Shorter Post Today

For whatever reason I’ve been a little too burned out this week to sit down a write a long post about the things I usually write about. I’ll blame work and stress from doing taxes and the possibility of moving next month as the cause of said burnout. So here’s some random reflections I’ve had about the month of March. 

Reading goals

Largely fell behind this month thanks to extraneous pressure. What didn’t help is that I started another one of Brandon Sanderson’s MASSIVE fantasy novels too soon after finishing my last one. Seriously I needed to wait longer. I’m still planning a post in appreciation of Brandon Sanderson but I think I’m going to wait until after I finish the Stormlight archive. Meanwhile I’ve transitioned to reading some smaller books, a biography of Harvey Milk and the Swedish book A Man Called Ove. Oh and the Akira manga. (Those in the know will laugh when I call it “shorter.”)

Writing goals

Fallen behind. Long Story. Don’t ask. 

Movie watching goals

Early this month I started watching all the James Bond movies in order, I’m almost done with them and I’m thinking about writing a multi-part retrospective on the entire series. I’m not certain if I’d break it down by decade, by movies or by lead actors, but I’ll think of something. 

Personal Goals

All over the place this month. The week I disappeared and didn’t write anything I was at a convention making friends. Specifically I was at the Texas Bear Round Up, which for the uninitiated is a gathering of Bears (my gay social group) and the people who like Bears. I had some friends flying into town and it was lovely to see them all again. I had a lot of fun, made a lot of friends, and I’m doing well afterwards. Otherwise I’ve failed on some of my movement and exercise goals for this month. April will be better. 

Conclusion

So that’s where I’m at. I’m moving next month and I don’t know how closely I’ll be sticking to any posting schedule as a result. Hell I don’t know how well I’ll be sticking to a reading schedule. Like so much of life, it’s all up in the air right now. I’m doing well though. I hope you are too. 

Movie Appreciation Time

My apologies, I missed last week’s post due to an unavoidable mission of revenge. It was a thrilling tale of bereavement, alcohol, curses, barbecue, dance clubs, and jaywalking. I’ll tell you all about it sometime. But now that I have achieved satisfaction, I’m free to rant about somewhat topical movies. 

I’m not the biggest fan of the Oscars, (not until they start recognizing stunt performers at least - Casting’s a step in the right direction.) But I do like to keep abreast of winners and losers each year, if only to compare the actual best movie of the year with the movie whose producers have deep enough pockets to win. See, I do really like movies, and I do kinda care about what the “best movie of the year” is, if only because it’s so hard to tell sometimes. Like in 2005 you had Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, and Munich competing as “best picture” for any number of critical lists. Meanwhile the Oscars picked Crash, a movie that most retrospectives agree is one of the worst picks for any year. (I haven’t seen it so I’ll reserve judgment, but considering the line up... Good Night at least should have taken it.) 

I don’t go out to see many movies, but it seemed like 2025 didn’t really have a knock out good lineup like 2005 did. What a difference 20 years makes, huh? I hadn’t even heard of a few best picture nominees when they were announced (which, shame on me, was mostly because they were foreign language movies that actually seem really good.) 

But the only three I had seen, One Battle After Another, Frankenstein and Sinners all seemed like strong contenders for Best Picture. I was immediately and absolutely certain of three things right off the bat: 1) Sinners was the best movies of 2025 and it would not win best picture. 2) One Battle After Another was so-so and would 100% win best picture. 3) In the event it didn’t, Frankenstein would be selected on the strength of it’s visuals. I have no way of verifying prediction 3, but 1 & 2 were spot on. 

One Battle After Another

I called this one as the obvious best picture winner because of its nominal political relevance. But for a story about former leftist revolutionaries battling a psychotic anti-immigration officer, this movie really doesn’t have much of a political message. Far from it. Not, it’s actually about a frankly inept father setting off to rescue his daughter from psychotic white supremacists after her mother abandons the revolution and her family. 

Yeah it’s a strange one. It’s adapted from Thomas Pynchon novel, so of course it’s strange. The question is, is it good? Uhm... yes? 

Obvious praise time: the cast and crew do a good job. Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction is fine and Leo DiCaprio as Pat / Bob does a good job, but I feel like they both shouldn’t get a free pass just for doing their jobs anymore. Are they exceptional here? Not really. PTA’s direction is really good during the last 30 minutes, but before that was merely fine. Leo’s acting was good throughout, but I was honestly was much more interested in the other characters. Chase Infitii as Willa, Bob’s kidnapped daughter, Benicio del Torro as Bob’s best friend, Sean Penn as the villain Col. Lockjaw. Comedy writer Jim Downey gets a memorable cameo and the rest of the cast is fine. 

