Fringesanity!

I didn’t write much during February/March – on the blog at least; reviews, on the other hand I wrote plenty of – mostly because I was crazy-busy seeing all sort of shows in what is Adelaide’s mad month (or so) of festivals.

Oddly enough, despite seeing 34 shows (and a rock festival), I didn’t see as much as I originally intended. Why? Because my brain (apparently) liked what I was exposing it to so much that it didn’t want to stop thinking about it - even when I was trying to make it shut the hell up so I could get some sleep. This meant that I spent a lot of the time feeling fairly wretched, and I ended up cutting back on shows (a little) in order to rest.

Anyway, here’s a rundown of what I saw. Anything I’ve reviewed will have a short blurb plus a link to the ATG site where the review is published; anything else will have a longer description.

Day 1
Friday February 19

Scaramouche Jones – ATG review.

What a way to start the Fringe.

In a small space at Higher Ground I sat and watched one of the most amazing pieces of theatre I’ve ever experienced. Since it was presented by Guy Masterson – a man who’d been performing in and bringing shows to the Fringe for the last few – under the banner of The Centre for International Theatre, I was expecting a high standard - but it surpassed my expectations. Absolutely brilliant. I only gave it 4.5 stars; it really deserved 5, but I was a bit hesitant about giving full marks (so to speak) to the first show I reviewed so I didn’t.

Bully

Another show from Guy Masterson’s Centre for International Theatre.

In an even smaller space at Higher Ground, Bully is about growing up in a broken home and dealing with being gay in a decidedly hostile environment. It was only a few minutes in when I realised it was in verse, which gave it a very interesting feel; with his accent it made me think of mid-2000s British lad-rapper Mike Skinner and his project The Streets.

A great show; moving and thought-provoking – and I’m now Twitter-friends with the writer/performer.

Day 2
Saturday February 20

Little Grey Wolf – ATG review.

I had such high hopes for this show. As soon as the spooky girl puppet (I was still thinking about days later) appeared I thought I was in for a treat, but it wasn’t to be the case. The best thing was the puppetry, but it was sadly underused. I guess maybe it was a company who’d previously done puppet shows but were attempting to branch out into something different.

There’s potential there, though. They just have to find their feet.

Back of Burke – ATG review.

The review pretty much covers it. One woman, a few characters – including a few sheep, which really was the high point. And no, that’s not sarcasm.

My Name is Rachel Corrie – ATG review.

This was one I was very much looking forward to seeing. I think I first heard about it reading something about Alan Rickman; he, along with Katherine Vine had put the show – about the life of a young American student who was killed in Palestine while protesting the destruction of homes and infrastructure by the Israelis – together from Corrie’s diaries, emails and phone conversations.

The review covers pretty much everything; there were some problems with lighting and the idea of projecting words/phrases onto the cardboard box set was a good one, but it didn’t work very well.

I also should have given it 4.5 stars rather than 4. But I’d already given Scaramouche Jones 4.5, and it was – in my opinion at least – a better show so I couldn’t. Fingers crossed no-one shows my review to Alan Rickman; he might go all Professor Snape on me...

Day 3
Sunday February 21

Austen’s Women

One performer, fourteen characters. Rebecca Vaughan does an amazing job of portraying some of Austen’s most beloved – or most disliked – female characters. I’ve been an Austen fan since appearing in a production of Emma (I played Frank Churchill, hilariously enough; I tried for Reverend Elton but didn’t get it) but haven’t read anywhere near as much as I should have.

I did think it went on a bit, though – maybe one or two fewer would have pleased me more.

The Event

This was something different. The performer was an American with a voice like an 60s television advertisement; the play itself a very clever desconstruction of the process and psychology of performance.

Day 4
Monday February 22

Livefish – ATG review.

Again, the review pretty much covers it. I’m not a big fan of dance/movement but this mixed in good, funny dialogue so it was okay.

Day 5
Tuesday February 23

Nikki Aiken Presents

I saw Nikki Aiken’s show in the Cabaret Fringe last year; it was brilliant so I knew I’d be seeing this if I could – it also helped that the very talented Matthew Carey was involved. But it was a great show with lots of fun songs and Nikki – a wonderful local talent – showing off her considerable singing and comedic skills.

For some reason it started half an hour late, which was a bit of a problem ‘cause I had a show to review afterwards, but I got there in time.

In Search of Atlantis – ATG review.

There was some confusion regarding how to actually get into the venue – called The Bunka, it’s out the back of the Austral where the beer garden used to be – but I got there eventually.

As the review states, they were very much in the vein of musical comedy groups – Tripod, Tenacious D, Flight of the Conchords – and they were very good musically and very funny. Using a mandolin will always score points with me.

Day 6
Wednesday February 24

Hilariously, my editor wrote me an email concerned about my mental state; there were, apparently, two typos in the last review I’d sent in. I reassured him that while I was indeed tired (the lack of sleep had started to have some effect by this point) but it was more because of haste than fatigue – I’d been in a rush to eat and get back into town in time for the show.

Jane Was Sixteen Yesterday! – ATG review.

I wanted to like this more than I did. It was an interesting concept with good potential; if the writer/director (who I’m acquainted with since he’s involved in Adelaide theatre) gives it a do-over I think it could be much better.

Inanimate Eats Rage – ATG review.

Hoo boy. Was not really expecting this. Very, very strange – but (as the review mentions) there was a weird kind of cathartic effect to watching a guy in a chicken-wire cage smash things up while a huge angry bald man yelled at him.

Again, an interesting concept but one that needed to be developed a lot further.

Day 7
Thursday February 25

The lack of sleep had really gotten to me by this point. When I get tired I get more than a a little weird (okay, weirder than usual) – by which I mean the filter I apply to my actions gets loose and I say and do things that I normally know I shouldn’t. So, I was saying strange rambling things and snapping at people for pointing out I was saying strange rambling things.

Not good.

My Sweet Specter – ATG review.

I think my tiredness made me lower my standards just slightly on this one; it was really more of a 3-star show than a 3.5. But it was a bunch of young people trying something out, and that’s a good thing in and of itself.

Seeing the Star Theatre – where I’ll be performing in Tempest later in the year – was good; yes, I’d seen stuff there before (and got a walk-through during the audition), but it’s handy to get another look and think a bit more about the space and what we might end up doing with it.

Day 8
Friday February 26

In a fit of reconciliation (that I can only imagine was also the result of sleep deprivation – you know, ‘cause I’m really a hard bastard who’d never worry about such things) I decided I’d buy chocolate (specifically Haigh’s chocolate bears) for the co-worker’s who’d had to put up with my less-than-stellar behaviour the previous day. They seemed somewhat mollified by this.

Servant of Two Masters – ATG review.

This...wasn’t great. In fact, by giving it 1.5 stars it’s technically the equal-worst rating I’ve ever given, tying with the nightmare that was The Frankie Mullet Interview in Fringe 2009.

But it wasn’t the result of sleep deprivation; it really was that bad. I’d probably have been happier had I been able to talk up a few people, but they hadn’t been able to get their programs printed so I had no way of naming those who were worth mentioning – basically, I decided I couldn’t just write ‘girl who played Truffles’ if I didn’t have her name.

Yes, I’m aware that productions always have their problems and that getting a full cast of talented actors is difficult – but that doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to know what they’re getting into before they buy tickets to something; it’s my responsibility as a reviewer to point out the serious flaws.

In situations like this what I like to think happens after a negative review comes out is that the director of the show sits the cast down and either takes responsibility for his or her actions – because, really, when it comes down to it, that’s their job – or chews them out for not doing what they were supposed to (if that was the case). Sadly, I suspect this doesn’t happen often enough and instead the director will say that the reviewer has no idea about theatre and can be safely ignored.

