Friday, September 21, 2018

An Open Letter to Stephen King

Dear Mr. King,

May I call you Stephen? Considering how long we have been together it only seems right.

Well, Stephen, it really has been a long time. You were around without me even realizing it. I read "Battleground" in a Scholastic Reader, but never bothered to see who wrote it. It wasn't until I read Night Shift that I knew that it was you. More on that in a moment.

You kept popping up everywhere I looked, it seemed. I remember my friend's mother reading The Stand (the one with the black cover, with the crow). The folks for whom I would babysit had plenty of your paperbacks laying around.

But, the official start to our relationship began on a normal Sunday afternoon. I was flipping through channels on the old TV, when I came across the end of a little movie known as Carrie. I was just in time for the final jump scare, which did it's job, as I literally jumped out of my seat. Once my heartbeat returned to normal, and my legs stopped shaking, I headed right across the street, to the aforementioned folks that I would babysit for, and asked if I could borrow one of your books. My neighbor handed over Night Shift, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Not only did I learn that I had already met you (see "Battleground," above), but I was introduced to an amazing array of stories, many of which are still favorites of mine.

I don't know about you, but I jumped in to our relationship with both feet. Firestarter. Christine. Cujo (which I read in one sitting). Different Seasons. Skeleton Crew. I could go on and on, but I'm pretty sure you know what you have contributed to this relationship. I even read a couple of The Bachman Books. (And I'm still kicking myself for not grabbing that original copy of Rage, that I found at a used bookstore.

I remember the first time I read The Mist. I was sitting on the floor of my bedroom, with my back to the only window. I was lost in the story. My mother called upstairs, asking me to walk the dog. For just a moment, one terrifying moment, I thought "Is she crazy?! I'm not going out THERE!" Of course, when I looked out the window, I saw that it was a beautiful, sunny day. Such is the power of your stories.

I've loved so many of the gifts that you have given to me, but it hasn't always been wine and roses. Many's the time that I have called Pet Semetary the "second most boring book I have ever read." (The first is Jane Eyre.) But, you know, maybe I just wasn't in the right mood. As the saying goes, it's not you, it's me. I plan on revisiting Pet Semetary sometime in the future. Perhaps, now that I no longer take you for granted, I will see it in a new light.

Of course, there have been other misfires. No relationship is perfect. I couldn't get in to Gerald's Game or The Dark Half, and The Gunslinger left me cold. I know I drifted away for awhile, and ignored many of the things you tried to use to lure me back. It wasn't until Duma Key that I was finally ready to let you back into my life.

Duma Key was...okay. Good enough to keep me around. I moved on to Under the Dome, and WOO BOY, what a great book. Well, until that ending. I know plenty of people who defend the end, but it was just a bit too jarring for my taste. At this point, I was nervous and shy. Afraid to fully give you my heart.

But, oh my dearest Stephen, I have just finished reading The Outsider, and now I am all in. Not only was this an AMAZING story, one that I never wanted to put down (damn day job, getting in the way of my reading), but you introduced me to one of my favorite characters in literature: Holly Gibney! I know. I know. I'm late to the party, but, trust me, I will be picking up Mr. Mercedes, Finders Keepers, and End of Watch forthwith.

Despite all of the ups and downs, ours has been a mostly positive relationship. Thank you for all of the years that you have given me, and I apologize for the times that I have abandoned you. I can't promise that things will always be as good as they are now, but I'm still in it for the long haul. And I hope you are, too.



Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Sit Down, Shut Up, And Watch The Movie -OR- Fuck Your Agenda

This is going to be an angry old man post, as I long for the good old days, when we simply went to the movies, enjoyed ourselves (or not), and moved on.

What has prompted me to put pen to paper, uhm, I mean fingers to keyboard, you ask?

Wonder Woman.

More accurately, it's the impression I have that there are twelve different versions of the Wonder Woman film, showing all over the country.

Let's back up. I went to see WW on Thursday, June 1st. I was hoping to see an entertaining comic book/superhero movie. What I saw was a FANTASTIC comic book/superhero movie. Easily one of my top five superhero movies. It's not a perfect movie. There are a few things I would have done differently. But, overall, holy cow, was I blown away.

Then I started reading the reviews. There are plenty that are positive. There are plenty that are negative. And there are plenty that are...I really don't know. As I read each review, it seemed that so many of the reviewers had watched a completely different movie.

One reviewer says that, in the version they watched, Steve Trevor is the main character; overshadowing the titular character. (That would be Wonder Woman, you know?)

Some reviewers saw a version that was too feminist and called out for male genocide.

