People are jaded about entertainment; they absorb a steady stream of it all day long. They rip apart the shows they watch online, they listen to crappy techno-pop, read erotic novels on electric devices and go to the movies as a kind of social event. We're not used to just sitting back and really enjoying a movie with an audience that's enjoying it just as much. This audience was made up of real fans: people who are passionate about something. And I think it's cool to see that kind of enthusiasm, especially nowadays, when cynicism seems to be the default mode of the average moviegoer.

Three Books, No Waiting

I still haven't finished Hyperion, and I have two very good reasons:

1) It's a little bit of a horse tranquilizer at times. I love me some Dan Simmons, but this is by far my least favorite of his novels. I'll say more about it in the full review, but suffice it to say that I keep forgetting that I'm even reading it. Not a good sign.

2) I'm also reading two other books. It's a bad habit, I know. When I'm reading a book that doesn't do a lot for me, I'll often pick up another one. In this case, I started two, just to be safe.

One of the books is the hit YA novel The Book Thief, which I'm really impressed by so far. It's very strange and eccentric and lyrical. I have a bad feeling that the ending will be Downerville, though. A book about Nazi Germany narrated by Death himself doesn't promise to have an upbeat ending.

The other one I'm reading is Meg Gardiner's second Evan Delaney thriller, Mission Canyon. I haven't picked up a Gardiner novel in over a year (that's what comes of having a library the size of the Empire State Building), and I'd forgotten how good she is. Canyon promises to be even better than China Lake.

So that's how things stand. I should probably finish all three books within a few days of each other. More thoughts and impressions coming soon!

Game of Thrones 1.1 "Winter is Coming"

I watched the first episode of the Game of Thrones series a few days ago. Since it promised to combine two things I love (A Song of Ice and Fire and TV), my expectations were high. I wasn't disappointed. Game of Thrones pretty much nailed the feel of the books and made the first few chapters of the first novel work as an episode of television. The settings and special effects are absolutely terrific, and the casting is excellent overall (with a few exceptions, see below). I'm not wild about explicit sex and violence, but it is true to the source material, and the episode didn't go too overboard with it.

Here are a few of the things that stood out to me:

~ The Wall looks amazing. In fact, the whole opening scene was just about perfect: scary, beautifully shot and true to the spirit of the prologue.

~ The credit scene is incredible. An absolutely brilliant way to show the geography of Westeros and gorgeously animated to boot.

~ I was very impressed by how much of the dialogue was verbatim from the book. Robert and Ned's conversation in the tomb, the execution of the Night's Watch deserter, Viserys bullying Dany, all were pretty much exactly like the book.

~ The direwolves could be wolfier, but I'm sure that it would be pretty much impossible to portray them exactly like the book.

~ I was surprised by some of the architecture, particularly at Winterfell. It seemed rounder and more stylized than I had imagined it. Speaking of Winterfell, there were a couple of really bad bluescreen moments when Bran was climbing the wall. Probably the only bad special effect in the whole hour.

~ Magister Illyrio's beard is yellow and forked, people!

~ For better or for worse, the creators have the Dothraki down perfectly. Public sex acts and vicious disemboweling--that's the barbarian tribe we all know and love.

~ Rickon showed up for about three seconds overall. Likewise, Arya, Tyrion and The Hound got very little screen time. Hodor had a tiny cameo for someone so big.

~ All of the kids are definitely older than in the book series. Jon and Robb are both young men in their late teens/early twenties (and rather buff, too), Dany is sixteen, Bran is ten, and I think Arya is twelve. Sansa is probably fifteen and tall for her age, whereas Sansa in the book is implied to be petite.

~ The weirwood grove outside Winterfell looked scarily similar to how I imagined it.