Some people will believe that; others will know better. Having been in poorly-reviewed shows that have deserved it, and those which haven’t (as much at least) I knew which was which.

What’s made this slightly more hilarious is that I’m now twitter-friends with the girl who played the lead; I found her commenting on Man Covets Bird (more on that later) and followed her; in turn she followed me and then ‘thanked’ me for my review. It took me a few minutes to work out who she was, but once I did it was a bit bizarre for me; I’d never had a random meeting with someone who I’d given a scathing review to. But she seems to be okay with it, which is a relief.

I like to think that when I’m less-than-positive about something I explain why. To have someone not understand why I said what I’d said would mean that I’d failed in my role as a reviewer.

Oh, and I’m still working on this piece having had the first rehearsal for the show I’m in (Tempest) and found that I’m working with someone else from this show – these people keep on showing up!

Sound and Fury’s Private Dick

For some reason I thought I’d seen a Sound and Fury show at a previous Fringe, but as I was waiting in line to go in and the performers were wandering around and speaking to people (in character) I realised that wasn’t the case. But I didn’t let this colour my enthusiasm; this show was (at the time) number one on TalkFringe¹ so I wasn’t going to worry about my apparent inability to remember names.

Anyway, the show was brilliant, side-splittingly hilarious – an homage to noir detective stories of the 40s/50s. The three guys played a dozen (or so) characters (including one excellent Peter Lorre-esque one) between them, making rapid costume (and wig) changes behind the tiny stage. While there was a solid story, significant sections of the dialogue were improvised (or, at least, that’s how it seemed) and the result was some very clever, well-thought-out wordplay with the freshness of on-the-spot reactions.

Sadly, the group seems to (at least, from what I hear) be dissolving; a shame, since I’d love to see them again.

¹TalkFringe is the official Fringe feedback page; people write reviews and give ratings and the results are calculated to show which shows people like the most. It's quite a handy way to see what's likely to be good relative to other shows.

Day 9
Saturday February 27

My inability to sleep properly continued. I felt so awful I had to have a nap before heading out for the afternoon/evening’s entertainment. Even then I ended up going at least an hour and a half later than I’d originally intended to leave.

Soundwave

If you aren’t familiar with it, Soundwave is a touring rock festival – kind of like a slightly smaller-scale Big Day Out but with more focus on metal, punk, hardcore and emo acts. I’d never been before – I probably would have gone in 2009 only my friends Dan and Amy were getting married that afternoon – but this year I’d decided to go from the moment that Faith No More were announced as the headline act.

Weirdly enough, I wouldn’t count myself as a huge FNM fan – I like their singles but a lot of the album tracks I’d heard were too strange (genre-bending and experimental) for my tastes – but they’ve got an excellent reputation as a live act and I’d never seen them before. Plus a couple of my friends were massive fans and would definitely be going – and, since (because we’re all so busy) I don’t get to spend as much time with them as I’d like, I thought it’d be good opportunity to hang out with them doing something fun.

Despite my seriously diminished energy levels, I decided – for reasons of practicality – to ride my bike; this probably isn’t as dramatic as it sounds ‘cause it’s only about 6km from my place to Bonython Park, where it was on. Driving was out ‘cause any nearby parks would have been taken by those who’d gone in the five or so hours since the gates opened; public transport was also discarded as an option because, since it required two buses, it’d take at least an hour to get there and probably twice as long to get home – if that was even a possibility by the time the show finished.

But I got there okay – despite some precarious situations caused by construction on the Port Road tram extension - and after tracking down the others we set about watching some bands.

I caught the end of Paramore, who sounded okay; we then headed a bit closer to catch Placebo. I’d seen them before at a Big Day Out years ago, but they’ve changed a bit since then and released a few albums, so I got to see them play stuff I’d never seen them play before.

We had a meal break and then wandered back into the crowd to get closer to the stage for Faith No More while Jane’s Addiction was on. I’d also seen Jane’s Addiction at a Big Day Out (I don’t think it was the same one) but it was good to seem them again, too – ‘cause they’re excellent live.

After Jimmy Eat World (to whom I’m indifferent) went off we spent way too long waiting for Faith No More to come on – the whole idea of the two-sided stage is that that doesn’t happen; it technically allows the band on one side to set up while the band on the other side is performing.

But they came on eventually, and were brilliant. They played almost all of their big songs: Epic, Digging The Grave, Easy, and my favourite, Stripsearch – which they lead into with a fun version of Chariots of Fire; you can see them do it at another gig here.

All-in-all it was a excellent set. So glad I got to see them. Yeah, I’d probably have preferred to see them do a standalone gig, but I’ll take what I can get. At this point in their career I don’t necessarily assume they’re ever going to be back.

Day 10
Sunday February 28

Once again I spent most of the day doing very little beyond trying to rest. It didn’t work especially well, but by mid-afternoon I wasn’t too bad.

Weights

An autobiographical show by a blind African-American guy named Lynn – who happens to be a writer, performance artists and former frickin’ blind Judo world champion – who lost his sight in a bar fight in the late 70s. Damn. Very clever and interesting – as well as touching and inspiring. The guy himself was simply amazing.

Words They Make With Their Mouths – ATG review

Yet another one-person show (this was the ninth so far), this also featured multiple characters – something the performer was very good at. It’s also one of those shows where there’s not a lot I can actually say about it, other than what’s in the review. It really did remind me of Bret Easton Ellis’s earlier works like Less than Zero and The Rules of Attraction, which is kind of interesting if it was a deliberate choice.

Day 11
Monday March 1

I was still suffering from poor sleep and diminished energy so it was probably a good thing I only had the one show to see.

Open Mic

This was an original show, a play with song, written/directed by a fried of mine, with another friend in it. The characters are either staff or regulars of a bar that has an open mic night once a week.

It was, for the most part, clever and funny with some good performances – though I did feel it was a bit too long, especially for a Fringe show, particularly when I’d been hoping for (and needing) an early night.

Day 12
Tuesday March 2

Two shows in a row at the Bakehouse Theatre in the city meant I didn’t have to worry about getting from one venue to another.

Antigone – ATG review

Really not what I expected. As the review indicates, it was only based on Antigone, rather than a straightforward production of it. I do kind of wish they’d gone for the traditional version ‘cause I’ve never seen it.

Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus – ATG review

By the same company - and in the same space - as Antigone, I wasn’t really sure what they were going to do with Frankenstein, but it turned out to be a much less confronting work, and far more enjoyable.

Day 13
Wednesday March 3

Another night with only one show – and and early one at that; it was to start at 7 and presumed to only run for just over an hour.

Man Covets Bird – ATG review

I’m not sure whether it comes through in the review – fanboyish adoration is frowned upon - but this was one of the most amazing shows I’ve ever experienced. And I use that word (rather than ‘seen’, which would be the word I’d usually use) to describe it, because it was not just something one ‘saw’; it really was an experience – a truly engrossing, captivating, mesmerising piece of theatre.

Obviously, it’s not the sort of thing that you’re going to see very often. I shudder to think of what the budget for it was; while you could save money and do a stripped down version of it (minus perhaps the real grass, the projection and the live music), it would result in a very different production. On paper the story itself is quite thin; with everything else added on it’s the basis for a profound experience.

Really, it’s unusual for me to like something like this; call me old-fashioned, but I’m a believer in everything requiring a strong narrative – which this isn’t. But with this show it didn’t matter.

I just hope it comes back for a return season. Not enough people got to see it.

Day 14
Thursday March 4

Amanda Palmer

This was actually the first ticket I bought to this year’s Fringe – mostly because I was fairly sure it would sell out. I’d seen Dresden Dolls at the UniBar a few years back, but was keen to catch the First Lady of Punk Cabaret again.