Some reviewers saw a version that wasn't feminist enough and failed because there is a semi-romantic story thread.

And on, and on, and on.

So, let's go back to the title of this post; well, the secondary title. When I say "Fuck your agenda," I'm not talking to the people who made the movie, but, rather, those who go to see it.

Back in my day (There it is!), my friends and I went to see movies to be entertained. That was it. We liked or disliked a movie based on simple things: Was it well written? Was it well acted? Was it boring, or unfunny, or not scary (depending on the genre, of course)? I don't recall any of us going in with preconceived ideas of what the movie SHOULD be, or looking for characters and themes that we thought SHOULD be a part of the story.

Sure, film analysis has been around for as long as there have been films. (I think. What the hell do I know about it?) But, lately, it seems that too many people are going to see movies with those aforementioned preconceived notions. Maybe it's the internet, or, more accurately, what the internet is used for. So many people can shout their every thought into the world (yes, I get that that is what I'm doing here), and scream at the people with whom they disagree. It seems that everyone has an agenda, and the internet has given them the perfect forum for pushing that agenda, at the expense of simply enjoying themselves, for a couple of hours.

Back to Wonder Woman.

Is it nice that we have a movie that can inspire girls/young woman? Of course. (Although, one reviewer seems to think that WW does the exact opposite.) Is it good that we have a movie that shows that a female driven film, directed by a woman, can be a huge hit? Absolutely.
On the other hand, I agree with director Patty Jenkins, who said "I want to make a great superhero film, not a great woman superhero film. Similarly, I want to be a great director, not a great woman director." But, it seems to me that those who keep talking about this WOMAN movie, by this WOMAN director, have their own agenda.

There's nothing wrong with having your causes, and supporting the things you believe in (for the most part), but stop forcing your vision onto the vision of others.

What I'm trying to say is: Sit down, shut up, watch the movie, and fuck your agenda.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Gender-swapping: I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

There has been a lot of talk (whining), lately, about gender-swapping, and a lot of those talking (whining) about it, seem to be misinformed as to what gender-swapping actually is.

I am going to try to clarify things.

(I am going to ignore fan-fiction, here, and focus on gender-swapping (or not) by those who own the characters I will be talking about.)

                                                            Bond. J**** Bond.

Gender-swapping occurs, generally, when a character, or franchise, is being rebooted/remade, and that character, or characters, are portrayed as a different gender than the one originally created. The new Ghostbusters movie is a gender-swap. If it was a sequel, let's say the ladies inherited the business, or bought a Ghostbusters franchise, then it would NOT be a gender-swap. But, because it is a remake, or reboot, or whatever, it IS a swap.

Look at it this way: If I remake Casino Royale, and my main character is Jane Bond, that's a swap. If James Bond retires, or, more likely, dies of syphilis, and a woman takes over the 007 designation, that is NOT a swap.

                                                         There's Something About Riri

Marvel Comics has announced that a new character, a 15 year old, African-American girl, named Riri Williams, will be taking over the Iron Man armor, from Tony Stark. As soon as the news hit the web, I saw many people talking (whining) about another gender-swap. I'm here to tell you that this is NOT the case.

If I decide to reboot the Marvel Universe, wiping out everything that has happened, and starting from scratch, and I introduce Antonia Stark, millionaire weapons manufacturer, who builds a suit of high tech armor, and fights crime as Iron Woman, THAT is a gender-swap.

Are you with me so far?

Now, in a Marvel Universe in which Tony Stark has been Iron Man for decades, before he decides to retire, and pass the mantle to a young girl, well, this is NOT a swap. Tony Stark is NOT being changed. He still exists. His adventures as Iron Man still exist. This is simply a passing of the torch. As far as I know, there has been no announcement regarding Riri's superhero name. While the book she appears in may be titled Invincible Iron Man, that does not mean that that will be her identity. (My theory is that Marvel will see what kind of reception the character receives, then they will either change the name of the current title, or, more likely, spin Riri off, into her own book.)

What's important here is that Iron Man is NOT being gender-swapped.

                                                           Touching a Thor spot

This one is gonna ruffle some feathers.

Thor has NOT, I repeat, NOT been gender-swapped.

If I decide to reboot the Marvel Universe, wiping out everything that has happened, and starting from scratch, and I introduce Dr. Donna Blake, hiking, attacked by orange rock creatures, trapped in cave, walking stick, strike ground, BOOM! Thor Odinsdottir! Say it with me: "THIS is a gender-swap."

