TV Pilot Tuesday is back. And with it comes the buzzy phrase, “the strange attractor.” What is this strange attractor? Why do people in the comments section talk about it so much? And does Quarry contain it? Read on, my friends, read on.

Genre: TV Pilot – Drama
Premise: A Vietnam vet comes back from the war and when he can’t find a job, is forced to become a hitman.
About: This one comes from show creators Graham Gordy and Michael D. Fuller. The show will play on Cinemax and become one of the underrated network’s steadily growing group of gritty shows it hopes will turn it into the next AMC. In fact, listening to Gordy and Fuller talk, you can practically hear the influences of Breaking Bad and Mad Men, as they want to use their hard-boiled main character to define the 70s, and see how he eventually responds when the polar-opposite 80s arrive.
Writers: Graham Gordy & Michael D. Fuller (based on the novels by Max Allan Collins)
Details: 61 pages

Dark Blue : unité infiltrée, saison 1

Hot actor Logan Marshall-Green will play Quarry.

You know, it’s funny. As I was reading this, I kept thinking to myself, “This feels really familiar.” There was a show on Sundance called “Rectify” about a tortured quiet individual who’d just been released from prison after serving a sentence for murder. We watch him as he tries to integrate back into a changed society and a community that doesn’t trust him.

So what’s Quarry about? It’s about a man coming back from war trying to integrate back into a changed society dealing with a community that doesn’t trust him. So I check IMDB. What do you know? It’s the SAME writers. Truth be told, I liked the first couple of episodes of Rectify. But it became too slow for me, too contemplative, with one too many “tortured hero looks off in silence for 30 seconds” shots.

I was hoping Quarry would be different. Let’s find out if it is.

32 year-old Quarry has just gotten back from Vietnam with his buddy, Artie. The two seem to be doing all right. No limbs missing. No scars that stretch from one end of their faces to the other. These guys just want to get home to their wives and start living a normal life again.

But that’s not going to be easy. As we find out from the screaming protestors just outside the airport, everyone’s up in arms about a mass child massacre that took place back in Nam that our two soldiers may have taken part in. Quarry must look at giant pictures of dead children thrust into his face as he tries to get to his car.

But all of that fades away when Quarry gets home and sees his wife, Joni. As Gordy and Fuller put it, “If you have to fight a war, she’s the woman you fight it for.” The two make love like it’s going out of style and that begins Quarry’s new war – finding a job.

The problem is two-fold. There aren’t a lot of jobs to have, and everyone’s so pissed off about this Quan Thang massacre that even the jobs that are available aren’t available to HIM. Little does Quarry know, he’s been trailed ever since he got home. And he’s finally approached by the trailing gentleman, a guy who likes to refer to himself as, “The Broker” (for whatever reason, I kept thinking of “The Prospector” from Toy Story 2 whenever he came around).

So the Prospetor, err, I mean The Broker, offers Quarry a lifeline. Tells him he’ll give him 50 grand if he’ll start killing for him. Not good people, he assures him, bad people (aren’t they always?). As he points out, it won’t be any different from what you did over there, except this time you’ll be doing it to people who actually deserve it.

Quarry Refusal-of-the-Calls that shit, but when Artie takes the position he rejected, he’s forced to hop in and help. Without getting into spoilers, let’s just say that Artie’s hit doesn’t go too well. This brings Quarry into the situation on a more personal level. When he agrees to kill ONE person just to get back on his feet, he’s offered his first mission. That mission will be a shocking one – as the man he follows takes him right back to his very home, where his wife opens the door, and lets the man inside, a man, Quarry sees, who is now kissing his wife.

There’s been a lot of talk in the comments of late about the “strange attractor.” It’s something I don’t talk about a lot but maybe I should. I suppose I always considered the strange attractor to be a given, but I must remember that there are no givens in screenwriting.

The “strange attractor” is basically what makes your idea unique. A couple of brothers going to a remote island to connect with their estranged aunt? No strange attractor there. A couple of brothers going to an island of dinosaurs to connect with their estranged aunt, who runs the place? Now you have your strange attractor.

Take the time travel out of Back to the Future, the superheroes out of Avengers, the “stuck alone on Mars” out of The Martian, and you’ve lost all of their strange attractors. Now you might say, “Well duh, Carson. You don’t have a movie if you take those things away. They’re the entire film!”

