Author Archives: Bob Evans

The Light at the End of the Tunnel Isn’t a Train

.

It took not an inconsiderate application of willpower to not dance around my desk at the office yesterday. For the last two days, actual forward progression on my Work-In-Progress, a novel of ghostly cinematic horror, has been halted while I reverse engineer backstory. I had reached the point where mysteries laid out in the text and bedeviling the characters would begin to be understood and their origins revealed, but because I was ‘pantsing’ this story when I wrote those mysteries I did not actually have the answers and explanations in my head.

Now, I do.

The last two days have been working out from what is known and what has been hinted at, the full shape of the story, why it all exists in the manner that it does, and just what the scope of the dangers truly are. This isn’t entirely ‘pulled out of my ass.’ Some of this I suspected as I wrote the novel but other bits I knew I was leaving for future me to solve, and now present me is future me, and I am so happy with my solutions that dancing was nearly irresistible.

As is so often the case, once that clarity is obtained, a full understanding of not only character and plot but theme and subtext as well, a new and better first line came to me. I don’t need a whole new first scene but now I have the sentence that opens the novel: After the summer of 1984 Dave Ludendorff never again lived a charmed life.

Paramount+

Share

Streaming Review The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll

.

In preparation for this week’s episode of The Evolution of Horror podcast, last night I watched The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll, released in the United States as House of Fright.

Hammer Studios

Yet another adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this Hammer Studios production is not very memorable. It has the same core elements of nearly every other adaptation: Dr. Henry Jekyll develops a ‘scientific’ method, in this case an injection, for separating out elements of the human mind often labeled good and evil. Experimenting on himself, he releases Hyde, and a battle ensues between the two personalities for control of the corporal body that they share, ending tragically for the good doctor.

The production reflects that distinctive Hammer look with vibrant colors that pop off the screen and a collection, particularly in the opening scene’s supporting characters, of idiosyncratic personalities.

Paul Massie plays Jekyll/Hyde, and in a twist, it is the good doctor that is presented as more hirsute and Hyde as clean shaven. Dawn Addams is Kitty, Jekyll’s wife, who is carrying on an affair with Paul Allen (I seriously could not hear that name without thinking of Microsoft), played by Christopher Lee, who was the film’s only real saving grace. Most cinematic productions of this story make a meal of the transformation in the same way most directors lavish money, time, and creativity on the creation sequence in any Frankenstein movie, but not here. I suspect this was due to a lack of funds; Hammer productions were often resource and time strapped. Here, Jekyll would find some reason to hide his face from the camera, slumping on the desk, turning away, and so on; the camera would move away and then back again to reveal Massie now presenting as Hyde or vice versa.

I can’t say this movie was very engaging. Certainly, my mind wandered, and I found myself just longing for scenes with either Christopher Lee because he always brought his best game, or Dawn Addams because she was a very attractive redhead with a most charming smile.

Overall, I am glad to have seen another Hammer film, but it is not one I shall be revisiting.

Share

No Quick Solutions to America’s Gun Death Problem

No Quick Solutions to America’s Gun Death Problem

In the novel I am writing, taking place in 1984, that summer in reality witnessed the first of the modern era of mass shootings with the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre. I have struggled to work out how this should play into a novel of supernatural threats, ghosts, and terrible dark gods beyond the stars. In the end I think I may just wrap up the story before that terrible day in August, though it means I won’t have an in-story salute to my girlfriend at the time who slapped someone for a tasteless joke as a callback during that weekend’s screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Since that day and since Columbine, the pace of mass shootings in this nation has accelerated so horrifically that now not only do we have frequent mass shooting events, they have become background noise in the media maelstrom, sometimes passing unnoticed.

The right will make actionless pleas for “thoughts and prayers,” decry the mental state of the individuals, and lately look for even the slimmest evidence that the murderer came from their political opponents’ camp.

The left will decry that the right will not let them make even the smallest move to control the sale and ownership of firearms, mock the thoughts and prayers even as some offer them sincerely and not in the same cynical move as the elected officials, and also engage in the “it was one of them” hunt now so popular.

In my opinion, both sides are wrong and deluded.