She did not disappoint, playing almost entirely new material – in fact, she said at the start that if we were there to hear ‘the best of Dresden Dolls we were pretty much fucked’ – and it was great. A bunch of songs that she’s written in the last couple of weeks and a guest appearance from a Melbourne act ‘The Jane Austen Argument’ – the song of theirs they collaborated on was brilliant – and some other great tunes.

What she also mentioned is that she’s likely to be back early next year – on her honeymoon with Neil Gaiman – so fingers crossed it’ll be a full-length gig rather than an hour-long Fringe set.

Cole’s Girls – ATG Review

Once again the review covers it. It started a bit late and ran well over time, which was annoying since it was a week night and I was still wanting as much sleep as I could get.

Day 15
Friday March 5

I was down for three shows but wasn’t as concerned about the late finish because I knew I could sleep in the next day. Of course I didn't, but I wasn't to know that at the time.

Austen Found

Advertised as ‘the undiscovered musicals of Jane Austen’, I’d arranged to see this with a friend, who’d bought the tickets the previous week; however, the reviews weren’t promising. But I kept that to myself since, given the fact that it is a semi-improvised show, it was entirely possible that they were just having an ‘off night’ when the critics were there.

This turned out to be the right attitude; it turned out to be a great show. I’ve got a fairly low opinion of improv unless it’s done exceptionally well – and these four women from New Zealand certainly managed to achieve that. There were moments when we were nearly rolling in the aisles.

I was so impressed I even bought a fridge magnet.

Philip Escoffey: Six Impossible Things Before Dinner

Philip Escoffey is a mentalist – yes, like the television show – which is something I’d never experienced before. But I’m very glad I went; it was one of the most genuinely entertaining shows I’ve seen. He essentially gets people from the audience to choose things at random and proceeds to predict what they’ve chosen – cards, for example. But he has several ‘tests’ (the ‘six impossible things’) and each is more complex than the one before it and includes predicting things like numbers on a bingo page coloured at random (without the person looking), words picked from a dictionary and so forth.

It is, to put it mildly, stunning; his ability to make it seem like he is genuinely psychic (he assures the audience – repeatedly – that he is not) is mindblowing. It really would be easier to just assume that he does have some kind of ‘gift’ because for him not to have involves a level of cleverness and skill at sleight-of-hand that are nigh on unbelievable. Combined with an great stage presence and a quick wit he’s not just a mentalist but a genuine entertainer.

Oh, and he doesn’t have ‘stooges’ in the audience; I know this because I participated in one of the tests and called out the number of a bingo ball I picked from a vase.

Lady Carol

I’d seen Lady Carol in the previous year’s Fringe, as part of a show called Company of Strangers – probably the best thing I saw that year – so as soon as I’d noticed she’d be back this year I made sure I’d be able to catch her show.

‘A tall, blonde, gorgeous, foul-mouthed Irish ukulele-playing cabaret singer’ is how I describe her to people, and that pretty much covers it. She does lots of interesting covers – including Radiohead and a fantastic version of the Cab Calloway song Minnie the Moocher² - as well as originals. She had support from a keyboardist and a drummer this time around, and that added an interesting dimension.

A lot of what she played was what she’d played the year before but I didn’t care; I’ll happily go and see it all again if she comes back next year.

Here’s a clip of her from YouTube, playing Radiohead's Creep.

²Made (more) famous in The Blue Brothers.

Day 16
Saturday March 6

At some point during the week I’d realised I was coming dangerously close to being ‘over’ the Fringe – not so much because of the number of shows I’d seen but because of the lack of sleep I’d had and the fact that, because the weather had turned cold and wet, my plan to ride everywhere and avoid traffic and parking hassles had been rendered impractical.

So I decided to cut back on any further shows and only go to what I considered the ‘must-sees’ – which meant going into town in the afternoon, heading back home for a few hours and then coming back for another show. Kind of inefficient, but I didn’t really have a choice.

True West

Exhaustion kept me from seeing this last time it was on; considering everything I heard about it was overwhelmingly positive I wasn’t going to miss it this time around. I’d heard of the writer, Sam Shepard, before – he’s also an actor, having appeared in a few things: - but while I knew of his reputation as a playwright, I’d never seen a show of his performed.

Now, should anything else of his be produced here, I’m likely to go see it – since this was an excellent show, in that very intense, confronting and impactful style of modern American theatre.

According to Wikipedia there was a production in the US with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich as the leads – how awesome would that have been?

The Sociable Plover

Another production from Guy Masterson’s Centre for International Theatre, and this one had Guy himself in it.

It’s a great play – very well written, and extremely clever and it was made even better by having someone of Guy’s caliber in it, particularly since the opening scene – and a substantial section of the beginning of the play – has only the one character (the one played by him) in it, requiring someone capable of conveying the character using very few words.

And he does it spectacularly.

Day 17
Sunday March 7

Another day with a show in the early afternoon and another at night.

Under Milk Wood

I’d seen Guy Masterson’s one-man version a few years back and enjoyed it so I thought I’d see it again. However, while it was still good I didn’t enjoy it as much as I did the first time because a) exhaustion on my part, and b) the venue – last time was in the Union Hall at Adelaide Uni while this time was in a much smaller space at Higher Ground.

The Hamlet Apocalypse

Finding the venue for this was a bit of a challenge; it was in what was once the cinemas in Rundle Mall and only accessible via a laneway that I didn’t even know existed – despite passing it every day on the way to work.

It’s one I’m loath to talk too much about because I felt it’s too easy to diminish the impact by revealing the twist – though the blurb in the Fringe Guide did exactly that. But what exactly is going on isn’t really explained in the show itself, so you’re faced with a choice of either too much information ruining the surprise or too little and being confused. I’d like to think I’d have worked it out had they not explained it beforehand, but I’ll never know for sure.

Still, the production itself was excellent – I particularly liked the sound design, which helped make it even more disconcerting and scary - and it was a very clever and interesting idea.

Day 18
Monday March 8

Nothing. I did nothing, saw nothing, went nowhere – literally, because it was a public holiday.

You’d better believe I enjoyed it. I was supposed to go see Heroin(e) for Breakfast at Holden Street – and in a way I’m sorry I didn’t, because I’d only heard good things about it – but I hadn’t bought tickets and that meant I could talk myself out of going.

Day 19
Tuesday March 9

I was feeling somewhat better after my shut-in day so I decided I’d see a third show after the two I was reviewing.

Fear of a Brown Planet Returns – ATG review

These two guys were great – I hadn’t seen much comedy this Fringe; I probably should have seen more. It also reminded of while I hate racism a lot, I get to do so without having to suffer from it.

Ambidextrous – ATG review

There’s not much to say that wasn’t in the review.

Almost an Evening

The allure of this show was that each of the three plays were written by Ethan Coen – as in brother of Joel and co-creator of some of my all-time favourite films like Fargo, The Big Lebowski and No Country for Old Men.

There were some good bits, but overall this production reminded me that there are times when what can probably accurately be termed Jewish-American humour just doesn’t work as well in Australia, both in terms of the performances and the audience reactions.

What I mean by that is that I don’t think Australians are, in general, neurotic enough; also, the average Australian hasn’t had anywhere near as much exposure to Jewish-American humour as the average American – years of Seinfeld repeats on Go! (and, before them, Ten) notwithstanding – and certainly not anywhere near as much as theatre-going Americans.

That said there were some great comic moments, and I’m glad I got to see it.

Day 20
Wednesday March 10

The last night of the Fringe for me because on Friday I’d be heading off to Melbourne for the Global Atheist Conference (which I’ve already written about here) and I wanted the Thursday night to pack and try to get some rest.

The Snow Queen

There was no way I was going to miss this, a show by Theater Simple, a company who I’ve adored since I saw a show of theirs in the first Fringe I went to (way back in 1998) and who have been back nearly every Fringe since. Some of my best Fringe memories are of TS shows, including Notes From Underground, The Fever and the utterly brilliant 52 Pickup.

