xxxxxxxxxxx

Saw this movie yesterday. May I advise people interested in seeing History of Violence: The movie does not revolve around whether or not Viggo is a former killer or not; that part is explained away pretty quickly in the movie; it revolves around what he does about it. So don't go in thinking that you have to wait until the very end to get the payoff, 'cause you'll be disappointed. But if you're Viggo fan or a Cronenberg fan for that matter, you'll really enjoy the movie (although John Hurt is a bit over the top--even gave Jim Carrey a run for his money IMHO).

AC

P.S. Yes, it does have the typical amount of Cronenberg gore.

In the news section fpw mentions Harbingers (RJ 10). He then mentions "I will likely do 4 more". This is the first mention I've heard of about how many RJ's there will be. To me, that's news!!! After Crisscross, I was worried that it would stop at 10 (a nice round number). Four more (after Harbingers) would be great! 20 more, even better!!

Who's been signed up and didn't receive the newsletter sent October 1?

I know about Marc and Lisa. Who else?

BTW -- the NEWS page has been updated with anything of consequence from the Newsletter.

This is a German film about the last days of Hitler in his bunker as told through his personal secretary Traudl Junge. I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this at first - I was afraid that it might try to show Hitler as a human rather than the moster he was. In a way it did both. You see the side that fooled so many people into believing this thing had good intentions and could be viewed as a hero to his countrymen. Then when his world starts to fall apart his true side shows through. The good thing is that it never portrays him in a way that asks for compassion.

The film doesn't deal with just Hitler but also his staff and other military personnel and their views and actions during those last days. It's a pretty long film - 156 minutes. Bruno Ganz plays Hitler and is incredible. And Hitler wasn't the only monster holed up in that bunker. I don't know how historically accurate this movie is but his death doesn't leave you with a smile on your face, which to me is accurate because he deserved a far worse fate than dying by his own hand. A good film. Not great, because anything about Hitler doesn't deserve high praise.

Hello y'all,

I love Nightworld. Monsters!

Monsters Monsters MONSTERS!

And all our beloved characters brought together at last to face the enemy. (And the heartbreaking, heroic death of FPW's stand-in.)

However, I'd like my pleasure maximized. I've always wondered what the best way would be to think about the fact that the Otherness's ascent has the power to make the days shorter. I'd rather not have to simply suspend disbelief with respect to something which is so crucial to the book, yet preposterous on the face of it.

I'm not saying any of these explanations are any good, I'm just trying hats on for size. I'd be curious about anyone else's thoughts.

- BIG KAHUNA. This is the one I like least. It says that the Otherness has a blank check and can do whatever it wants. So the shortening of days is literally incomprehensible to us humans. The Otherness is magically doing _something_ to makes our days shorter. What would an observer on Mars see if he looked at Earth during the period of the book's events? How would Earth's oceans and climate remain normal in the absence of the normal periodic motion around the sun? The answer to these and all other questions is: "Who knows? Who cares" It's magic and it all works out somehow."

- EVEN BIGGER KAHUNA. (Really just a variation of the Big Kahuna.) The Otherness's ascent affects not only the Earth (or a region around the Earth), but our entire universe -- our shorter days reflect a softening/warping of the laws of physics in our universe. If the Adversary wins Earth it means it wins our entire universe, and another wee chess piece has fallen to it.

- SUNBLOCK. The Otherness is able to cloak the Earth from the Sun's rays. Earth is still in normal motion around the Sun, we just get less and less light. (I guess the fact that sunrises and sunsets remain normal could be explained by the Otherness having a theatrical bent, like the Joker or Dr. Phibes -- it gradually dims/brightens the sunlight to imitate sunrise and sunset.)

- RELATIVITY. I don't know enough to think this one through much, but I mean some kind of hard sci-fi explanation involving the Otherness placing the Earth in a zone of some kind that's out of phase with the rest of the universe. So, like, from the perspective of every other vantage in the universe the Earth starts moving faster through time, so from our POV our days get shorter. (I realize one problem with this is that presumably the stars would also appear to be moving faster in ye heavens, which doesn't occur. Come on, work with me, people!) In this explanation, the defeat of the Earth at the hands of the Adversary would theoretically be visible to beings in other areas of our universe. Wonder what they'd see?