Part of the humor in the horror comedy from New Zealand, Black Sheep (2006), is that in that island nation there are more sheep than people. In the United States there are more guns than people. I think the current estimate is 1.2 firearms for every man, woman, and child, and of course they are not evenly distributed. The guns are out there, compliance with any new laws will be resisted and lax, meaning those guns will be there for any foreseeable future. Prohibition is a legal tactic that never eliminates the forbidden actions or possession. What prohibition does is license the state to use its monopoly on violence to selectively, and it is always selectively—ask any African American in America if the law is applied without favor or bias—as a punishment and message on the subject. If we were starting from a much lower ratio of guns to people, maybe perhaps the supply side could be effectively tempered, but that ship has long since sailed.

Anyway, the gun is not the trouble; the person using it is. Now, this sounds very much like the right’s argument that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but that’s merely a verbal dodge to change the subject and preserve their beloved hobby. (And it is a hobby. I doubt any of the firearm militia enthusiasts would answer a call from Governor Gavin Newsom to put their bodies on the line for California, which is the duty of the militia in ensuring “the security of a free state.”)

The trouble with the person who easily moves to murder, or to suicide, which accounts for nearly half of all gun deaths, is the culture and society which produced that person.

Suicide and mass shootings I feel are psychological siblings, with most mass shootings acting as vicious, hateful forms of suicide. The psychological forces driving people to despair and or hate so deeply that murder and death become seemingly rational are powerful sociological storms which we cannot change overnight.

The way I see it, two major factors are at play: a sense that the future is hopeless. When someone, particularly young men, sees the future as futile, despair and depression find fertile ground to blossom. Despair and depression can turn inward, becoming entirely self-destructive, or they can turn to hatred, lashing out at perceived victims.

In previous generations, young men moving into productive adulthood could see paths that led to stable lives, good middle-class jobs and incomes, and a social structure that valued white men more than any other category. The destruction of labor unions, the shattering of the social connections between employer and employee, killed the middle-class dream. Economic growth concentrated more and more in classes that the young men perceived as the enemy. Social changes bringing about equality they perceived as “demotions” of their status. Is it any surprise that this turned into epidemics of suicide and murder?

Rebuilding unions, the engine that drove the economic miracle of midcentury America, requires that the conservatives abandon their current policies, and even if they did, the damage which took generations to incur would take generations to heal.

The other clear factor that separates America from the rest of the world on this issue is that when it comes to healthcare, America’s bootstrap system leaves far too many people wallowing in pain, both physical and emotional, without any hope of relief. More despair to transform into hate.

Again, conservatives, intent on transferring economic gains to the upper ends of the bell curve, have no incentive or taste for an expensive universal healthcare system.

With the current political parties and system, we are trapped, and for generations we will see more murder and more pointless deaths.

Share

Revisiting Saint Maud

.

I reviewed Saint Maud in 2021 when it became available on the Paramount+ streaming network, and you can find that review here. I enjoyed the feature, finding it compelling and a terrifying gaze into a broken mind. This rewatch was prompted by the podcast Random Number Generator Horror Podcast Number 9 when for this week’s show they rolled ‘religion’ as the scare and ‘2010s’ for the style and settled on Saint Maud as the subject that fit those parameters.

A24 studios

Saint Maud is the story of Maud (Morfydd Clark), a palliative caregiver, newly converted and deeply committed to her faith, convinced that God speaks to her through her physical pain and that he has some terribly important role for her to play in life. When she is assigned to a dying cancer patient, Amanda (Jennifer Ehle), Maud becomes convinced that saving this woman’s soul is that higher purpose.

Amanda, a dancer and author, is a woman far from the grace of traditional Christianity and a lesbian. She ends up mocking Maud’s faith, particularly when Maud intercedes with a sex worker Amanda has hired, trying to break off that relationship, setting the two women on a tragic collision course of fate.

Throughout the course of the film, we discover that Maud’s mind was shattered by a tragic and terrible event at the hospital where she once worked, causing the religious conversion and the adoption of this new identity. Maud’s miraculous interactions with God take place when she is isolated and alone, leaving the audience to decide if these are real or products of a deranged and damaged mind. (The very final shot of the film, I believe, settles that question.)