What Marvel has done is NOT a swap. We are talking about a world in which an alien has taken on the mantle of Thor. A world in which a FROG has taken on the mantle of Thor. (I'm not talking about the time that Loki turned Thor into a frog, I'm talking about the frog who found a piece of Mjolnir, and became THOR FROG! Or FROG THOR! Either way, he is the greatest animal character ever.)

Jane Foster was found worthy, and, like the alien and the frog before her, has taken on the mantle of Thor. The original, Thor Odinson, is still around. HE has not changed gender. How can Thor Odinson be gender-swapped, when HE is still around? Think about it, people.

Looking back at what I have just written, I notice a pattern. All of these characters that people are talking (whining) about, have gone from male to female. Hmmm. Maybe it's not about gender-swapping (or not), but about men fearing that their "power" is being usurped by women. Or, maybe, it's just a bunch of people who don't like change. Either way, when talking (whining) about gender-swapping, please, try to use the term correctly.

Monday, April 4, 2016


Is it four movies for the price  of one?
Is it one movie that can't decide what it wants to be?
Is it a desperate attempt by DC/Warner Brothers, to catch up with the Marvel cinematic universe?

The answer is yes, to all three.

I just got home from seeing Batman v Superman:Dawn of Justice, and I'm still trying to sort it all out.

Let's start with what worked.

Ben Affleck is fantastic as Bruce Wayne/Batman. This is also my favorite version of the Batsuit; it;s the first time it doesn't look like either rubber, or armor plating. And the armor suit ain't bad either.

Gal Gadot is an amazing Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. There is a point, during the fight with Doomsday, as she's about to reenter the fray, when  she gives this little smile. It says "Yeah. This is what I'm here for, and I love it." It is a tiny little thing, that tells us a lot about the character.

Surprisingly, to me, at least, is Jesse Eisenberg's performance as Lex Luthor. (Or, rather, Alexander Luthor.) What I saw in the trailers had me worried, but he pulled it off with just the right amount of psychosis.

Henry Cavill is just as good as he was in Man of Steel. Take that any way you like. I happen to be a fan.

The fight scenes are great, especially those featuring Batman. The headliner, Batman v Superman, actually works. All I will say is that Batman has more going for him than just the armored suit.

The Aquaman cameo is cool. The Cyborg bit isn't bad. The Flash...well...

I guess it's time to talk about the bad stuff.

The first appearance of The Flash is just bizarre. The second, well, they seem to have made Barry Allen a long-haired, trying-to-grow-facial-hair-but-can't-so-he-looks-like-a-douche character. I'm afraid of where they are going with this. (If you want to see The Flash done nearly perfectly, watch the TV show.)

Some of the writing is terrible. It felt as if someone thought of a line or two of dialogue that they thought sounded clever, and found a way to force it into the script. Really, there is some seriously cringe-worthy dialogue. 

The scene in which Thomas and Martha Wayne are killed...wait...what? They are showing us Batman's origin AGAIN? Are you kidding me? They could have left this out of the movie and either made it shorter, or shown us some of the Batman stuff that led up to this more grizzled version.

The dream sequences, while cool(ish), were pointless. Well, pointless as far as THIS movie is concerned. Setting up future movies, on the other hand... (Think the Thor vision sequence in Avengers:Age of Ultron.)

Side note: to those complaining about the Batmobile and Batplane having guns, I believe Christian Bale's Batman fired more bullets in any one of the Nolan movies. It's just that this movie had the balls to show the real consequences of those bullets.

So, back to those three questions, at the top. The first two kinda go together. This movie feels like four different movies. It's a lot of parts that don't always fit together very well. 

As a Man of Steel sequel, it brings up some interesting questions about Superman's responsibility, as well as his place in the world, but it never really answers these questions. 

As an introduction to Batman, well, do we NEED an introduction to Batman? Instead if showing us the creation of the character, they could have shown us his evolution.

As a Lex versus Superman story...why? Perhaps I missed it, amongst everything else going on, but why does Lex hate Superman?  I know why Lex is evil/crazy, because at one point he mentions that his father hit him, when he was a kid. (A throw-away piece of character developement if ever there was one.)

As a Wonder Woman story...okay, Wonder Woman was great.

And, as for that third question, I think it's obvious that DC is trying to play catch-up. They have tried to differentiate themselves from Marvel, by taking a darker tone, but, according to recent reports of reshoots for Suicide Squad, to make it lighter in tone, this doesn't seem to be working. Also, instead of taking the time to establish each character, leading up to The Justice League, this movie attempts to throw them at us, all at once. 

In the end, the Batman v Superman:Dawn of Justice is relatively entertaining. The good stuff just barely outweighs the bad. It's biggest problem being that it suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder. Greater focus would have made for a greater movie.