And now the cast:

Sean Bean as Ned Stark: Having fantasy icon Sean Bean play Ned is totally perfect. Bean is absolutely ideal for the role, both physically and performance-wise. He brings a nice sense of world-weariness and aged heroism to the part. A

Michelle Fairley as Catelyn Stark: Fairley has kind of a unique look to her, and doesn't much resemble my mental image of Catelyn, but she'll do a solid job with the role, as least based on this episode. I hope the show keeps Catelyn's quiet badassery intact, though. She seemed a tad subdued here. B+

Richard Madden as Robb Stark: Eh. Madden seems a little too old and experienced for Robb, and he looks too Stark-ish (Robb is supposed to look like a Tully). We didn't see much of him, so I'm reserving judgement. B-

Sophie Turner as Sansa Stark: As I mentioned before, Turner doesn't match the description of Sansa in the novels, but I think she hit the right balance of endearingly naive and slightly irritating. B

Maisie Williams as Arya Stark: Arya is one of my favorite characters of all time, and I was really concerned about how she would be portrayed on the show. Thankfully, I think Williams is the right pick. She didn't show up too much in this episode, but she definitely made the right impression. I think she could end up being awesome in the part. A-

Isaac Hempstead-Wright as Bran Stark: Wasn't wild about this casting. Hempstead-Wright is clearly a fine actor, but he's too waif-like and subdued for Bran. Bran is supposed to be active and robust, which makes his accident that much more tragic. C

Kit Harington as Jon Snow: Jon is another character that I really wanted them to get right, and I'm not sure Harington was the right pick. He's a solid actor, but like Richard Madden, he seems too old for the role and his features are a little delicate. I'll reserve judgement. B-

Alfie Allen as Theon Greyjoy: My least favorite casting of the show so far. Allen is so wrong for this part. Physically, he doesn't look a thing like Theon as described in the books, and his attitude is whiny and effeminate, rather the testosterone-fueled asshat that Theon was in the first novel. Ugh. D

Mark Addy as Robert Baratheon: Despite not really having Robert's physical presence (he's only 5'10), I thought Mark Addy was a good fit for Robert. Bombastic, crude, ineffectual, kind, a little tragic. All the right beats in only a few scenes. A-

Lena Headey as Cersei Lannister: Headey is the only actor in the cast (other than Bean) who I immediately identify with another role. Every time I look at her I think Sarah Connor, which is my problem, not the show's. Anyway, Cersei hasn't really had a chance to go full psycho yet, so the only part of her that Headey has to play is her controlled public face. We'll see what she does with Cersei when things really start to get interesting. B

Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister: Now, Tyrion is my favorite character in the entire series, and I've heard so many good things about Dinklage's performance that I was expecting sheer awesomeness. Instead, my reaction was kind of shruggy. Tyrion doesn't get many scenes, and I think Dinklage did an okay job, but I have yet to see anything incredible. With a character like Tyrion, you have to be stupendous. B

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Jaime Lannister: Quite possibly my favorite casting of the series so far. There are so many layers to Jaime, and I feel like Coster-Waldau is more than equal to the task of playing such a complicated character. The scene where he throws Bran off the tower was perfectly played. And the actor is not hard on the eyes either. A

Jack Gleeson as Joffrey Baratheon: Wow, where did they find this kid? Just looking at him makes me want to find a ranged weapon. A-

Rory McCann as Sandor Clegane: Clegane only got a tiny bit of time on screen, but so far I'm not thrilled. His burns are supposed to be hideously disfiguring, but instead it looks like he got a bad haircut and is in need of some Aveeno. I'll have to wait to see if McCann can get the character down. C+

Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen: Clarke may not have had to do a ton in this episode, but she was basically perfect at looking like a scared and helpless victim. A very effective performance, and she looks exactly like I imagined. A-

Harry Lloyd as Viserys Targaryen: Was Viserys this insane in the book? I guess he was, but I imagined him colder and less shrill. Still, Lloyd has really committed to the character, and he does a fine job. B

Iain Glen as Jorah Mormont: I have a weird soft spot for Jorah, and I was looking forward to his TV incarnation. From the brief scene he was in, Glen should be good in the role. He's quite the right look, too. B+

Jason Momoa as Khal Drogo: It's not like playing Drogo is an especially complicated job, but Momoa still impressed me, both with his physical presence (wow) and his ability to communicate with just a few words. A-

Whew. I'm glad I won't have to write about the whole cast every episode. There are so many freaking characters in the series.

Overall, I'd give the first episode a solid B+. It certainly met my expectations and was suitably well-made. I'll be interested to see how good it gets.

I Have Cheated on Dan Simmons

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do it, honestly. It's just that it was so glossy and it wasn't set in a science-fiction universe, and I knew that it was going to draw me in quickly. I figured one page wouldn't hurt. Just one page turned into ten, and so on.