In 2021, Amazon’s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power had not yet debuted, and I hadn’t seen Morfydd Clark in anything save Saint Maud. In this film, she plays an attractive woman who has transformed herself into someone very plain, eschewing overt attractiveness and sexuality. As Galadriel, she is glammed up, with all of the performer’s natural beauty enhanced, becoming nearly unworldly. It is a testament to what subtle make-up and costuming can achieve.

Does Saint Maud hold up?

Oh yes, I think it does. The cinematography by Ben Fordesman continues to impress with a very keen eye in using very shallow focus to give shots a subjective interiority that pulls you into Maud’s frame of mind. Rose Glass’ script and direction are just as powerful today in 2025 as they were in 2019 when the film was released. Saint Maud is not a story that is only supported by the culture and events of the time of its creation.

It is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Share

The Rocket’s Silver Glare

.

This past weekend held no particularly good or bad events but rather mundane chores. Saturday, I took my Soul in to have its oil changed, and following that, I visited my local Kaiser facility for joy with needles.

First a maintenance blood draw, to ensure that my arthritis medications still were not destroying my kidneys or liver. This was followed by dual vaccinations: COVID and flu. I ended up with two needles stuck into my right arm and one in my left.

By late evening, I was feeling the effects of the vaccinations, with the muscles around the flu shot quite sore. I slept very poorly that evening. I am one of those persons that toss and turn in their sleep, and every time I turned onto my left the pain woke me up. In addition to that, for about half the night I seemed to be freezing, and the rest of it until morning I sweated in my bedding.

With that poor sleep and with the vaccinations seemingly activating my arthritis, we skipped our customary Sunday trip to the zoo, and I just tried to do as little as possible until finally in late afternoon when the muscles began to stop hurting.

Then came, quite literally, Sunday’s bright point. We had finished dinner, and as I reclined in my easy chair, my sweetie-wife came into the room announcing you could see a launch out the window.

Indeed, a rocket’s contrail, bright and silvery, was growing up toward the south in the darkening twilight sky. The head looked to be moving slowly as it climbed, but that was an illusion of perspective and distance. Because our home had already passed into night with the sun to the west below the curvature of the Earth but the contrail was in full sunlight due to its altitude, the whole thing glowed with what looked like an inner light.

Occasional flashes of brighter white light appeared in the contrail some distance behind the rocket climbing towards orbit. I was puzzled for a moment; was this a first stage breaking up? Then it hit me. This was a SpaceX Falcon Nine launch. Those white flashes inside the contrail came from the booster firing its engines for its return flight. Of course, the landing itself would be below the horizon and invisible from San Diego, but it was quite a thrill to see what we did manage to witness.

Share

The Unrealistic Character of TNG’s Deanna Troi

.

In the interim between the cancellation of Star Trek in 1969 and its resurrection as a television series with Star Trek: The Next Generation, creator and idolized leader Gene Roddenberry got high on his own supply of mythmaking and adoration.

After Trek vanished from the active airwaves, becoming the fare of syndication with daily reruns of episodes on local stations, the idealized version of the series and its message took hold in the growing and devoted fan base. The idea that Trek showed a future free of the human failings that so troubled our society then and continue to today, particularly bigotry, instead accepting everyone and celebrating their differences. People had been made better over the centuries, despite Kirk having to admonish officers to leave their bigotry in their quarters because there’s no room for it on the bridge, and McCoy’s continual treatment of Spock and his unending comments about the first officer’s heritage would earn him a perpetual hall pass to H.R. in any current corporation. When Roddenberry, after being booted from the film franchise, got the chance to make a TV series again, it was one that reflected what people praised about Trek while ignoring how the original series had actually been written. Every character would love and accept every other character, making drama among the crew something very difficult to write. This newfound “we love everyone” ethos was particularly strong in the empathic half-Betazoid Deanna Troi.

Paramont/CBS Home Video

Troi (Marina Sirtis) acted as the ship’s counselor and adviser, using her racial abilities to know the hidden emotional states of her patients and the people that the ship encountered on its adventures. She was presented as a warm character, accepting and understanding of everyone with a kind heart and word for the people around her and deeply troubled by their pains.

I find the construction quite improbable.

