I was disappointed with the movie. The only thing I knew about Oppenheimer before the watching it was the iconic phrase (that in the movie was placed so awkwardly into the sex scene that made me laugh). I expected a movie about what was on the minds of the scientists that made the bomb, including their objection to its use, and their regret.
Instead I got a movie about a political man destroying the reputation of a communist because his ego got hurt.
I’ve never written historical fiction myself, although in recent times have had several encourage me to try my hand at it. I’m still debating whether I should or not, really. But I am glad to have been made aware of aspects that can be difficult to strike just right, as if I do attempt historical fiction maybe it will help me being aware before I begin.
I’ve written medieval type fantasies but with lean into fantasy more than medieval: consider the typical DND or renaissance faire type aesthetics. I’ve even written on using that setting since it is somewhat controversial these days….
Might I ask, how similar/same do you intend the writing and audio to be? I read along while listening and found some differences, but nothing that changed the meaning essentially. I’m just curious if this is intentional or not. Do you allow yourself the wiggle room for such?
“Yankocentric” is that a real term I’ve never encountered or one that will end up credited to a Mr John Wheatley in the future? It’s a fun one, regardless!
I am a little curious, too, if further discussion would be reasonable to request? On this piece, on producing for Substack and otherwise in general, and perhaps a couple little things related as well… would it be permissible to exchange in a messenger of some sort? I understand if not, of course!
Concerning differences between audio and script, I tend to write the scripts first and then occasionally improvise while reading. But the process can be more complicated. This is the second review I wrote for Oppenheimer, and by the time I'd finished recording and editing, I thought it would be best to write and deliver a third. But such is the way of things.
I'm planning to talk about the more 'meta' aspects of writing and recording in the Fresh Off The Drawing Board series of premium posts. As the substack gains more paying subscribers, the frequency and quality of that series will increase. Best of luck with your own writing, and I hope you find something to write about in the ocean of human history that matches your interests and talents.
Ah, I see. I can't say I know too much about this sort of stuff for myself, and so I have been trying to gather ideas and notes from this I engage with.
I think the Kyoto guy is Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and not Truman? In reality he kept his reasons private until much later, arguing instead that bombing Kyoto would make postwar Japan sympathetic to the Soviets.
I think modern retellings also underestimate the very real appetite for blood among the military commanders of the time. These were people who talked with relish about 'boiling and burning to death' men, women, and children in strategic firebombings - humanitarian concerns did not enter the calculus.
The sound design did seem intrusive in the early stages of the movie. Mitigated by having an excellent score, but the montage feeling was indeed strong.
I was disappointed with the movie. The only thing I knew about Oppenheimer before the watching it was the iconic phrase (that in the movie was placed so awkwardly into the sex scene that made me laugh). I expected a movie about what was on the minds of the scientists that made the bomb, including their objection to its use, and their regret.
Instead I got a movie about a political man destroying the reputation of a communist because his ego got hurt.
My thoughts exactly. There are 50 better movies that could be made out of this material.
But what we got was... Alright, for 2023.
I’ve never written historical fiction myself, although in recent times have had several encourage me to try my hand at it. I’m still debating whether I should or not, really. But I am glad to have been made aware of aspects that can be difficult to strike just right, as if I do attempt historical fiction maybe it will help me being aware before I begin.
I’ve written medieval type fantasies but with lean into fantasy more than medieval: consider the typical DND or renaissance faire type aesthetics. I’ve even written on using that setting since it is somewhat controversial these days….
Might I ask, how similar/same do you intend the writing and audio to be? I read along while listening and found some differences, but nothing that changed the meaning essentially. I’m just curious if this is intentional or not. Do you allow yourself the wiggle room for such?
“Yankocentric” is that a real term I’ve never encountered or one that will end up credited to a Mr John Wheatley in the future? It’s a fun one, regardless!
I am a little curious, too, if further discussion would be reasonable to request? On this piece, on producing for Substack and otherwise in general, and perhaps a couple little things related as well… would it be permissible to exchange in a messenger of some sort? I understand if not, of course!
Concerning differences between audio and script, I tend to write the scripts first and then occasionally improvise while reading. But the process can be more complicated. This is the second review I wrote for Oppenheimer, and by the time I'd finished recording and editing, I thought it would be best to write and deliver a third. But such is the way of things.
I'm planning to talk about the more 'meta' aspects of writing and recording in the Fresh Off The Drawing Board series of premium posts. As the substack gains more paying subscribers, the frequency and quality of that series will increase. Best of luck with your own writing, and I hope you find something to write about in the ocean of human history that matches your interests and talents.
Ah, I see. I can't say I know too much about this sort of stuff for myself, and so I have been trying to gather ideas and notes from this I engage with.
Thank you for the well-wishes!
About your point of historical accuracy: Have you watched Amadeus?
I hated that movie with a burning passion. Poor Salieri got made into a pathetic loser proud of being mediocre and without remorse.
I think the Kyoto guy is Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and not Truman? In reality he kept his reasons private until much later, arguing instead that bombing Kyoto would make postwar Japan sympathetic to the Soviets.
I think modern retellings also underestimate the very real appetite for blood among the military commanders of the time. These were people who talked with relish about 'boiling and burning to death' men, women, and children in strategic firebombings - humanitarian concerns did not enter the calculus.
The sound design did seem intrusive in the early stages of the movie. Mitigated by having an excellent score, but the montage feeling was indeed strong.