Unfortunately, this was the only show of theirs I’d be seeing in the 2010 Fringe, since their schedule had them doing most of their shows either during the day while I was at work or on the weekend I’d be in Melbourne – or both.

The Snow Queen, based on the Hans Christian Andersen story, was more of a kid’s show – TS seem to have moved in that direction in recent years – but it was still very well done (unsurprisingly; they have very high standards) and entertaining.

And that was it; Fringe 2010 was over.

Looking back

Sadly, while I saw some great shows, I was simply not able to get enough sleep throughout the festival to still be enjoying it by the final week. Next year I’ll either do less or – better yet – take time off work. That will, of course, depend on work.

Oh, and I'll also write about it a lot sooner. Considering I'm now looking around to buy a netbook, I'll have no excuse to not be more up-to-date with my commentary if I can carry around a device that I'll be able to put my thoughts into during those times when I'm between shows or waiting in line or on the bus.

The Global Atheist Convention

The what?

The Global Atheist Convention. From March 12-14 I was in Melbourne to attend it. It even has its own web page here.

The most asked question: what did you do there?

Short answer: people (mostly atheists) from around Australian and the world listened to more than twenty people from different fields/disciplines –including philosophy, ethics, journalism, psychology, demographics, stand-up comedy, economics, education (to name a few) – talk about issues relating to atheism. Amongst the speakers were Australian broadcasters Philip Adams and Robyn Williams, and former fundamentalist Christian preacher turned atheist, Dan Barker; the ‘headline act’ was well-known atheist spokesperson, scientist and author of the controversial The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins.

Long answer: keep reading.

Festival hiatus

I've been way too busy to write anything other than reviews of late, but I am working on a post that covers everything I've been doing over the last few weeks of multi-festival insanity; if I can I'll finish it later in the week, but it's entirely possible I won't get much done on it because I'll be getting ready for the Global Atheist Conference that's on in Melbourne this coming weekend - which I'll also have to find the time to write about.

But for now you can read my reviews over on the ATG site - here's a quick link to read about what I've been seeing and what I've thought of it.

The non-specific time period that was #12

Avatar

According to BoxOfficeMojo Avatar recently became the biggest-grossing film (unadjusted) of all time – and it's been nominated for a few Oscars as well, so I guess I should probably get my opinion of it out there.

It took me a while to get around to seeing it; the plan was to wait for the numbers to die down a bit so that I wasn’t in a cinema full of people. This proved to be slightly poor judgement on my part, since the blasted thing is still so popular that even the smaller of the two cinemas showing it at the Norwood complex was nearly full by the time everyone was in. At least I was sensible enough to get there early and get good seats.

No doubt you’ve probably all heard a) that it features spectacular visual effects, the likes of which have not been seen before - particularly if you see it in the 3D like I did; and b) the other aspects of the film (plot, characterisation and dialogue) are somewhat underwhelming compared to the impact provided by a).

So, I’m not going to describe the film any further than that. What I’m interested in is what’s going to happen now. Last week it won a Golden Globe for Best Film – Drama and James Cameron the award for Best Director; the question now is ‘will it win the Best Picture Oscar?’

It might, but I don’t necessarily think it should. Yes, It’s an amazing, astonishing film because of what they’ve been able to do – I know it’s a cliché, but it’s literally going to change how people look at making film – but is that what should determine what the ‘best’ film of a given year is?

Cameron’s previous box-office-record-holding and trophy-ensnaring work Titanic won the best picture Oscar (as well as a sackful of awards in the other categories¹) back in 1998. While I found that film to be, simultaneously, an awe-inspiring piece of filmmaking² and a gag-inducing pile of overly-contrived, emotionally-manipulative tripe³, I still consider it to be a better film in terms of what I think a best picture award should be judged on.

People went to see Titanic because of how it made them feel⁴ – and the astonishing amount of effort, attention to detail and creativity (in terms of how they came up with mays to make it all work) were appreciated on an unconscious level by the millions of people who saw it, many of them over and over and over again⁵.

Avatar, on the other hand, is dragging in its huge audiences because people are (as far as I can tell) going to see it for the opposite reason – because they are, consciously, aware of the level of special effects being used, rather than because they are appreciating the overall film experience.

Which – to me – is the opposite of what the response of a film audience should be to a truly great film. Yes, Avatar deserves to take home every technical award there is; it’s far and away the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen in that regard – but in ten years time when every second film is in 3D with a similar level of visual effects, Avatar, by virtue of the fact this is its only worthwhile quality, is going to look distinctly run-of-the-mill.

Great films should be great because they transcend the nuts-and-bolts aspects of filmmaking – not simply because they use breakthrough technology. I tweeted this question just after I heard that Avatar had won the Golden Globe:


The answer: very little.

My favourite films aren’t ones where I’ve just gone, ‘damn, that looked awesome; I was really impressed by the technology’ – at least not unless there’ve been other worthwhile elements to them. For example, the first 3D film I saw was Coraline, and I loved the effects - but it would have been a great film sans the extra dimension; I have my doubts Avatar in 2D would have been anywhere near as impressive.

I guess it comes down to this: art should embrace technology, but its greatness shouldn’t be defined by it. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that mantra isn’t going to be the one the Academy voters adhere to the same way I do. Still, I can take some solace in knowing that the awards I tend to take as better indicators of a film’s quality – the acting awards⁶ and the screenplay awards – are unlikely to wind up in James Cameron’s pool room.

That being said, if you haven’t already seen it, go see it. In 3D. It isn’t going to make you a better person, but you need to see it to understand just what all the fuss is about.

¹Including, most disappointingly, the wretched Celine Dion’s feculent, ear-poisoning nightmare My Heart Will Go On winning over Elliott Smith’s Miss Misery from Good Will Hunting – possibly my favourite song of all time.
² Which it is. You can despise the content all you like but it’s a well-crafted film in every way. They didn’t just spend 300 million clams on green screens and Billy Zane’s hairpiece. The sets were about as accurate as sets can be.
³ I don’t care if you loved it and saw it 17 times; it was shallow manipulation and sappier than the run-off from the Hallmark factory.
⁴There isn’t a word – in English at least - to describe the combined effect it had on me – immense respect combined with annoyance at the unsubtle emotional manipulation. There might be one in German.
⁵A friend of mine was made to see it, IIRC, eight times with his girlfriend. Apparently, she went another few times with others. Insane.
⁶Not always, though. Gwyneth Paltrow and Marisa Tomei, I’m looking in your direction. Jack Palance - well, you I’ll forgive ‘cause you’re so damn awesome.

Avenue Q

Wow, two headings staring with ‘Av’ – what are the chances? Perhaps I should have spent more time doing/learning about things that would have made it an all-‘av’ post: average rainfall, Avagadro's Law⁷, avoirdupois weight⁸ or avocados⁹.

Double alliteration¹⁰ aside, I saw Avenue Q at Her Majesty’s Theatre last week. For those who aren’t aware, it’s a recent musical (opened on Broadway in 2003) that draws very heavily on Sesame Street for inspiration – i.e. most of the characters are puppets, but of the glove and arm-controlled variety, i.e. a quite visible person walks around with the puppet character, manipulating them and providing the voice.

In it, Princeton (as the name suggests) has graduated from University and winds up renting an apartment on Avenue Q, where he meets the other residents – the puppet characters Kate Monster, Trekkie Monster (no relation) and Nicky & Rod (two guys who bear more than a passing resemblance to Bert & Ernie); and the human characters Brian, his fiancee Christmas Eve, and the building supervisor Gary Coleman. Technically, it’s the character of Gary Coleman, played by someone who’s not Gary Coleman.