Yeah but see here’s the thing. I READ all those scripts that have those things taken away. I’ve read that indie script about a guy who tries to reconnect with his parents. That is, essentially, Back to the Future without its strange attractor. I’ve read that boring script where a group of friends get into shenanigans in their middle-of-nowhere town. That is, essentially, The Avengers without its strange attractor.

Getting back to Quarry, I was looking for a strange attractor, and I had trouble finding one. Everything here is familiar. Guy comes back from war. World isn’t welcoming. He needs to find a job. We’ve seen all that before, right?

The most thrilling aspect of the concept is the hitman stuff, but is that a strange attractor? Haven’t there been so many hitman movies/shows at this point that there’s nothing “strange” about it?

To be honest, there was only one SPECIFIC component to the script, which was the Quan Thang Massacre. That’s the only thing you couldn’t see from watching any other show. And I struggled with whether that was enough.

Because the thing is, the writing here is strong. The character work is strong. You feel like you know these people. You relate to these people. And there’s something to be said for that. In fact, one of the things I struggle with is the balance between the strange and the familiar. Sure, you want that strange weird “we can’t get this anywhere else” component to your story. But if the characters are all weird, inaccessible, or boring, it doesn’t matter. We need to understand and relate to the people in your story if we’re going to care.

I’m sure everyone here has experienced that awkward feeling of walking back into a world that used to be your entire life, and now has completely changed. Shit, I used to feel it every time I flew back home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. And on that front, Quarry does an excellent job. It captures that feeling, just like Rectify did.

I’m just wondering if this is another Rectify situation where the first two episodes are good, but then we’re just treading water since there IS NO strange attractor – nothing that sets it apart from anything else. I liked the way the story unfolded. I loved how Quarry’s first hit turned out to be banging his wife. It made the script worth reading. But does this show have legs? I guess that’s something we’ll only find out with time.

[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: A nice way to add a little spice to a fight is to give both parties something they’re after during the fight. Because when you think about it, a basic fight is pretty boring. Two people swinging away in an obviously choreographed ballet. But if they’re fighting to GET to something, now the fight has a little extra kick. The classic example of this is in any Jackie Chan film, where a gun has gotten away and both guys are fighting to get it. But be creative. It doesn’t have to be a gun. It can be whatever object is important in that moment of the movie.

  • scriptfeels

    Response to your what I learned section:
    One of my favorite scenes from fury road was the scene where Max and Furiosa fight over a pistol on the truck.
    Scenes where the character’s fight over something gives it an element that’s more unexpected and can lead to different types of combat.

    • AstralAmerican

      My favorite scene of MM: FR is every scene.

    • http://apairoftools.wordpress.com/ Sebastian Cornet

      My favorite scene is 120 minutes long.

    • Marija ZombiGirl

      That fight scene is an amazing piece of Cinema. That’s when I started liking the movie (which is a tad overrated, methinks and I’m not the only one).

  • http://soundcloud.com/the-colonel-mc The Colonel

    How is “strange attractor” different from “high concept”? I feel like that your two examples, Back to the Future and Avengers, what you’re calling the “strange attractor” is also what makes them high concept. (I’m not being snarky hear, just really trying to understand the difference.)

    Also: am I wrong that the “golden age of TV” is also the “extremely brutal age of TV”? Seems to me like most every new drama show on air is sold on its darksider grit. Somebody’s killing or somebody’s investigating the killing. If it’s not grim, bleak and contemplative, it usually doesn’t make the cut.

    • 3waystopsign

      They absolutely overlap at times. If I had to say what the difference is I would say high concept is what gets you interested to begin with and the strange attractor is what keeps you coming back for more.

      • Frankie Hollywood

        High Concept = 4 Quadrant
        Strange Attractor = your unique/original angle/approach to the subject matter.

        Jurassic World vs Kong: Skull Island
        Both have the same High Concept = Humans + Dinosaurs (giant creatures)

        Jurassic World
        Strange Attractor = Dinosaurs are in a park/zoo

        Kong: Skull Island
        Strange Attractor = Explorers/sailors discover island occupied by giant ape and dinosaurs

        That’s my take, anyway.

        • 3waystopsign

          Jurassic World had dinosaurs? How ’bout a spoiler alert dude? Geez

          • http://soundcloud.com/the-colonel-mc The Colonel

            *SPOILER ALERT* The dinosaurs have the supernatural ability to hide their body heat signature, and they exist in an amusement park where the guests can decide sua sponte to drive their ride cars off the tracks and out of the ride’s defined boundaries.