- HUMAN-CENTERED. Not sure what to do with this one. Something to do with _us_ being effected in such a way that the days seem to get shorter... Like... (thinking our loud here) our perception of night-time expands to fill the entire 24-hour day as our minds perceive it, and our perception of day-time shrinks so, in terms of our experience, it eventually occupies none of the 24-hour day. Something kind of cool about this one (or something like it), though it's very unformed. In this explanation, the defeat of the Earth at the hands of the Adversary would theoretically be visible to beings in other areas of our universe. Wonder what they'd see?

One thing I like, lurking behind the above explanations, is the notion that there are no other sentient/ensoulled beings in our universe, so Earth is really the only game in town. If the Adversary gets the Earth, it gets our entire universe. (It's just that most of it is empty space and a bunch of stars and rocks, which it probably doesn't care a whole lot about.) So, under the "Relativity" option, even if Earth's weird fate were visible from some other vantage point, it wouldn't really matter since there's no one else to see it.

Finally, here's another idea. I think I like this one best, since it seems to explain the most:

- MANY WORLDS. There's many physically identical universes. One of these universes is more special than the others -- it "belongs" to the Adversary. All the planets in the Adversary's universe start out uninhabited, i.e., without any sentient/ensoulled beings. In all the other universes, the planets are inhabited and occupied by sentient beings in accordance with the vagaries of nature/fate.

Now, posit a particular inhabited planet called Crapton in Universe #311. Sadly, the Adversary succeeds in defeating Crapton in U311. "Defeat" means that, in the end, all U311 Craptonians phase out of existence on their home planet and phase into existence in the version of Crapton that exists in the Adversary's evil universe (which had hitherto been unpopulated). Eventually all the U311 Craptonians are killed by monsters. Meanwhile, the Crapton in U311 is now a dead planet.

So, in Nightworld that's what's happening on Earth. The Adversary wants to transfer our population to its version of Earth, in its evil universe, where we'll all eventually be killed (but not before emitting lots of tasty despair). The fact that from our POV the days are getting shorter is that, as the Adversary gains in power, we begin to enter a phase shift, and more and more of our time is spent over in the evil universe's version of Earth. We phase back to our version of the Earth during the daytime, but for shorter and shorter periods of time.

*Ack!* Head hurts.

-o

Just read in FPW's newsletter that he has decided on "Harbingers" as the title for the 10th RJ novel. I think he might have said that here, too. But it's now officially official and Lisa was credited with the brainstorm! Lisa's gonna get mentioned in the acknowledgement section of the book, too.

Way cool, Lisa, you brilliant Ms. Thing!

I want to know how come the reference to Lyle meeting Jack in Conspiracies. Lyle says in The Haunted Air "But a particularly close call when he'd barely out ran on the plainclothes D's who'd broken up thier game" (Wilson 81). And then of course Jack had done something very similar in Conspiracies when it describes him breaking up a similar game "With one lighting move he overturned the two end caps, shouted, 'I win!' when no ball showed, then snatched up the two piles of bills and the earring" (Wilson 63). So obviously there is a connection between the two parts. So why was this connection mentioned (probably teased) and then not explored? :confused:

P.S. Sorry I could not find a good exert from Conspiracies, but I was copying off of Google Print and it is difficult to find the perfect line.

Heya,

Sorry if this has been done before, I'm pretty new here. But does anyone have any favorite well-known actors whom they think would be a great Jack?

My ideal would be for him to be like he's described -- at best blandly handsome, maybe even just ordinary-looking. And dressing only in boring clothes that don't stand out. And there'd be maybe one scene in the movie where he changes his shirt or something and, as he does, you see that he's got like 10% body fat and is extremely mucular (in a lean kind of way) -- and probably that he has a fair amount of scars. Then it's on with the ordinary shirt and the baseball cap, and you'd never guess that's how he is. I think that would be a really cool moment, but given that the studio would only want a pretty-boy I guess that at least the physiognomy part would be asking too much.

Not sure I can think of anyone.

-ml

Schmuck-like, I'm still waiting on Amazon, from which it is not yet available.