The truth about people is that we all wear masks nearly all the time. People rarely reveal just how much their inner thoughts, emotions, and drives are not reflected in their surface expressions and actions. Now, this would make someone like Troi a very useful agent in ferreting out the truth of a matter, a useful writing and plot device, but think about it from her point of view. She knows just how often everyone around her tells their little “white” lies, just how often men fake interest in a woman’s conversation when their minds are driven by more base desires, just how often people hold each other in contempt while presenting smiles and politeness. I can think of no better recipe for creating a hardened cynic, someone who knows that people are far nastier and crueler than they reveal. How much we are all just animals restrained by social conventions.

And that is a much more interesting character than a Pollyannaish woman wailing about joy and pain.

Share

My Experience Pantsing a Novel

.

My current Work in Progress (WIP) is the first novel I have written entirely by the seat of my pants, or less crudely, organically, without any sort of outline to guide me.

When I started the manuscript, I knew a few key things. I knew I wanted to write a story about supernatural occurrences tied to silver nitrate motion picture film, that there would be some sort of ghost involved (my favorite horror genre), and that I would be using a fictionalized version of San Diego’s Ken Theater.

I had planned to create an outline for this book, but before I had completed much research, I felt my enthusiasm flagging, and waiting on the research would likely kill the project. So I dove straight into it with just those elements in my head and a very vague notion of how to make it work in a five-act structure.

Now, some 73,000 words into the project and with the end, if blurry, in sight, the experience has been interesting, particularly with respect to the characters involved.

I have a host of diverse characters—gay and straight, white, black, Asian, young, and old—but it’s two that have caused the theme to leap forward.

Dave, the protagonist of the novel, is the white gay man who owns the independent Kensington Theater, which he inherited from his father, along with a sizeable passive income that allows him not to worry about such banalities as a regular day job. Dave’s father always acknowledged his son’s sexuality with love and acceptance. Dave never faced serious bigotry, even in middle or high school during the 1970s. He has never wanted materially or even emotionally for anything essential—in effect, a charmed life. Dave pays this back by not only being accepting of others who walk a different path but also by making sure his theater is an open and safe place for misfits, geeks, oddballs, and the socially different, particularly during the midnight screenings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Terrance, originally introduced to further the cursed film plot, has developed into a gay character with a quite different backstory. His family did not have the financial resources that Dave enjoys. Adding to the troubles is that Terrance’s father believed in socially dictated gender roles for men and found his sensitive boy a terrible disappointment, which turned to outright hostility at his son’s preference for men over women as sexual partners. Terrance’s mother, retreating from an emotionally distant and abusive husband, left her boy without the affection children desperately require. By his teenage years, Terrance had already begun self-medicating with pot and beer, and in his aborted college attempts, he discovered harder drugs and attempted to fill the emotional void in his heart with anonymous sex in public parks and bathrooms. In order to cover his emotional wounds and project an acceptable self-image, Terrance became a person expert at putting on a public face, making him an excellent salesman.

While Dave thrives in and fosters community, Terrance has none and suffers from silent isolation, making him easily manipulable by the supernatural forces unleashed.

The themes that have arisen organically from the writing are the importance of community and that we are not just who we choose to be but also what the world has made us. I wonder what other new things will appear in the final chapters and the coming serious revisions.

Share

A Most Unique Adaptation

.

In the 1930s, the major studios of Hollywood each had a ‘brand’ of movies that they were best known for: MGM for glitzy, polished, and extravagant films; Paramount for movies with an air of European artistry; Warner Brothers for gritty, ripped-from-the-headlines stories; and Universal, of course, was the House of Horror and the Universal Monsters.

Warner Brothers Studios

Because Universal’s best-known and best-at-filling-theaters monsters were adaptations of classic novels that were in the public domain, they could not keep Dracula and Frankenstein all to themselves. As such, there have been nearly countless remakes and adaptations of the novels, often taking the course of making Dracula a love story stretching across centuries (an aspect not found in the source material) and, with Frankenstein, making the creature more and more sympathetic (an element found in the novel) until it was elevated to heroic status.

Next spring, writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal will give us perhaps the most unique adaptation of a classic Universal Monster with her feature film The Bride!

Starring Christian Bale as the Creature and Jessie Buckley as The Bride, Gyllenhaal reimagines the Frankenstein myth. It may have started as a novel, but I feel Mary Shelley’s tale has evolved into myth, as something that might have come out of Warner Brothers’ studios in the late 1930s: a prohibition-era gangster movie.