And that’s kind of the problem. It’s just fine. It’s not exceptional in any way worthy of Best Picture. It doesn’t have a memorable or important political message, or even anything interesting about fatherhood or living as the daughter of a former revolutionary. 

Frankenstein 

I tried to write down what I thought of this movie when it first came out, and ended up with a shambling, 2,000 word mess of an essay that was neither positive nor negative. The conclusion I drew is that it’s a good movie, but it still pales to the Karloff / Whale duology from the 1930’s. 

I don’t want to be harsh on del Toro’s vision here, but I feel that this movie misplaces it’s affection for the Creature. Thematically, the movie is focused on sympathizing with “the Other” - and the creature is indeed very sympathetic. Compare this too the book, where the Creature, while sympathetic, is filled with wrath against his Creator for bringing him to life and abandoning him, swearing vengeance upon Victor. That sort of happens in del Toro’s version... but the Creature isn’t really angry that he was abandoned. He’s more upset that he’s cursed to be lonely for the rest of his unnaturally long life. 

Thematically, this version just fell flat for me. I love a lot about this movie, the visuals, the set design, the costume design, the inclusion of the North Pole expedition from book. The cast is mostly good, Mia Goth, Felix Kammerer, Lars Mikkelsen and Charles Dance are memorable, if a little undersold by a strangely flat script. I have my issues with turning Victor Frankenstein into a mustache-twirling villain, but Oscar Isaac plays him well enough. I have to praise two performances especially; Jacob Elordi as the Creature and David Bradley as the Blind Man. Both bring incredible pathos to their characters and have a really sweet relationship in their scenes together. 

On his own, Elordi kills it as the Creature. I wasn’t enthusiastic about his casting mostly because I knew him from Saltburn (which I hate having to think about) and Euphoria (which I straight up hated). Well, that’ll teach me to judge a performance without seeing it. He’s phenomenal and really should’ve gotten best supporting actor, not Sean Penn.

Sinners

Sinners was one of the few movies last year I was genuinely excited about once I heard of it. A genre-twisting southern-gothic vampire musical set in depression era? Staring Michael B Jordan and directed by Ryan Coogler? Sign me the fuck up. Yeah, it’s plot is basically a remix of From Dusk Till Dawn, but it’s the kind of remix that takes a good central idea and reworks it with different themes and directorial choices. 

Sinners is about music’s power to reach from the past and connect us in the present. A simple animated prologue establishes the power of music to heal communities, specifically highlighting the musical traditions of the Irish, the Choctaw tribe, and descendants of African tribes. What do these three communities have in common? If your answer is they are all subjugated cultures, you have been paying attention. 

Of course, Sinners focuses on African-American culture. Sinners is set during the Jim Crow era South, and makes full use of the setting. The atmosphere of the central location, references to hoodoo culture, and Blues music enrich the setting. I can’t praise the soundtrack enough; movie-original blues song I Lied to You is a highlight, a showstopper sequence that bridges the blues’ origins in African music and it’s future in rock and roll and hip-hop. It’s one of the most beautiful musical sequences I’ve ever seen. 

I have to praise the final act’s turn to violence. Not only is it a brutal vampire slaughter that rival’s Midnight Mass’s final episode, but Michel B Jordan gets to unleash hell on a hapless set of Klansmen, which is cathartic as all hell. Seriously, I much more prefer Sinners’ approach to contemporary politics than One Battle After Another.

Since I just mentioned him, I’m going to say that Michael B Jordan deserving his Oscar for playing twins Smoke and Stack. The rest of the cast is great; Hailee Steinfeld is incredible, newcomer Miles Caton sings his heart out during the aforementioned I Lied to You scene, and Delroy Lindo and Omar Benson Miller give us some wonderful moments of comedic relief, and Wunmi Mosaku brings a sense of wisdom and gravitas to her role as the hoodoo practitioner Annie. Jack O’Connell plays a great villain, Irish vampire Remmick, simultaneously sympathetic, fun and pants-crappingly scary.