Sorry if that’s confusing. Hey, I didn’t come up with it. I wish I had; it’s an hilarious concept. I’d love to know what the real Gary Coleman thinks of it. He’d probably enjoy any likeness rights money he was getting¹¹.

Though it is, as I mentioned, heavily influenced by Sesame Street, the content is a lot more adult, and that’s the main ‘hook’ to the show – if it didn’t have that it’d just be a musical with puppets. When you throw in songs with titles like It Sucks to be Me, If You Were Gay, Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist, The Internet is for Porn, You Can Be as Loud as the Hell You Want (When You're Makin' Love) and (my favourite) Schadenfreude – you know you’ve got something a little bit different. And oh-so-politically incorrect.

It’s exceptionally well-written, and very well-performed – the puppetry isn’t overly complex, but it’s still important, and the cast do a great job of making them move and react. They’re all good singers – singing in character is different from normal singing – and have great comic timing, too. The guy who played Brian (one of the non-puppet characters) looked familiar; it turns out he was in the great ABC satire of government The Hollowmen.

I'd tell you to go see it, but I think the season’s over – sorry I didn’t get this out sooner! Alternatively, if you’re somewhere and it’s on, go see it.

⁷According to Wikipedia he hypothesised that 'equal volumes of ideal or perfect gases, at the same temperature and pressure, contain the same number of particles, or molecules.' I probably shouldn't have had to look that up.
⁸A system of weights by which coarser commodities are weighed, such as hay, grain, butter, sugar, tea - apparently.
⁹I don't really like avocados, unless they're in guacamole form. Just so you know.
¹⁰I don’t know if that’s a real thing; I’m using it to mean words where it’s not just the first letter repeated but the first two letters.
¹¹Something else I learned from the movies – Chasing Amy to be specific – though how true it is I’ve no idea. I think Gary Coleman probably deserves something for it, but according to the internet he’s getting nothing.

Fringe 2010

The Fringe festival is nearly upon us, and I’m trying to work out my schedule. I’ve been allocated 16 shows to review – half of those in the first week – but there are a lot of shows I’d like to see on top of that. Cutting into my options is the Soundwave festival on Saturday February 27 and the 2010 Global Atheist Conference in Melbourne March 12-14.

But here’s my ‘hit list’ of shows – so far:

Scaramouche Jones*
Bully
My Name is Rachel Corrie*
Weight
The Event
Nikki Aiken Presents
Amanda Palmer
Cole’s Girls*
Under Milk Wood
Austen’s Women
Open Mic
The Snow Queen
The Rap Guide to Evolution
Lady Carol
Almost an Evening
True West
Axis of Awesome: Infinity Rock Explosion
Sound & Fury’s ‘Private Dick’
The Needle and the Damage Done
Last of the Red Hot Mamas
Chronic Ills
The Event
The Sociable Plover

That’s 23. Those with an asterisk I’m lucky enough to be reviewing; one other (Amanda Palmer) is one night only and so I’ve already got a ticket.

All the rest I’ve got to try and fit in – as I noted, I’ve got 16 reviews to do; only three of those are shows I don’t want to miss. A show makes the cut because a) I know people involved; b) I’ve enjoyed other productions involving the performers, the theatre company or the promoters; c) it sounds awesome based on the description in the Fringe Guide (e.g. Almost an Evening, which is written by Joel Coen – yes, that Joel Coen, i.e. brother of Ethan and half of one of the most talented filmmaking teams of all time); or d) the show has a reputation – e.g. True West, which was on in Adelaide last year (and received enormous acclaim) but which I didn’t get a chance to see, or My Name Is Rachel Corrie, co-adapted by (wait for it) Alan Rickman¹².

It’s not, of course, as simple as just picking the shows I want to see. Many of them are on at the same time, or start just after another I want to see is finishing – while being at a venue on the opposite side of town. I’ve also got to factor in the time I’ll need to spend eating, sleeping (on weeknights especially), working, travelling and writing my reviews.

Transport at least, is not such a big deal, since the majority of shows are in and around the city and I live a convenient 15 (or so) minute bike ride from town. This is not only good for getting to shows from home (and back again), but also from those in one part of the city to another – e.g. from the Garden of Unearthly Delights (corner of East Terrace and Rundle Street) to Higher Ground (corner of Morphett and Currie Streets).

If the weather’s good, that is. If it’s not then it’s going to be a little more interesting.

Anyway, I’ll be posting links to the shows I’m reviewing for the ATG, and giving (probably very brief) summaries of the shows I’m seeing for myself – plus any information I come across from other people who’ve seen shows that I haven’t been able to get to.

¹²I suppose it’s possible there are people who don’t know who Alan Rickman is so I’ll go with the three most well-known film roles: Hans Gruber in Die Hard, The Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Professor Snape in the Harry Potter films. But he’s a stage actor as well - hence why he’s so good.

...about Twilight

Spoilers ahoy – for Twilight (natch), True Blood and pretty much any other vampire themed story I’ve happened across and felt inclined to reference. You’ve been warned.

This particular entry is about the book, not the film. Yes, that means I’ve read it. For several reasons – 1) I was curious, as I tend to be about any literary phenomenon; and 2) I thought it might make an interesting topic for a blog post.

As you’ll see, I didn’t particularly like it. But I didn’t hate it so much I couldn't continue - though that may be more because I had this blog post in mind; if I'd read it without an opportunity to vent afterwards it may have been a different story.

Anyway, I’ve broken it down into the different areas of analysis that I think are relevant: plot, characters, writing style, vampirisms and themes.

The plot¹

Isabella ‘Bella’ Swan moves to Forks, Washington from Phoenix, Arizona and falls in love with an unusual and – at first – distinctly unfriendly boy named Edward Cullen after he saves her from harm a couple of times and who, it is revealed (to anyone who didn’t already know), is a vampire – though a vampire unlike any other in folklore, literature or popular culture. However, it doesn’t go very smoothly for several reasons – she doesn’t think she’s good enough for him, and he’s afraid he’ll lose control and suck her drier than the Gibson Desert on a hot January day².

Seriously, that’s pretty much it. There’s a somewhat dramatic development late in the book when another vampire decides he wants to drink Bella’s blood and (somewhat oddly considering how events pan out) the vampires concoct a plan to send her back to Phoenix to escape. But that’s really only a minor plot point by comparison – the rest is bland descriptions of uninteresting happenings and overly-long scenes describing how attractive Bella thinks Edward is and/or how bad Bella feels about not being good enough for him.

In and of itself that isn’t a deal-breaker, since I don’t consider the lack of ‘action’ to be an insurmountable obstacle; I read a lot of literary fiction where little happens in terms of plot. But in that kind of book the underemphasis on plot is balanced out by (usually) excellent prose and interesting descriptions of things – e.g. characters, character development and social commentary. But Twilight isn’t literary in that sense, and doesn’t make up for a lack of action with superb prose or profound insights into the human condition. It’s just about a rather uninspiring girl and her adoration for a (from my perspective at least) unlikeable pretty-boy vampire with super powers.

Basically, it’s fluff - with fangs (well, sort of). Oh, and sparkles - but more on that later.

Despite the thinness (and sluggishness) of plot, it did hold me enough to get me through the entire book, so that counts for something. There was some effective building of tension that made me want to find out what was going to happen – though I did (from time to time) kind of wish that it hadn’t taken as long to get to that point. But, as I noted earlier, it was about plot resolution – not any kind of resonance with the characters.

There are, of course, some weird plot holes. The falling in love part in particular. Really, we’re given no reason for why this happens beyond ‘Edward is so beautiful and mysterious and powerful’ and ‘Bella smells nice and I can’t read her mind like I can other humans’. They barely know each other – and what they do know of each other is hardly likeable – and yet we’re somehow meant to believe that they develop strong feelings for each other. It’s really more like two people develop crushes on each other at the same time – and that, sad to say, ain’t love.