          • 3waystopsign

            Of course. I did see it after all

    • brenkilco

      Not clear on this phrase myself. And when you google it all you get are articles on higher math. Seems like it’s almost something less than high concept, which is really equivalent to a premise. It’s that shiny piece of the premise that promises something different. Vietnam Vet becomes hitman. Not strange. Blind, Vietnam Vet becomes hitman. Strange.

      • http://soundcloud.com/the-colonel-mc The Colonel

        Vietnam Vet with a crabclaw arm becomes a stripper with a heart of gold, strange.

    • Levres de Sang

      I see the Strange Attractor as a living entity — whether that’s man, woman, machine or fish. I think of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard, Delphine Seyrig in Daughters of Darkness and Jennifer Jones in Portrait of Jennie.

      In your own script it would be the gutterpunks. Hence the reason we needed a protag very different from them so we could vicariously enter their world.

      ** I hope grendl checks-in today as he’s great on all this stuff.

      • http://soundcloud.com/the-colonel-mc The Colonel

        Dang son, way to bring that back! Good work!

      • Shawn Davis

        I’m still unclear on what exactly a strange attractor is.

        Is it, as the Colonel said, just another word for high concept?

        Shawn…..><

        • Levres de Sang

          I’ve illustrated my own understanding by way of an example:

          In APOCALYPSE NOW we learn that Marlon Brando’s Colonel Kurtz has left the everyday world in favor of something distinctly other (or ‘uncivilized’). He is the Strange Attractor, then, because he draws the protag (Martin Sheen) into this strange other world.

          Meanwhile, the concept fuelling Apocalypse Now is Conrad’s Heart of Darkness transposed into the mind-altering landscape of the Vietnam War (I believe its original title was The Psychedelic Soldier).

          In other words, the concept (high or low) seems connected to the overall breadth of a storyworld, whereas the Strange Attractor will often be a person who has ‘crossed over’ in some way and lures our protag into that storyworld.

          • http://apairoftools.wordpress.com/ Sebastian Cornet

            According to the article that Citizen M forwarded me, though, the Strange Attractor is inherent to the concept, not something that exists within the confines of the story to drive the character forward.

            http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp02.Strange.Attractor.html

          • Levres de Sang

            I’m not going to argue with Terry Rossio, but I wonder if the concept has developed since 1997 when the article was written? Either way, it’s useful for me personally to think of it in terms of the above. And if they are a character/entity then they usually represent the concept/mythology of their particular storyworld.

          • brenkilco

            As described in the article it’s really no more than high concept. Very high concept. And I’m not sure I’d agree that these sorts of ideas are necessarily conducive to superior stories, just more salable ones.

          • Poe_Serling

            Apocalypse Now is a great example.

            When I first saw the movie, I always thought some of the most effective scenes were the ones that had Willard just sitting quietly in the back of the boat and reviewing Kurt’s dossier.

            For me, those voiceovers regarding the renegade colonel created an almost nail-biting anticipation as to what Willard would eventually find at the end of his journey.

            Little did I know at the time I was under the influence of cinematic voodoo called Strange Attractors.

          • Levres de Sang

            I love those dossier scenes, too. You can see the trouble they’ve taken to populate the actual dossier with convincing / fascinating materials.

          • Shawn Davis

            I get it now!!!

            I wish there was a symbol I could use to show the little light going off in my head.:-)

            Great example, Levres!!!

            Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

            Shawn…..><

      • brenkilco

        The antagonist? A figure of mystery? A plot catalyst? All or none the above? Something else? Where does this attractor idea get us, if anywhere? Who or what is the strange attractor in say Chinatown?

        • Levres de Sang

          All of those, I would say. And surely for Chinatown it must be the Faye Dunaway character in that she draws Gittes into the storyworld.

          I suppose the Strange Attractor possesses a certain persuasive power over the protag.

          • brenkilco

            If pressed I suppose I’d say Dunaway too. But is it? It’s the mysterious Mulwray and his obsession with water that draws us in, the figure of Huston that hovers over the thing. Dunaway’s problems are rather incidental until late in the game. Maybe first rate movies can’t be reduced to these sorts of poster ready concepts.

          • Levres de Sang

            Dare I say that in all honesty I feel Chinatown is a bit overrated. It feels at least 10 minutes too long, for instance. Equally, my recollection is that Huston’s presence comes rather late in the day. Great closing line, though.