Friday, March 11, 2016

American Pride is Bullshit

So, you were born in The United States of America. Congratulations! That "achievement" reflects upon you just about as much as when your favorite team wins the Super Series.

Let me ask you a question. Which of these things should one take pride in? Earning a paycheck, by doing a worthwhile job, to the best of their ability, or having money fall into their lap. Much like that paycheck, pride must be earned.

You should not be proud JUST BECAUSE you are white, or black, or male or female. You shouldn't be ashamed of any of those things, but you shouldn't feel pride for something over which you have no control. Being a Proud Black Man/Gay Woman/Old White Male should mean "A person who has accomplished something to be proud of, who happens to be a Black Man/Gay Woman/Old White Male."

The same holds true for being an American. You want American Pride? Do something to be proud of. The United States has so much potential, but it is being destroyed by infighting, ignorance, and hatred.

 I was about to type that the current political race is like a three-ring circus, but I realized that it is more like an old-timey freak show. A loud and garish huckster gathers the crowd, and them shows them the things that frighten them the most. Things that aren't actually what they seem to be.
"Step right and up see the TERRORIST AROUND EVERY CORNER! Don't look away, when confronted by THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS! You will never forget the horror of MEXICAN RAPISTS!"

Yeah. I'm super proud to be a part of  the country that has created this kind of thinking. And created the politicians that try to take advantage of, and manipulate, peoples fears.

Oops. Watch out for that big puddle of sarcasm.

I know that The US is not the worst country in the world, but, at the moment, I'm hard pressed to think of anything that makes it the best. We can change that. If we stop living in fear and ignorance, and start being compassionate, rational human beings, we can make The United States of America a country worthy of our pride.

Here are a few suggestions, for behavior to be proud of:
Raising a child, with love.
Being kind.
Being charitable.
NOT hating/fearing someone, just because they are different.

Here is a suggestion for behavior you should not be proud of:
Being a dick. (This covers A LOT of ground.)

I'm not saying that you should be a doormat. Stand up for what you believe in. But, maybe, consider whether or not what you believe in is actually something worthwhile. You want American Pride? Earn it. Be a good person. Inspire those around you to be good people. Don't let fear and ignorance dictate to you how you think, and how you live your life.

If we, the people, raise the level of discourse in this country, if we raise the level of education, if we raise the level of compassion, if we help raise people up, instead of kicking them when they are down, then, when you talk about American Pride, I won't call "BULLSHIT!"

Thursday, September 10, 2015

A Feminist By Any Other Name

I've just finished reading Veronica Mars and Philosophy: Investigating the Mysteries of Life (Which is a Bitch Until You Die), edited by George A. Dunn. (Part of the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series.) This was published in 2014, before the Veronica Mars movie, for what that's worth.

One essay in particular, "'Grow a Sense of Humor, You Crazy Bitch' Veronica Mars as a Feminist Icon" by Kasey Butcher and Megan M. Peters, has got me thinking. At one point, the authors say:

 "Veronica can be seen as a representative of a new type of feminism, which remedies the limitations of the earlier waves. She doesn't dismiss femininity, she has a positive attitude toward sex, and she approaches most issues on a personal rather than just an outwardly political level."

Sounds pretty good.

Conversely, elsewhere in the essay, they talk about Lilith House:

"With Lilith House, we're treated to one of the most stereotypical and damaging portraits of feminists in recent years. All of the women are presented as unjustifiably angry, humorless, and militant, and, with the exception of Claire Nordhouse, all are women of color who don't conform to traditional norms of femininity."

Not so good.

Now, keep that in mind, as I bring in another player.

After reading the above mentioned essay, I attempted to find a copy online, to share with a friend of mine. I didn't find that essay, but I did find another interesting article on Bitchmedia, "Push(back) at the Intersections: Veronica Mars and the Straw Feminists" by S.E. Smith. (Published in 2010.)

What follow are a few pieces of the article, that are pertinent to what I want to talk about.

"While I don't think creator Rob Thomas set out to make a feminist show, there are definitely some feminist messages in the show. There are some shockingly anti-feminist ones too."

"...Veronica Mars is no shrinking violet. She's creative, she's tough as nails, she's aggressive, she's a good investigator, she has complex relationships with other people."

"Veronica herself never IDs as feminist and we don't see the F-word thrown around much at all until we meet an aggressive women's group [Lilith House] at the college that's like your worst stereotyping nightmare. They're man haters, they're willing to frame people for crimes they didn't commit while they themselves commit rape, and they ride roughshod over numerous characters."