Bella’s apparent unattractiveness (physical and in terms of personality) doesn’t make sense either. She goes on and on about how plain and boring she is (and she's right, at least about the latter) yet every guy in town chases after her and the other girls in her school are jealous of her. Again, this is the sort of thing that would be okay to have a character think at the beginning of the story, but which – as part of character development – she would realise isn’t the case and come to terms with it. But she doesn’t, and this is a problem because it’s far easier to identify with characters who behave like actual people at least might.

Edward’s big reveal should have more impact than it does. Why doesn’t Bella freak out at least a little once she realises he’s a vampire? She does some research, and almost everything she’d have found would have told her that vampires are, in nearly every folk tale and horror story, dangerous monsters. Surely she’d have to have at least some doubt about him. That would be understandable, even if she only took a couple of minutes to contemplate it.

Other plot developments and contradictions are just as aggravating and a lot of what happens just doesn’t make any sense. Much of this is how the characters act and react to events. Yes, people do do stupid things; that’s a fact – but in Twilight it’s the norm rather than an aberration. Constant stupid and irrational conversations followed by repeated stupid and irrational decisions and actions just annoy me.

¹I can’t imagine too many people don’t know what it’s about, but you never know.
²For overseas readers, that’s a desert in Australia – I was feeling patriotic – and for us January is a summer month.

Characters

One of the bigger flaws. I didn’t like either Bella or Edward, even slightly, and I couldn’t bring myself to care what happened to them – the little interest I had was in terms of the resolution of the plot; basically, if they’d both died I would have been just as content at the end. Probably more so if it’d involved some interesting writing to describe it.

Bella
Bella is written as exceptionally dull, which is a huge problem because the entire story is told through her eyes (first-person; I’ll talk more about that later) - she doesn’t seem to be particularly interested in anything, including thinking about herself in such a way that the reader is given much insight into who she is – well, other than someone who doesn’t want to live in Forks, Washington. That does change somewhat once she meets Edward, but then all she can do is gush about how perfect he looks and smells and sounds or moan about how wretched she is and that he’s too good for her.

Really, I found it impossible to like Bella, and it was unpleasant to view the world through her eyes. All Meyer needed to do was give this girl some spirit, some backbone, some character - and that alone would have improved things no end. But it seems like having those characteristics would be flaws in Meyer’s eyes so instead we’re left with this unlikeable, simpering dishrag of a person.

While having this kind of character in a story isn’t unusual – in fact, it’s kind of necessary; you can’t describe and develop everyone at length - it is, however, very strange to make someone so one-dimensional and uninspiring the main character and narrator of the story. If done the right way this could be clever and interesting – but it isn’t and therefore doesn’t.

A handy term for analysing Bella as a character is Mary Sue – which, according to Wikipedia, is this: 'Mary Sue, sometimes shortened simply to Sue, is a pejorative term used to describe a fictional character who plays a major role in the plot and is particularly characterized by overly idealized and clichéd mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as wish-fulfillment fantasies for their authors.'

That’s a good description of Bella. Meyer attempts to give the character some flaws, but they’re either totally contradictory to the events described (Bella being ‘plain’ in appearance yet every guy in school wants her and many of the girls envy her looks) or aren’t flaws in the sense that they provide her with anything to be overcome – the ridiculous clumsiness, for example. She sure is whiny, though – albeit only how she isn’t good enough for Edward; I don’t , however, believe that disqualifies her from Mary Sue status.

Mary Sues appear more often in fan-fiction than actual fiction – and they tend to be a vessel through which an author can insert themselves into a story. In this case, though, it’s more like the character is more designed in such a way that certain kinds of readers can insert themselves into the story.

And since I’m not really all that interested in fantasising about being a teenage girl in love with an impossibly attractive male vampire, it’s not all that surprising it didn’t exactly work for me.

Edward

Edward isn’t dull like Bella, but he certainly isn’t any more pleasant to dwell upon; he’s domineering, arrogant, controlling and condescending – the last demonstrated, most annoyingly, by the fact he laughs at Bella all the time. Everything she admits to thinking is, to him, laughable. Is that really a likeable quality?

He’s also a creepy stalker. It’s not only the breaking into her house to watch her sleep, it’s the mind-reading of every person around Bella in an attempt to try and find out what she’s thinking. That’s not heroic – it’s disturbing and all kinds of wrong.

As unlikeable as Edward is, I suspect the book would have been much better had it been told through Edward’s eyes³, since he – unlike Bella, actually has something that he has to wrestle with, i.e. resisting the inclination to kill and drink the blood of someone who he cares about (apparently), and what the consequences of that would be for him and his family who wish to live anonymously amongst humans. But it isn’t, so we’re only given insight into Edward’s struggle through Bella’s boring eyes. She isn’t given the capacity to grasp exactly what it is he’s going through and so doesn’t explain it very well beyond telling us that he gets angry about things.

The term Byronic hero gets thrown around to describe Edward, but I tend to disagree – based on Twilight at least – mostly because we really aren’t given enough insight into his character. Really, apart from his bloodlust, Edward’s very ‘straight’ – and Byronic heroes tend to be more reckless and disregarding of authority. Edward’s just kind of moody and filled with self-loathing and scorn for Bella; the danger in him comes from him being a vampire, not from the choices he makes in his life.

At least we’re not encouraged to believe that Edward’s fascination with Bella is because of her wonderful personality – suspension of disbelief would never stretch that far. It’s explained away by the uniqueness of her smell and the fact that he can’t read her mind like he can that of everyone else⁴.

Other characters

There’s not really much to say. As drab as the two main characters are they’re glorious Technicolor compared to the others. Much of this, of course, is due to the story being through Bella’s eyes; as a result, anyone who’s not Edward is only given minimal consideration. Really, they’re only there to drive the plot forward – particularly in the case of vampire James, who only appears so there’s something for them to actually do rather than sit around and gaze at each other while not giving in to lust.

³Apparently, Meyer has written (or is writing) a retelling of the story from Edward’s perspective, which may make slightly more interesting reading.
⁴Interestingly enough, this is also a major factor in one of the relationships in True Blood – though the situations are reversed; it’s the otherwise-psychic human who likes that the vampire’s mind can’t be read.

Writing Style

There is a writer’s mantra: ‘Show, don’t tell'. Meyer has either never heard this, or has heard it and chosen to ignore it. And that’s a problem because it has a huge impact on how enjoyable stories are.

An example: you could have a character come into a room and say to another character ‘it’s raining’ and you’d know it was raining. Or you could have a character describe hearing the soft beat of the rain on the roof, the smell of rain in the air or how they can see the droplets as they slid down the window-glass. I know I’d rather read the latter because it puts me there. The former is what I’d expect to hear from a witness in a courtroom.

We’re constantly told things – Bella is smart, Edward loves Bella and so forth – but we’re never actually shown anything to indicate that this is true. In fact, more than occasionally we’re told things that are then contradicted by what we’re shown – mainly Bella’s supposed unattractiveness, which doesn’t fit with how everyone around her acts.

Her descriptions of the events taking place around her are often effective in moving the thin-on-the-ground plot forward, but that’s not enough – we need to be taken into her world, and the best way to do that is via that mantra of writing: show, don’t tell. As it is it’s written far more like the treatment of a film script – where it’d be up to the director and the cinematographers to fill the gaps. But that’s not what I want from a novel.

Related to this – or possibly the heart of it - is that it’s written in first person. But this can work – The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie, which I raved about in a recent blog post, is in first person; so are both The Virgin Suicides and (much of) Middlesex, two of my all-time favourites – but it’s got to be done right. In Twilight we see everything through the eyes of Bella; however, Bella is so insipid and clueless that what is can be a positive feature of first-person writing – indepth description of the world and other people through the lens of a narrator’s unique perspective – is completely lacking.