I've cheated on Hyperion. And, aptly enough, with a book called The Affair. Lee Child's newest Jack Reacher thriller. And it was good, too. I read it in about three days, casting guilty glances at Hyperion, which lay untouched on the coffee table. Hyperion just isn't doing much for me. It's clever, and I enjoy the intricacy of Simmons's world-building, but there isn't much to hang your hat on. The characters are flat as heck, and there's no central mystery that's very compelling. Sure, I'm mildly curious about the Shrike and the Time Tombs or whatever, but there aren't any stakes since I don't care about any of the characters. Who all seem rather lethargically resigned to their fates, by the way, which doesn't do much to make them seem sympathetic.

The Affair, however, came out of the gate like a missile and, in classic Lee Child tradition, never slowed down. I happily gobbled it down in several long reading sessions. Like The Enemy, it's a prequel to most of the series, dealing with Reacher's last case as an MP. Like all of Child's books, it was a ton of fun, although not in the series' top tier. The plot held up okay (and there was one piece of really good misdirection towards the end), but it was kind of a garden-variety Reacher plot, and there was no massive explosion of insane action at the climax. The Obligatory Love Interest subplot was better than usual, though, and the origin story moments (like Reacher buying his first folding toothbrush) were PURE MOLTEN GOLD. Not total bottled-lightning amazingness like The Hard Way or Persuader, but definitely my favorite of the two prequel novels.

And now I must return to my poor forsaken Hyperion, which I hope gets more interesting fast.

The Canterbury Tales in Space

I've been enjoying Hyperion so far, but not as much as Ilium. I think that one of my problems is that the Hyperion universe is just not quite as interesting. Nothing has yet proved itself to be as much of a mindfreak as Trojans on Mars or robots who dissect Proust. This is a somewhat more standard sci-fi 'verse: a unified consortium of planets (the Hegemony) with a possibly diabolical central government, which, shades of Firefly, may be merely a huge corporation. The central figure is called the CEO, after all.

The non-Hegemony planets are like the Outer Rim in Star Wars: dangerous, somewhat uncivilized and connected to the Hegemony mainly through trade. Oh, and the Hegemony planets are linked by farcasters, which seem to be your standard-issue portals. The Hegemony's military is called FORCE, a weird combination of stormtroopers, Navy SEALS and Japanese Samurai. FORCE combats various threats throughout the universe (including the occasional Islamic uprising; a recurring Simmons theme), but their main enemy is the Reavers--I mean, the Ousters, who are really tall, with prehensile limbs and an affinity for zero-g. The Ousters don't seem to be aliens; I think they're probably more like Ilium's post-humans: ordinary humans who have evolved while on the fringes of space. It isn't really clear what the Ousters want, but they can apparently fire guns with their feet, so it can't be good.

The world of Hyperion has only just become a Hegemony planet (or maybe it still isn't, I'm not sure) and it's quickly falling apart due to a war between FORCE, the Ousters and a monster called the Shrike. The Shrike--who is basically Sauron from the prologue of The Fellowship of the Ring, but spikier--is the central figure in a barbaric religion that almost certainly features some kind of human sacrifice. The Shrike can slow down time and then kill at his/her/its own pace, maybe do some speed-of-light shoplifting while he/she/it is at it. The Shrike is usually found among the Time Tombs, weird structures that move backward in time and hold important secrets that cannot fall into the hands or feet of the Ousters.

The problem with all this is that I'm not that engaged yet.

It's not like I'm not impressed with all the world-building, which is really something. It's that I'd rather have a couple of interesting characters than a really creative technology or long description of a battle where I don't understand what's at stake. The Canterbury Tales frame story is a great idea, but I don't feel like I'm learning all that much about the characters, who have all stayed strictly one-dimensional. Father Hoyt's story isn't even about him; all we know about him is that he's been infected with a cruciform (long story: just think evil starfish that sticks to you) and doesn't feel too good. Kassad had more of an arc, and I certainly find his strength and badass-ery appealing, and I feel bad that the woman of his dreams is a metallic monster that's trying to goad him into starting Armageddon, but he still doesn't really pop much as a character.

