I was talking to my muse earlier today (you should try it, you get the oddest looks from passers-by) and realize now why I am so underwhelmed with special effects in modern films. They're everywhere. When I can't tell what's real and what's Memorex, then I am faced with two choices:

• Everything is a special effect, or


• Nothing is.

(The child in me wants to live like everything is a miracle, by the by.)

The adult in me sees nothing onscreen as a miracle anymore. It's all computers. Now, lest anyone working in the CGI industry break out the brickbats, I will freely admit that I know it's hard work to model fabric, flame, water and flesh. I do, and I appreciate all the epic battles in LotR, all the explosions in X-Men III, etc.

I really do.

But, there's a difference between the two films. Most films are like X-Men, where the point of the film is to showcase the explosion, the special effects. The acting, the plot, the dialogue, these are secondary. Aurally, you're pummeled by the soundtrack, the sound effects. Visually, you're assaulted by the explosions, the waves of animated whatevers, the lifelike flows of cloth or liquid.

In a way, this is very much like overuse of adjectives. Instead of letting the story tell itself, we jazz it up, punctuate the moment with cues to the reader. "You should feel shocked here."

This is not to say we ought never use adjectives (though that could be an interesting oulipia with words, much like lipograms un-use letter(s).) We should be sparse with them, saving them for when we really need their punch. Ofttimes, over-using inures the reader, resulting in diminished impact.

Instead, we should be careful with our special effects, and should make sure each use builds the story, rather than is just dropped in for bombast's sake.

Oh, and Lord of the Rings? I don't think it would have been as powerful without the effects it had, but they were secondary to the story.