What may be more frustrating is that there are times when she gets it right – describing Charlie’s kitchen early in the book, for one – but these are few and far between. It’s a pity the editor – if there was one – didn’t get that point through to Meyer.

Paucity of description aside, there’s also the issue of the word choice – and it’s a big one. Stephen King somewhat famously chided (gently) Harry Potter author JK Rowling for her overuse of adverbs – ‘...hasn’t met an adverb she doesn’t like’ was the quote – but JK’s got nothing on Stephenie Meyer. Like King (one of my early literary heroes⁵), I also dislike the overuse of adverbs – and also like King I define ‘overuse’ as ‘anything more than the absolute bare minimum’. There are times when you can’t do anything but use an adverb, but if you use them at any time other than when you’ve no other option then you’re beginning to tell rather than show.

An example:

‘He touched the corner of my eye, trapping one I missed. He lifted his finger, examining the drop of moisture broodingly.’

Broodingly? Good grief. There are ways to show (not tell) that someone might be brooding: a furrowed brow, distant eyes, a set to the mouth – any number of facial expressions. But no, we get ‘broodingly’. Ick.
Of course, King also said that Stephenie Meyer ‘can’t write worth a damn’ – which I think is a bit harsh. But only a bit.
Then there are the adjectives. If there’s a synonym for attractive then Meyer has used it at some point, over and over again. Since everything’s told through Bella it may be Meyer’s way of indicating that Bella has a fondness for saying the same things over and over again – but that doesn’t help the reader much. So, we’re exposed to the frequent use of words such as ‘glorious’, ‘seraphic’, ‘incandescent’, and ‘scintillating’.

Oy.

One of the other qualities the writing lacks is humour. Good writing should be witty and entertaining⁶ even when describing something mundane. But there’s none of that in Twilight; the descriptions are dull, perfunctory. Again, if this was a deliberate effect to convey Bella’s personality as a wretched, unlikeable character then it would be clever; as it isn’t, the result is uninspiring prose of a very bland kind.

⁵Like or dislike what he writes about, he is a very proficient crafter of prose. He’s also a former English teacher and his book On Writing is one of the most insightful and useful books about writing that I’ve read.
⁶‘Wry’ is a good word to describe how I think writing should be. But I wasn’t feeling alliterative so I didn’t use them both.

Vampirisms⁷

Different writers give their vampires different qualities; however, beyond the need to drink blood, vampires across different fictional universes may have almost nothing else in common - and what vampires are (or aren't) capable of can make a massive difference to the story. But with the sheer number and variation of vampire stories it’s almost impossible to say what is ‘typical’ of vampires anymore.

Wikipedia has a handy table outlining the abilities of the more well-known kinds of vampires here.

One of the criticisms of Twilight that I’ve come across is that the vampires are ‘wrong’ – which is something I disagree with. 'Your universe, your rules,' I say. Really, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ vampires because they don’t actually exist – though I’d say that to not have them drink blood would be a deal-breaker; you’d really have to call your creatures something else if that was the case. Though I'm not going to be surprised if someone's done that, too.

Twilight vampires, then, have almost nothing in common with any other vampires beyond the standard superpowers – effective immortality, strength, speed, healing and so forth. They are (apparently) unaffected by any of the standard quasi-religious artifacts and items (crosses, holy water and so forth); garlic and stakes don’t bother them; super-strength and invulnerability would make being decapitated simply impossible; and silver has no particular effect on them In fact, Twilight vampires are probably the hardest to kill of any fictional vampire; they appear to only be susceptible to fire – and for that to be effective they have to be incapacitated to such a state that they can’t escape from its effects, i.e. for it to work they have to have been torn into pieces – something we only hear about happening as a result of several other vampires working together.

Twilight vampires don’t seem to need to breathe or have heartbeats; this is, for me, another black mark against them – though that applies to any writer whose vampires do that, because it’s just silly. If they’ve got blood in them (which they do), if it isn’t pumped around by their heart it’s just going to collect in their feet – and it certainly isn’t going to gush out of any wounds on its own. And in terms of male vampires being able to, er, perform certain acts, a beating heart would be essential. Breathing is less problematic, but only slightly – if for no other reason that breathing is necessary for speech. And I don’t think ever I’ve read about/seen any mute vampires.

One of the big ones you’re probably already aware of is that Twilight vampires are not harmed by sunlight, which tends to be one of the most common weaknesses. They do avoid sunlight, but not because they dislike it – it’s because they sparkle in sunlight. I don’t think much of that. Enough is made about how unbelievably attractive the vampires (particularly Edward) are; making him also sparkle in sunlight is just going overboard – not to mention being so lame as to trigger my gag reflex.

Twilight vampires don’t have fangs – retractable or otherwise – and the ‘turning’ of people into vampires is a bit different as well; vampires have venom which, if left unchecked (i.e. the vampire bites you but doesn’t kill you) in the human body will eventually turn the human into a vampire – albeit after a really unpleasant couple of days – see here for a full description. I do kind of like this because it’s a deliberate move away from the drain-your-blood/suck-my-blood formula – and also because it reminds me of one of my all-time favourite creatures, the Komodo Dragon.

However, this otherwise interesting variation on traditional vampirism is not elaborated on (in terms of mechanics) and, as a result, creates what can be considered a plot hole when Edward sucks another vampire’s venom out of Bella – if the venom doesn’t come from the bite itself (which it can’t, because vampire teeth aren’t any different) then is it just present in the mouth? If so, why then doesn’t Edward’s venom poison Bella the same way?

Overall, the vampirisms are kind of a mixed bag. The sparkly crap makes me want to hurl, but many of the other qualities Meyer has dropped include the head-bangingly irritating ones such as the ‘no reflection’ – more irritating in film and tv, because they tend to somehow have magically invisible clothes as well – and the ‘cannot enter uninvited’ nonsense, which I’ve never liked. How, exactly, is that supposed to work anyway? I’m all for suspension of disbelief, but it should still maintain a certain logic no matter what; ‘magic’ still has to make some sense as far as I’m concerned.

Their nigh-on invulnerability is a bit of a problem, too – one of the things I like about Buffy and True Blood is that, while vampires are über-powerful, they can be brought down by normal humans if they’re well-organised and determined enough. Characters that are too powerful become hard to care about (since you know nothing can really hurt them); it’s what turned me off Anne Rice’s vampire stories and something I find problematic with a lot of fantasy fiction⁸.

But my research has led me to conclude in the later books that the vampire characters end up under threat – from other vampires and werewolves – so the issue seems to be limited to the first book alone.

⁷It took me a long time to find the right word, so I’m now very fond of this one – both for its elusiveness, and for just how damn apt it is.
⁸It’s one my many criticisms of David Eddings.
Themes

This is where it gets a bit more problematic, and where much of the criticism of the book stems from.

I find the Edward/Bella relationship to be disturbing, for want of a better word – creepy paedophile older relative disturbing. I’ve heard this argued away with ‘but he only looks seventeen!’, which is missing the damn point completely. He’s very much an adult and she’s very much a child, certainly emotionally younger than her physical age of seventeen. It’s not a relationship between equals, or even near-equals, and it runs through the whole story.

To illustrate: we’re led to believe that Edward loves Bella, but treats her with unabashed contempt – talks down to her, laughs at her constantly (laughs at, not laughs with) and almost never lets her make decisions for herself. To me it sounds more like a (bad) parent with a not-especially-bright child. Or a person with a pet. Not only is he aware of how one-sided the whole thing is, he seems to enjoy reminding her of how weak and useless she is compared to him.