Martin Silenus is at least kind of fun, a space-age Holden Caulfield with a flair for bizarre statements. I don't know how much he'll develop, but, knowing Simmons, he'll probably be the character with the Key To Everything. The Consul has been set up as our protagonist, yet has failed to do much of anything protagonist-y. I'm sure there's a painful secret in his past that he's drowning with alcohol, probably involving his missing son. I can't say I really care about him, though.

But then Dan Simmons has never been the world's greatest character writer (although he did a superb job with Wilkie Collins and Dickens in Drood). The appeal of his novels lie more in his unabashedly nutty plotting and go-for-broke concepts. Once the story gets cooking and the plot twists start coming, I'm sure I'll be riveted.

Fatlining and Treeships and Shrikes--- Oh My!

I'm about seventy pages into my next book: Hyperion, by Dan Simmons. It's the chunky first volume of a four-book sci-fi cycle, which is a delicious prospect. Simmons is one of my favorite science-fiction/fantasy authors. His Ilium/Olympos duology is a truly mind-blowing piece of nutty speculative fiction. It doesn't get any weirder than the battle of Troy being staged on Mars by resurrected twentieth-century scholars. Simmons is really good at incorporating real scientific concepts (and tons of literary references, both obvious and obscure) into action-packed storytelling. Drood, his trippy, alt-history version of Charles Dickens's final years, is another favorite of mine. It's a really affecting mixture of the bizarre and the intensely personal. And you'll never look at a scarab beetle the same way again.

Anyway, Hyperion's concept is essentially The Canterbury Tales in space, which seems can't-miss in Simmons's hands. I'm still at that point in the book where I don't understand most of the offhanded references to technology, societal structure and back-story, but figuring out what the hell's going on is part of the fun; it's like a puzzle.

Earth appears to be gone, and humans seem to be living on some kind of World Web, which I assume is a chain of civilized planets. All of the characters are headed to a planet called Hyperion, which seems to be kind of a craphole except for something called the Valley of the Time Tombs where the Shrike lives. Not idea what any of it means, but it certainly sounds cool. I take it that the Shrike is some kind of monster that receives sacrifices from its devotees, not unlike Joel Osteen (just kidding). The humans appear to be at war with a group called the Ousters-- not sure if they're aliens or not, and knowing Simmons, he'll probably play that one close to the chest. The whole premise is pretty interesting and the main characters are certainly an unusual bunch, so I'm looking forward to where it's going.

The Girl Who Finished The Girl Who Played with Fire

I finally finished The Girl Who Played with Fire last night.

Honestly, I was ready to write the book off as a mess somewhere around the point where Paolo Roberto, Deus Ex Machina Boxer Extraordinaire, showed up. We had spent way too much with the endlessly boring police investigation and the plot seemed like a convoluted tangle that wasn't about to untangle itself. Lisbeth and Blomkvist had barely interacted and I was getting tired of the multiple viewpoints.

And then crap started to go down, and the plot started to click together. Wow. I have to hand it to Larsson: that is some really good plotting. I honestly didn't think he would be able to make it all work together, but he really did. Zala turning out to be Salander's father was just freaky and made perfect sense. Niedermann, the blonde giant, turning out to be her brother is even weirder. I have to say that Niedermann stretched credulity a lot. Come on, the guy is like seven feet tall and can't feel pain, with a unique skeletal structure and fast healing? Is this Marvel Comics? Larsson sort of waves it away by making it clear there's something Seriously Wrong with him, but still, it's pretty hard to swallow.

As is the sudden appearance of Paolo Roberto, Walking Plot Device. And you know what's really weird? He's a real person. There is a real Paolo Roberto, who actually played himself in the Swedish movie version. I don't understand why Larsson would slot a real person into the story, especially in such a clumsy way.

But back to the awesomeness! Badass Blomkvist! Lisbeth being shot in the freaking head! Major cliffhanger! The ending was pretty terrific stuff, and I was really impressed by the full story of Lisbeth's childhood. Knowing Larsson, I was afraid that she had been molested by her father, but the fact that it was her mother who was the victim makes perfect sense. The whole backstory fit perfectly into the already-established continuity, and answers the questions about Bjurman, Teleborian and Palmgren. I was really surprised by how satisfying it was.

Anyway, I have to save most of my big thoughts for the official review. Suffice it to say that 1) I ended up really liking the book, 2) although still not as much as the first one and 3) I'll be happy if I never have to read the name Bublanski again. Now I have to run off and choose my next book!