Conclusion

Clearly I loved Sinners, so I might be biased. I won’t go so far as to call the Oscars racist for not choosing it as best picture (they did give it 4 deserving awards after all: Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography and Best Original Score) but I do think that the Oscars are reluctant to award Sinners anything because it’s a horror film. 

My take on it is the Oscars were trying to be a little more politically conscious this year (Conan O’Brien’s alternate Oscars joke was proof enough - Coco was great by the way.) Frankenstein would have been a safe middle of the road choice, but it was never going to win. So the only two viable choices for Best Picture were One Battle and Sinners. (Well ... Weapons should have been nominated for Best Picture but the most the Oscars would stoop to recognizing it was Best Supporting Actress - and Amy Madigan fucking deserved that win.) I don’t know if Sinners was a step too far or if One Battle After Another was just the more palatable option. But, if you want my opinion, while One Battle comes from a good place, it’s really messy in execution and refuses to explain itself. Sinners comes from a place of great artistic inspiration, and it has the nuance to parse its themes to the point where you can draw your own conclusions without needing to explain itself.

The Other Side of the Big Nowhere

 Fair warning; this post might delve into some heavy themes including suicide and homophobia. 

I’m reading a history books about gay life in Washington DC during the 20th century, which spends a decent page count on the concurrent Red and Lavender Scares of the early 1950’s. If you’re unaware and can’t guess, the Lavender Scare the expunging of queer people from governmental roles. It began roughly the same time as Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting bullshit, but if this book I’m reading is to be believed, it lasted much, MUCH longer than the Red Scare, well into the late 1960’s. This expunging largely targeted gay men by the look of it, or at least this book doesn’t go into fate of lesbians that much. (btw, I won’t name this book because the author is - apparently - a jackass and I don’t want you to support him. It’s a shame because this is a fascinating side of history that needs to be recognized; while there are apparently other books on this subject out there - such as this one  - I’m finishing this book before I move on.) 

Anyway, this book I will not name has produced several good effects in me, namely, it’s led me back to today’s subject, The Big Nowhere by James Ellroy. 

If you’re unfamiliar with Ellroy’s output, I can’t adequately express what a kick in the head it is to read him for the first time. He seems off-putting at first, and that’s way too tame a descriptor. Even if you know his works, you you might assume he’s a horror writer rather than a crime writer or the Historical Romance writer title that Ellroy prefers. You could call his books copaganda the way the LAPD is glorified, but at the same time, every police officer in Ellroy’s books are unfailingly presented as draw-string shitbags barely better than the criminals they catch or kill. Watching any of Ellroy’s interviews leaves the (accurate) impression of a raconteur with a vocabulary from a 1940’s GOP locker room. He’s big, he’s bold, he’s the self-proclaimed Demon Dog of American Literature, literally in your face and barking. The hardest thing about reading an Ellroy book is the violence, the raw sexuality, the aberrant criminality that abounds on every single page. Very few cops are not corrupt, bigoted, arrogant or unreliable and very frequently are dealing with criminals barely worse than the cops themselves. These are stories about bad men hunting worse men, while beautiful women look on. 

That’s Ellroy’s surface. His critical reception has largely been positive thanks to his peerless ability to write stories about LA, but there’s much more to him than historical fiction. There’s a reason Joyce Carol Oats called him the American Dostoevsky. The slightest amount of digging into his story reveals someone intimately familiar with the true darkness humanity is capable of expressing, and the light that is so often buried underneath. Ellroy has tried to find that light for himself many times. His mother Jean was murdered when he was 10, and he’s has stated that her murder haunts him and influences his writing. He’s tried to solved her murder on his own several times, documenting his investigation and their overall relationship in several memoirs.  He never found his mother’s killer, never even came close, but he did find some kind of light in the darkness. Usually, his characters will too. His protagonists are very rarely better than the criminals they catch, but on rare occasions, you may even see a glimpse of nobility in them, buried under miles and miles of genuinely unpleasant actions.

The Big Nowhere is where I finally understood what James Ellroy was trying to do with his books. It’s the second book in a series of four novels collectively known as the LA Quartet, the other volumes being The Black Dahlia, LA Confidential, and White Jazz. (LA Confidential was adapted into a movie in 1997 and remains how most people - including myself - are introduced to Ellroy.) The Quartet is a sort of secret history, telling the story of LA from 1948 through 1960. It’s fiction, but to aid with historical verisimilitude Ellroy includes real crimes, providing fictional solutions to events as diverse as the Black Dahlia murder to the Sleepy Lagoon killings. The Big Nowhere runs concurrently with the infamous HUAC hearings that produced the Hollywood Ten blacklist, with the main plot thrust being a red-baiting LAPD investigation into a stagehand union. The second main plot running through the book is about a young and naive LA County Sheriff as he traces a serial killer who mimics the killing patterns of Wolverines - and who exclusively targets gay men. 