This take is so wild, so out of the box, that I think I may have no choice but to see it in the theater, giving it my attention as a reward for its sheer audacity.

 

youtube placeholder image

Share

I Needed More Than a Keyboard

.

So, I have posted that the ‘E’ on my keyboard turned bad and I lost a couple of weeks of writing, first because that letter is so required in English and then by waiting for the repairs to be completed.

When I got the laptop back, I thought I had regained the forward momentum on this novel. The scene I was in the middle of when everything went off the rails I completed easily, setting up the next twist in the story.

And then my creative sailboat became becalmed, and I was stuck.

I knew that I had to switch to the antagonists of the tale. At this point in the narrative, there were two groups of them, not working collectively and with goals in opposition to both the protagonist and each other. However, their deficit of knowledge left me puzzled as to either group’s course of action. My fingers refused to write the next scene because my brain refused to tell them what it was.

Now, some writers deal with this by jumping ahead and writing some other scene in the story, and then they backfill the bits in between. I can’t do that.

One, since I am ‘pantsing’ this to the extreme, I don’t know what the future scenes are, much less what to write in them.

Two, I have never been able to do that writing out of order trick, even when I have a detailed outline that provides the future scenes. As a writer, I need to experience the scenes as they happen in the text. This greatly informs how I write and how the emotions of the scenes impact me and, hopefully, the reader.

Friday night, after I affixed my CPAP mask to my face and climbed into bed, the answer flashed into my head. The next morning it stayed with me, and I told part of it to my sweetie-wife as we did our 2-mile morning walk by the San Diego River.

Yesterday I began writing the scene, and the words flowed freely from my brain to the keyboard. Sometimes, all you need is a little time.

Share

The Real Derangement Syndrome

.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer leveraged his former professional credentials in psychology to facetiously label Democratic politician Howard Dean, who had suggested a conspiracy theory that President Bush (the second) had some awareness of the coming attacks on 9/11, as suffering from ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome.’ The term took off with more enthusiasm than the release of Star Wars, becoming the verbal counter to every criticism of the Bush Administration. (I feel compelled to note that even when the initiating column had been written, ‘Disorder’ has already replaced ‘syndrome’ in official terminology.)

Trump’s election saw the ‘diagnosis’ repurposed into ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ and then again by another cultish following into ‘Musk Derangement Syndrome.’ TDS remains currently an often-deployed rhetorical device to dismiss critics of the current president as unworthy of rebuttal. After all, the opposition is not only wrong—they are mentally incompetent.

If we are to look at the historical record, it seems to me that the real disorder, again this is facetious, is Democrat Derangement Disorder, a condition that compels the afflicted to always, no matter their past positions or statements, ally themselves with whichever politician is, at the national level, currently winning over the Democratic party.

Let’s look at the Democratic Presidents of the last 40-odd years and the criticisms lobbed in their direction. See if any apply to the currently adored resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Jimmy Carter: Accused of being too ‘soft’ on the Russians, lacking the resolve to face them down, particularly when they invaded a neighboring nation.

Bill Clinton: It’s a long list here; financially corrupt, a sexual predator, a draft dodger, a criminal, and someone who sold executive actions and pardons for personal profit—all were reasons argued to impeach and remove him from office.

Barack Obama: As his opponents often insisted during the ‘War on Terror’, Barack Hussein Obama. He was accused of being a political lightweight, too inexperienced for the office of president, and that his supporters were not guided by policy or principles but rather adoring and praising him like some ‘dear leader’ of a third world cult of personality.

Joe Biden: The reasons given for why Biden was unqualified for the office included such accusations as that he was motivated by rage and, due to his age, did not possess the mental faculties for the responsibilities, often wrapped up as ‘Angry Joe Dementia’ insults.

What I find so fantastically wild is that not only has every one of these failings and faults been discarded the moment they appeared in a conservative politician, but that all of these failings are housed by a single person to whom they have shown nothing but slavish devotion.

The most important thing to understand is that there is no amount of argument or demonstration of their hypocrisy that will sway their position. It isn’t about rationality but about outcome, and it always has been.

Share