          • brenkilco

            Overrated? Gasp. Actually, viewed purely as a mystery it’s no great shakes. Pretty clear from early on who the villain is. But it’s just so marvelously well crafted. Following a private eye proved the perfect sort of material for Polanski’s deceptively matter of fact yet ominous camera style. Sylbert’s production design is also marvelous. Not a single special effects shot in the movie so far as I know. 1934 LA is recreated with amazing tactility by means of careful framing and location choices, yet it never feels cramped. And it’s perfectly cast. From Huston’s debauched courtliness to Dunaway’s innate neuroticism to Nicholson’s signature wise guy. Even Goldsmith’s haunting, last minute score, which is credited with righting the ship after a poor preview, is just right. Some great movies are the vision of one person. Others are happy accidents where all the talents involved mesh perfectly. And ultimately Chinatown may be more the latter.

          • Levres de Sang

            You make a very compelling case and these incidental pleasures are the elements I’d look out for on any subsequent viewing. You’re right as well concerning the coming together of various talents because it doesn’t feel much like a Polanski film. For that, I’d turn to Repulsion or The Tenant.

    • ripleyy

      TV used to be light, fluffy and at times very clean. Sitcoms had very little swearing and even gritty dramas were so full of optimism.

      This “extremely brutal age of TV” as you put it, is exempt from the whole dark, gritty feel we’re seeing because it was NEVER like this. I feel that is why TV is taking off far better than movies, because this is a side to television we never got and therefore, is exciting to watch.

      If TV was always dark and gritty and it decided to get even more grittier and darker, then we might have a problem, but for the most part I think this new side to TV is worth checking.

      You also mention that shows that aren’t dark and gritty don’t make the cut. That isn’t necessarily true. If your show is BOLD, it will make the cut and therefore, it’s much easier to make the cut. Give your show a boldness and it will shine.

    • http://apairoftools.wordpress.com/ Sebastian Cornet

      “Mad Men” is not as grim or bleak. Not the most optimistic show, either, though…

      “In Treatment” also premiered during the Golden Age of Television, but I don’t think it ever had the profile of the other big boys. Anyway, that was introspective as hell. “Big Love” was kind of quaint, but it’s one of those love or hate kind of shows.

    • Magga

      The golden age shows were Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, The Wire and possibly Six Feet Under, right? For a mob show, Sopranos was surprisingly light on violence, especially as the show went on. Mad Men was the most highbrow and character-based show in history, Six Feet under was always about death, but was surprisingly quirky and comedic, Breaking Bad was violent, but more often than not suspense-based, Deadwood, which I have yet to watch, seems to be as brutal as the age it portrayed, and The Wire had it’s violent moments, but was deeply focused on the details of the bureaucracies that govern modern civilization. I guess shows like The Shield were quite brutal? I’d say the brutality mostly started with silver age shows like Walking Dead, The Americans, Fargo and Game of Thrones, I think, and I think it compensates for depth to a degree

    • Magga

      If we’re using that phrase I’d turn it on it’s head. A time travel movie is something we’ve seen before, and meeting up with the parents is the attractor. Though that still makes it the same as high concept.

    • fantasticintheory

      Yes, the “golden age” is often associated with the “brutal age,” but I think we’ve gotten plenty of high-quality lighthearted shows out of it as well. Jane the Virgin’ and Broad City? Both super light shows, and both excellent.

      • Magga

        Aren’t both those post-golden age?

      • http://soundcloud.com/the-colonel-mc The Colonel

        Broad City plays like a classic sitcom, like Seinfeld basically, just with a sharper wit and more acid tongue. It’s one of my very favorite shows, but yeah, that might be because it occupies such a familiar form.

        I can’t sit through even 15 minutes of these dark, slow-ass dramas that everyone loves so much.

  • Doug

    It’s fracking slow, that’s what it is. But seriously, there are some good bits in it, but it redefines the expression coma-inducing.

  • BigDeskPictures

    I have not read Quarry, however, as I read this review I couldn’t help think about Grosse Pointe Blank (spoilers)….Martin (Cusack) explains to his psychiatrist that if he’s at your door (he’s an assassin), chances are you did something to bring him there. Similar to what the Broker tells Quarry that his victims will all be ‘bad’ people, which will supposedly justify the killings. Also, Martin discovers that his ‘final’ mission is actually his love interest’s father, which is in a way close to home as Quarry’s assignment to kill his wife’s lover is.