Beware - major spoilers lie beyond. I’m doing my best to minimize. 

In crime fiction, the private eye’s greatest motivation is obsession, and Ellroy’s detectives are masters of that sordid art. They get obsessed with the usual suspects, women, drugs, money, and the all-important elusive solution. This sheriff in The Big Nowhere, Danny, becomes obsessed with his case, obsessed with catching this killer of men. The only problem is - his colleagues and his enemies wonder why he’s so obsessed about a homo snuff killing. 

You can draw your own conclusions, conclusions Danny is reluctant to draw himself. 

For understandable reasons, as it turns out. When Danny is outed (and framed for the murders he’s investigating) his life is ruined. Faced with the decision of suicide or being outed under a lie detector questionnaire, Danny chose the less painful option. If my most recent history read is accurate, that was a fate all too common in the era.

From the perspective of a person familiar with Ellroy’s style of protagonist, I was amazed that he didn’t treat either Danny or the serial killer - who is also gay - as simplistic character. Yes, bury your gays applies and they’re not exactly positive depictions of gay people, but they are first and foremost complete characters - complex, tragic and strangely sympathetic. (I won’t describe the events that drove the killer to violence, but they are horrific and make an almost irredeemable monster into a disturbingly sympathetic character.) 

I want to show that kind of sympathy to the characters in the books and stories I write. Hell, that’s the kind of sympathy / empathy I want to have for people in the real world. That really is the miracle of Ellroy’s style. Beneath the bluster and the conservative raconteur persona lies a sympathetic, remarkably kind author who understands the depths humans can sink to. He respects his characters, but they don’t get special treatment. The good leave for the big nowhere and the bad live on. That’s life, depressingly enough. That’s our history as a country. 

On a personal note, The Big Nowhere is the book I was reading when I was finally starting to accept my own sexuality. That is largely why it's remained my favorite book. As you can imagine, Danny’s story resonated with me - especially in his final scene. That moment... wooof. It’s one of those rare times where you just have to put the book down and stare out the window after reading. 

At the time that I read it, I realized I was facing a decision like Danny. I want to be clear, I wasn't facing the same stakes, I was never that desperate. But the choice was similar. Acceptance or letting my soul step into the big nowhere. I know I made the right decision. 

Heroes of Their Own Story for Once

Change of pace here, let’s talk about what I’ve been watching instead of reading. There will be some crossover with what I’m reading, but that’s neither here nor there. 

I’ve realized that my favorite type of characters are supporting characters. The type of side characters who steal the show from the protagonists and antagonists by virtue of their usefulness in the plot. They exist entirely to help or hinder the heroes on their journey, and frankly, they make the world of stories feel real. Below are two micro reviews for shows that feel like side stories, where every single character plays a supporting role to the rest of their world’s stories. 

I hope everyone is watching the The Pitt. It’s one of the few shows I’ve seen in the last few years that actually feels hopeful. If you’re unaware, The Pitt (on HBO) is a medical drama following the particularly hectic 15 hour shifts at the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center. Created by ER alumni R. Scott Gemmill, John Wells and Noah Wyle (who also stars), the Pitt plays out in real time and has been acclaimed for the accuracy and level of realism in its depictions of medical procedures. 

Mostly accurate, I should say. I don’t know from experience, but I have seen reviews from medical professionals who critique some aspects of the show; notably that CPR doesn’t exactly look violent or deep enough, the number of complex cases that enter the Pitt is unrealistically high. (I refer you this this article here.) 

I mean, it a drama series, the amount of complex cases will be unrealistically high for the sake of the story tension. And tension really is the word for the show. One aspect that the medical community has unequivocally praised the show for is it’s depiction of mental health struggles among ER workers and GOD does the show make you feel that. Many of the characters struggle with the stress of their job, a stress which is compounded by under funding, short staffing, administrative demands, drug addiction and yes, violence against healthcare workers. It’s sad to say that these aspects of the show have been praised as accurate too. 