There are ways this could have worked. Bella could have actually called him out on his assholish behaviour, and refused to have anything to do with him until he stopped being such a prick; he could have actually taken this on board and tried to act differently – and maybe stopped telling her everything she thinks and does is stupid and wrong and that she’s a puny human while he’s a vampire. It’s hardly far-fetched and would make it a lot less baffling to read about. But no, Edward remains the same asshat who treats her like crap; the difference is that he now spends time with her and tells her that he cares for her. Even though it doesn’t come through in how he treats her. We’re told that he cares for her - not shown.

This is another reason show, don’t tell is such an important rule to remember when writing – it makes characters and situations more believable. And that’s important, even when you’re writing about unbelievable characters and situations. It’s the suspension of disbelief, not the removal of it altogether.

What are we shown he does that could pass as being an actual demonstration of his feelings? He saves her life from time to time despite the fact doing so could expose him as a vampire (which, to be fair is not unreasonable) and, despite the fact that he really likes the idea of drinking her blood, he chooses not to kill her. There’s a scene in the forest where Edward rips the branch from a tree and smashes it against another tree to demonstrate just how easy it would be for him to kill her – but says that he never would. And there are other scenes that go along these lines.

That part again: not killing her. Yeah, that sounds like a good reason for loving someone: because they don’t kill you when they so easily could.

Some of it can be explained away by the fact that he’s a vampire, and is obviously somewhat removed from typical human emotional behaviour. But it’s something that the other vampire/human romances in fiction – e.g. Buffy/Angel and Bill/Sookie (in True Blood) - deal with a lot better by virtue of the fact that the human in both those stories has something to ‘bring to the table’ so to speak, e.g. being a sassy superpowered vampire slayer or a sassy southern psychic.

Bella, sadly, is not sassy. She’s as limp as five-day-old lettuce in an inefficient refrigerator. She has nothing to bring to the table; in fact, she’s so far away from the table that she can probably only barely make it out on the horizon. With binoculars. As a result, Edward's relationship with her comes across as totally creepy – and her acceptance of it implies that she thinks it’s okay for a female to be completely dominated by the male on almost every level.

Apart from the ‘not valuing you as a person is totally okay’ message there’s also the ‘sex is bad and abstinence is good’ message. While I personally disagree with this it’s not, in and of itself, as objectionable – or, more importantly, all that surprising; Meyer is a Mormon, and Mormons aren’t keen on premarital sex. As a theme alone this is irritating; combine it with page after page of scenes packed with scenes which are metaphors for struggling to resist giving in to their lust (because sex is wrong!) and it gets very annoying. You’ve made your misguided point; don’t harp on it.

Of course, related to that is the idea that men struggle to control themselves around women. It isn’t too flattering to women, either; since it implies that women are powerless and shouldn’t do anything that might lead to a man being overwhelmed by his lust and doing something they’ll both regret. it’s a pretty sickening (and, as a man, personally insulting) concept no matter what the context.

As a role model, Bella is a poor heroine, since she’s completely dependent on Edward for everything – making her decisions, saving her life, catching her whenever her gosh-darned inconvenient clumsiness causes her to fall over. And, as a result, it doesn’t provide much of an incentive for guys to be anything other than domineering and condescending; the male classmates who attempt to treat Bella like normal high school boys would are shunned as inferior – is the message that they should be more like Edward with the stalking and the mocking and the dismissals?

Then there’s the creepy mind-reading that Edward does, which I noted in his character analysis. He can’t read Bella’s mind, so he reads the minds of everyone around her so he can work out what’s going on. In our would that’d be like hacking into someone’s emails or reading their diaries to get information; it’s the kind of thing that only stalkers and other weirdos would do – why is it okay when Edward does it?

More creepiness: he broke into her house to watch her while she slept. Is that not just made of wrong? He’s done any number of things now that would lead almost every sane person on the world to get a restraining order (or its equivalent⁹) against the person – not consider it sweet and endearing.

As far as I’m concerned there aren’t a lot of positive themes in the book - not that I believe that themes are required, mind you; pure, unadulterated escapism has its place – but I have vague concerns over whether people who are reading the books are somehow incorporating what they’ve read into their ideas of what constitutes a healthy relationship.

Interestingly, the majority of women I’ve spoken to who’ve read the books have loved them. Whether or not the fact that they were enjoying what is essentially the colossally unequal relationship between a creepy, controlling, barely-controlled murderous, paedophile stalker and his infatuated, naïve, fangirl puppet was obvious to them I don’t know.

Oh, and if you think this is judging it harshly in terms of themes then you need to browse the internet some more.

⁹It’s called something else in Australia, but I don’t know what; I wasn’t paying that much attention on that particular day in court...now I’ve said too much.

Overall
As I mentioned at the beginning, I did not hate this book – but nor did I like it. It’s poorly-written (somewhat of an understatement) with unlikeable characters, a wafer-thin plot and myriad themes I find distasteful and depressing.

The story is written about a character who is only the barest outline of an actual person, and therefore someone that readers can insert themselves into and feel as if the events described are happening to them – and that’s not (in my mind) what fiction writing is about. We’re meant to be enjoying the experience of seeing the world through someone else’s eyes, not simply cutting-and-pasting ourselves into a set of events. It’s one thing to empathise with, be inspired by and learn from a character; to be given a scenario through which we can live out our own personal romantic daydreams is something else entirely.

However, at least some of this has to come down to the fact that everything is written with an audience in mind, and for Twilight I am most definitely not it.

There’s also the fact that I’m a bit of a literary snob¹⁰, and I’m aware that such a standard is going to mean a great deal of what is published isn’t going to impress me – an attitude that has by no means been ameliorated by the fact that I’ve spent the last week or so reading what I consider to be one of the best books – if not the best book – I’ve ever read, the aforementioned Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides. Having that as a yardstick ensures that almost everything else is going to fall short.

About the only real positive I can conceive of is that people will read this and move beyond it to well-written works - since I know from bitter, bitter personal experience that a person can start out on low-quality books¹¹ and work their way up to worthwhile reading material.

As an exercise, though, reading and critiquing the book has been interesting – mostly because of the polarising effect the book has had. People are insanely defensive of this book, like nearly nothing else I’ve seen – except maybe the series featuring a bespectacled young wizard. But, on the other side, the hatred and loathing for it (and its fans) is far more intense than that inspired by Harry Potter.

Librarians, feminists, linguists, educators, writers and filmmakers and – very significantly - people who don’t otherwise even appear to read books have come out of the woodwork to express how much they despise it. Some it is purely reactionary, but much of it is the result of genuine analysis.

Facebook groups exist to do nothing more than illustrate distaste. Blog posts, websites, and even a Wiki are devoted to this purpose and this purpose alone. One even goes through it chapter by chapter (starts with the preface/chapter one here) to detail exactly what the author was annoyed by. It’s hilarious and chock-full of snark; I'll happily admit I enjoyed reading his analysis far more than the book itself.

But it has had an impact, and that's important. Heck, even I’ve churned out something like five thousand words on the topic. And I’m stopping right now – even though I could go on if I had to. The more I think about it, the more I’m coming up with things to rant about. There are other things I need to be writing about, so I’m pulling the plug right now.

Don’t expect anything on any of the sequels, though. I got about 40 pages into New Moon and just couldn’t go any further. Funnily enough I’m now reading a Sookie Stackhouse omnibus – the books that True Blood is based on - and even though I’m not that far into it I already like it a lot more than I liked Twilight.

Argh! Enough. Goodbye, Bella and Edward. It’s been...painful.

¹⁰I’m not an out-and-out elitist; I enjoy reading genre fiction from time to time – but I’m still critical of it when it falls short of what I consider reasonable literary standards. Let’s just say Dan Brown isn’t amongst my favourites.
¹¹Let’s just say if it was published before 1990 and it had a picture of a dragon or an overly-muscled dude with a sword (or an axe or a flail or a freaking morning star) on the cover then I’ve probably read it.