    • Scott Crawford

      An assassin/hitman might think “if I don’t kill this person, someone else will take the contract and do the job anyway. AND they’ll probably do a bad job of it, be slow and sadistic, etc.” It’s just a job someone else wants done, and it might as well be done right.

      In reality (whatever that is) there probably are NO professional killers, only ones who do it on the side – nightclub bouncers and private detectives who might be willing to take “a contract” for the right price. Even then, they’ll probably subcontract the actual “hit” to some nobody for a fraction of the money.

      http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/contract-killing/

      Shocking how cheap murder can be.

  • http://apairoftools.wordpress.com/ Sebastian Cornet

    Damn, I’m gone for a couple of weeks and people are bringing up these newfangled ideas like “strange attractor.” I’ll see what that’s about.

    (Comes back from checking previous weeks’ entries a half-hour later)

    I’m starting to think Carson just made that up.

  • carsonreeves1

    lol. Thank you. :)

  • fragglewriter

    I’ve read good reviews about Rectify, but didn’t get a chance to watch the show before it went off the air.

    The strange attractor probably doesn’t work in this script is because it’s a man coming back from war and then becoming a hit man. I think if they wanted to explore some psychological guilt, the writers can have the man harming young children IF that is what bothered him in Vietnam. Or, let’s say the soldier is torn with guilt from killing and serving duty, instead of him killing the target, maybe relocate the target, like Arnold did in the Eraser movie.

    The soldier returning home and killing people is not a good interest story, but what troubles his psyche is the story.

    • Bacon Statham

      The script I’m currently working is about a former US Army MP who was captured in Afghanistan and forced by his captors to pretty much torture his team. They make him do some really nasty things to them. Those scenes are flashbacks, but the rest of it is set in the present and it’s really about how his time in captivity affected him.

      The problem I’m having is that it might be too dark for something that is essentially a Bourne/Mission Impossible type of script. I wanna explore the idea of how physical and psychological torture on the battlefield affects solders. There’s one thing he’s forced to do that I don’t wanna write because I feel uncomfortable writing it, but in a way I guess that’s a good thing. He’s forced at gunpoint to rape his female commanding officer otherwise his captors will burn the rest of his team alive.

      There’s a part of me that wants to explore that aspect of warfare, but there’s a part of me that doesn’t because I don’t wanna go that far. It’s difficult.

      • fragglewriter

        Your story has a good foundation as your main character is dealing with internal conflict. It might be too dark for Bourne/Mission Impossible, but not for Drama. If something doesn’t fit, don’t force it. You either have to change the characters, story, time period or genre. In your case, genre. I think if your character is battling the rape and has a family, especially a daughter going through puberty/dating, it can hit closer to home for your character.

        I feel the same way about writing certain scenes and stories and feel nauseated when I think of the not-so-good memories of my earlier life. I think it helps to understand your character and also therapeutic. Margaret Cho talked about her childhood and that’s why she uses comedy as she experienced sexual abuse, and a way for her assailant (family member) to not push it aside was to confront it.

        I think you should go that far. You’ll write a story that resonates with the reader, which then will resonate with an actor.

        • Bacon Statham

          In a way, it does fit with the genre. The backstory behind it is like this.

          Logan (the protagonist) is captured by American operatives working for Red Cell, a clandestine government agency controlled by Reed (the antagonist). Logan’s father Mitch was this legend at the CIA, he was one of the best and he worked with Reed. One day he got Reed’s daughter, a junior analyst, accidentally killed during an operation. Reed left the agency and joined Red Cell.

          Anyway, two years later when Logan is an Army MP, Reed sets up his capture to get revenge on Mitch. He doesn’t wanna kill Logan, he wants to break him and make him a shell of what he once was. His men succeed in doing that by forcing him to torture his team.

          The first scene of the script takes place four years after his capture and shows video footage of Red Cell operatives forcing Logan to murder his own teammate which he refuses to do. His CO, Jessica (who he was forced to rape), works for the CIA as a case officer and sees the footage, whilst Logan now works for the Secret Service.

          Basically Red Cell is an offshoot of an organisation who want the US President dead. Reed’s entire plan consists of destroying Mitch’s reputation by framing him as a traitor who ”manipulated” his traumatised son to kill the President.

          What follows next is Logan and Jessica trying to come to terms with what happened over there, whilst trying to stop Reed from carrying out his plan.