It’s a phenomenally well-written and acted show. Noah Wyle deserves all the praise he’s received as the lead Dr. ‘Robby’ Robinavitch, but I also want to praise Patrick Ball, Katherine LaNasa, Tracy Ifeachor, Taylor Dearden and Gerran Howell for their performances. Really the whole cast deserves praise, but I need to highlight the performances of two other guest stars, Samantha Sloyan, best known to Mike Flanagan fans as Bev Keane, and Drew Powell, best known to Gotham fans as Solomon Grundy. They play two wildly different characters, patients at the Pitt, but they leave a huge impact on series. 

I also really need to praise the writers and director who managed to balance the pacing of several intense story lines pitch-perfectly. In the end, what I love about this show is that it’s story of people who care working in a system that doesn’t care at all. It’s frustrating, surprisingly cathartic, sad and uplifting at the same time. I haven’t seen anything of season 2 yet, but I’ve heard it’s more of the same, which is exactly what I need from television right now. 

Here’s the crossover with my reading, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms. I just finished reading George R R Martin’s Dunk and Egg novellas, which have provided the basis for this next Game of Thrones spin off. I got to admit, I’m excited for this new series. I didn’t watch this as it aired (I kind of prefer the bingewatch model of television - it lets me multitask) but a 6 half hours episodes, it’s short enough to watch in an afternoon. I’m also surprised by just how closely the series followed the story; outside of an extended flashback in episode 5 and one major change at the end of the series, it’s practically a page for page translation. 

The main theme that the Dunk and Egg novellas play with is nobility through humility. Ser Duncan the Tall is a hedge knight (knight errant) of no fixed abode or Lord. His squire, Egg, is secretly a member of House Targaryen, and is promised to one day sit up the Iron Throne, despite being 4th in line of succession. Both Dunk and Egg despise seeing nobility using their privilege to hurt the small folk of the Seven Kingdoms, and use their sub-rosa travels through Westeros to right wrongs, sing songs and learn about their country. 

They're both really fun characters. Egg is the dictionary definition of “precious little scamp” while also possessing a royal bearing and great knowledge of the country they travel. Ser Duncan’s strength doesn’t come from his stature but from his humble heart. He’s certainly an ambitious character, dreaming about one day becoming a member of the Kingsguard, something that a lowly hedge knight has never done. But he’s an honest man, a kind man and he might just make it that far... if this weren’t the Song of Ice and Fire Universe, where being a decent person gets you killed. So thank the seven Ser Dunk is also a fucking berserker who has no compulsion about starting and ending fights with assholes. He’s the type of hero I love, noble and honorable and willing to throw hands with the best of them. 

The TV show focuses on the first novella, The Hedge Knight, which pits the newly knighted Ser Duncan against Egg’s older brother, the haughty and vile Aerion. It’s the humble knight with his unlikely retinue of supportive friends vs the power of the Iron throne. It ends in tragedy, with one of the show’s best supporting characters dying.

We’re supposed to get a new season next year and I’m all for it. Peter Claffey as Dunk and Dexter Sol Ansel as Egg carry the show thanks to their chemistry, and the other cast members do well too. Notable standouts being Daniel Ings, Tanzyn Crawford, Bertie Carvel, and Finn Bennett. I really want to see Daniel Ings return, but his character isn’t in the other novellas, so that might not be possible. 

Like I said at the start of this post, The Pitt and Knight of the Seven Kingdoms are stories about side characters. They have their main protagonists, sure, Dr. Robby and Ser Dunk would make for an interesting paring, but the stories these shows tell are not the main stories in their respective worlds.

The Pitt takes place in a world the necessitates but mistreats Healthcare workers because everyone else is just so much more important. Real things happen in the rate race outside of hospitals, and medical professionals are just the pit crew that repairs shattered people and sends them back out into the world. (Yeah, the pit crew analogy isn’t me being clever, it’s said in universe.) Meanwhile, a Knight of the Seven Kingdoms is explicitly a side story to the main Song of Ice and Fire. It’s not an epic, it’s a fun little romp where no major characters from the main story will ever be hurt, and where the true heroes, the silent, noble warriors who go unpraised can finally get their due. 

These respective shows are stories of side characters - the most important people in their respective worlds. Here’s to ‘em. Cheers. 

What I’m reading: 

Bored of the Rings by the Harvard Lampoon (It was a slow week)