My point is, I think Marsellus Wallace has at least one Silmaril

November 6, 2016

This is great.

But there are some flaws in the argument. Why would Brett – this random nerdy-looking Californian guy – have Marsellus’ soul? And how do you keep a soul in a briefcase?

A stronger theory would have to involve something else beautiful and glowing with inner light, which also impels people to seek it and even kill for it, which also provides supernatural protection to those who rightfully seek it, but which could fit in a briefcase and which a nerdy Californian might be uniquely skilled at knowing where to find.

My point is, I think Marsellus Wallace has at least one Silmaril.

I love love love theories like this (hi Darth Jar Jar!). As with all the best one so much of it falls neatly into making sense! Right?

One last issue: Tolkien’s elves are usually depicted as fair-skinned and lithe, whereas Marsellus Wallace is a really big black guy. Does this contradict the theory?

It would, unless Marsellus were under some kind of magical glamor to hide his true appearance. And there’s actually some evidence for this.

Battle of the Five Armies

December 21, 2014

As I walked out after The Return of the King (still a little brain-bending to think that was 11 years ago) I wanted more. I couldn’t wait for the Extended Editions on DVD, I wanted to see all the bits that had been cut, I wanted as much Tolkien on screen as I could get.

When I walked out after The Battle of the Five Armies I wanted less. It’s definitely the weakest of the Rings films and feels stretched and disjointed. I guess the way to look at it is that this isn’t a Hobbit trilogy, it’s part of a wider Middle-Earth saga: a six film Ring cycle in which Peter Jackson gives us his nearasdammit complete Middle-Earth. Even in that context it’s stretched: it’s a lot of fighting and it’s very little Hobbit, but it bridges the gap between the two trilogies and it ties up its threads.

What I want to see now is a two-film cut, worry a bit less about setting up LOTR, keep the fun action sequences (trolls, goblins, spiders, barrels), but cut down some of the extended chases/battles. There’s a cracking 5 hour Hobbit story somewhere in there just waiting to have some of the fat trimmed.


A geek for something

September 1, 2014

I came across that previous quote looking for this video, it’s a panel from this year’s Comic-Con about fantasy writing and world-building featuring GRRM, Joe Abercrombie, Diana Gabaldon, Lev Grossman, and Patrick Rothfuss.

It’s got some great insight into their respective worlds and processes, plenty of map talk, and some good book recommendations too, but running through a lot of their answers was the idea that you should write for yourself, you should do things because they’re what you’re interested in and what you enjoy, which is something that carries well beyond writing.

If you’re a geek for something, if that’s herbology, or the nature of the night sky, or plate tectonics, revel in your geekery, roll around in it, and make that a part of your world, because that will be really interesting to the people reading it because you’re interested in it. Whereas if you try to do something because you feel like you’re supposed to… I don’t think that’s the best way to really enjoy yourself and make a vibrant world.

– Patrick Rothfuss

The minute you start to write to some kind of imagined taste, some audience that you imagine is out there somewhere you’re doomed.

– Joe Abercrombie

GRRM also makes some comments about trying to hop between genres that are in vogue and (almost) all panelists talk about writing for themselves first and I think it applies to any creative endeavour. My current creative output is only marginally greater than zero but I definitely spend too much time worrying excessively about whether people will like something I make to the point where I don’t make it. I should worry about whether I like it.

I also learned that:

The full panel is about 50 minutes and well worth it (I’ve watched/listened to it now three times already).