          It’s really about how far people will go to avenge their loved ones and do the sins of the father carry over onto the son/daughter? There’s more to the story than that, but that’s the general idea. It might sound a bit convoluted, but I’m working on that.

          • fragglewriter

            It sounds a bit convoluted, but you have to work on the structure, the pacing and also develop Jessica and not let her just comes to terms with the rape, but also if it affects her personal and/or profession life.

      • Randall Alexander

        Can I asked why you decided to make him an MP? Just curious. I used to be one in the Army in the early ’90’s. Jack Reacher is also a former MP. I find it interesting since MPs aren’t generally thought of as being as sexy a choice as say, Navy Seals or Special Forces.

      • Malibo Jackk

        Recently had the opportunity to ask Andrew Kevin Walker why his Seven script was sent around town — twice — and turned down by everyone.
        His answer: It was too dark and didn’t have a happy ending.

        Also recently heard from an amateur who’s script is very well written and was optioned twice — but he couldn’t figure out why it wouldn’t go any further.
        It too was dark. A modernized version of Turn of The Screw.

        My guess — studios think dark belongs to horror.
        Not sure Hollywood is looking for groundbreaking material.

      • http://soundcloud.com/the-colonel-mc The Colonel

        I think your concept is sound, but I would (i) make the details of his torture really murky, like Wolverine flashback murky, where all you get are instant flashes of something, you’re not sure what, and (ii) drop the rape angle. Men ordering other men to rape women starts getting real dicey for me (not least of which because it begs the question of whether the forced rapist enjoyed it; etc.), and I don’t know if I could “forgive” the main character for it.

        Interestingly, I have no problem forgiving the guy for being forced to torture people in a non-sexual way, lol.

  • Andrea Moss

    Man, if Cinemax play its cards well, this show could be the next Justified… So good it’s the pilot. And Peter Mullan as the enforcer giving Quarry his assignments is a plus, too!

  • blake011

    Rectify isn’t off the air I don’t believe. Its between seasons. The last one just ended.

  • maxi1981

    So basically this is The Mechanic ( the one with Charles Bronson though) meets American Sniper by way of Collateral, which is not a bad idea as I love these three films. Will be looking forward to this.

  • Citizen M

    For those who don’t click on links, Terry Rossio explains:

    I know this sounds a bit silly, but bear with me. Put ‘strange’ (meaning ‘unique’) and ‘attractor’ (from ‘attractive,’ meaning ‘compelling’) together and you get ‘strange attractor,’ or ‘something unique that is also compelling.’

    Which is just a quick way of saying that the concept of your movie should be unique — something that hasn’t been done before — and at the same time, it must ‘attract’ people to it. There must be some aspect that is compelling, enticing, and intriguing. Some element that is so inventive, so alluring, it has people in Hollywood kicking themselves for not thinking of it first. Kicking themselves so hard, in fact, that they’re willing to give you lots of money because you did think of it first.

    You could call it a hook, or a gimmick, or a twist. Hollywood sometimes calls it a ‘high concept’ — an idea for a movie that can be stated in one or two sentences. You could substitute ‘high concept’ for ‘strange attractor,’ but I think strange attractor is more precise. What good is a short, simple idea for a movie if it doesn’t also attract people?

    • http://soundcloud.com/the-colonel-mc The Colonel

      “He gives a few examples of what he means from well known movies and adds . . .”

      Is it just me, or do you fall asleep whenever screenwriting books start explaining concepts with examples from movies? I never feel like I learning anything from them, because a clever writer can make anything mean anything. “Oh, a strange attractor, that’s like Klinger in MASH.”

      • Citizen M

        You get the same thing with business books. They think of a new term, like “Wide Vision” (which I just made up on the spot).

        Then they write the book. “WIDE VISION: How a new breed of business leaders is rewriting the plot”

        Then they pick any successful CEO or corporation, and claim they illustrate the truth of the book.

        “How Uber used Wide Vision™ to become a billion-dollar company.”

        “Steve Jobs, the master of Wide Vision™ in tech.”

        “Warren Buffett and how he practiced Wide Vison™ for thirty years.”

  • leitskev

    Excellent discussion on the strange attractor. And I think the strange attractor is what’s missing from most of these new drama series coming out all across “TV” land. I mean maybe like 90% of the series that come out are missing it. Most of these series are fairly high quality, but boring.

  • klmn