These two articles have me asking a number of questions. Just to be clear, I don't have any answers.

First of all, does self-identifying yourself as part of a group actually make you a part of that group?

For some groups, it's pretty clear whether you belong. Let's look at the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). Do you have a membership card? Do you pay dues? (Does SAG have dues?) Do you meet the requirements needed to actually join SAG? If you answered "yes" to these questions, I would say that you are indeed a member of the group SAG. Otherwise, even if you call yourself a member of SAG, I say that you, sir, are a liar.

I am a member of the group known as "heterosexuals." I'm a male, who is attracted to, and occasionally has sexual relations with, females. Pretty clear cut.

On the other hand, the group "feminists" is a little harder to pin down. It seems simple enough. A feminist is someone who supports equal rights and treatment for women, right? Apparently, not everyone believes that it is as easy as that. I have been told, but have never personally verified, that some women think that if you like men, you can't be a feminist.

(This seems to be a problem with any group that does not have very clear cut rules for "membership." Some members feel the need to define their group based on very personal feelings/agendas. Just look at political parties, religion, and Star Wars fans.)

So, if Veronica Mars "never IDs as a feminist," can she BE a feminist? Does one need to be labeled, or self-label, as something, in order to actually be that thing? To the second question, I say "Of course not." If someone runs into a burning building, and saves some orphans, they are a hero, whether or not someone (including themselves) actually calls them a hero.

Conversely, does calling themselves "feminists" actually make the women of Lilith House feminists? Again, I say "Of course not." I'm not saying that they aren't, just that self-labeling doesn't mean that they are. Because so many people seem to have different definitions of what a feminist is, it can be difficult to establish who is or isn't a part of that group.

Another question I have has to do with creativity and responsibility. Do creators have a responsibility to portray any or all groups (except Nazis), or members of any given group (except Nazis), in a positive way?

So often I hear people complain about the bad guy in a book, movie, or TV show, being an insulting representative of their group. Apparently, your bad guy can't be Catholic, Asian, gay, a motel owner (Really. There were protests, by motel owners, when the Psycho remake came out.), black, Muslim, or a feminist. Or anything else. Except a Nazi.

First of all, are people so, uhm, lacking in critical thinking skills, and insecure, that they believe that any creator is saying "My bad guy is gay, therefore, all gays are bad guys. My bad guy represents them all?" (And I'm not even going to get into people who think that having, say, a racist character in your story, makes your story racist.) Sure, there is propaganda out there, and some people may have an agenda, but I would say that they are in the minority. (I have no real evidence to support this, just years of watching movies and TV shows, and reading books, looking at the creators of those things, and drawing my own conclusions.)

Second, there really are some bad Catholics, Asians, gays, motel owners, blacks, Muslims, and feminists. And all Nazis. Creators shouldn't whitewash the world, unless, of course, that is the point of their story. If we can't have anyone, except Nazis, be our bad guys, then we are all just watching/reading Captain America stories. The best fiction (even science fiction, horror, and fantasy) reflects the real world, and the real world is full of diverse, complicated people.

( Please note that, while I continue to say "Nazis," I have not said "Germans," because, GASP, Nazis are not representative of all Germans.)

Neither Mother Teresa, nor the Westboro Baptist Church, are representative of ALL Christians.

If Veronica Mars, the show, spent two and a half seasons establishing a positive feminist message, did the introduction of Lilith House, and it's "negative" portrayal of feminists, undo everything that came before? No. That's ridiculous. You can have a "bad" feminist character, without being anti-feminist. Just as you can have a "bad" gay character, without being homophobic, or a "bad" black character, without being racist.

As I stated at the beginning, these are just some questions that came to mind, while reading about Veronica Mars and feminism. I don't claim to have all (or any) of the answers. I'm just hoping to open up a dialogue. What do you think? Am I right? Wrong? Talking out of my ass? Let me know.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

When Fanimals Attack!

I was 10 years old, when Star Wars came out. (And, it was just Star Wars, back then. Not Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope.)

I saw it in the theater, numerous times. I bought the toys, trading cards

(Some of the cards had partial pictures on the back. When you out them together, they formed a "poster." I would tape them together, and hang them on the wall.), models, t-shirts, and comic books. Basically, if it was Star Wars, I had to have it. I bought, and read, Splinter of the Minds Eye by Alan Dean Foster, the first ever original Star Wars novel. (It was intended to be the basis for the sequel, but, after the success of the original movie, and access to a bigger budget, things went in a different direction.)

I went to the theater to see The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi (Originally Revenge of the Jedi, until it was decided that Jedi do not believe in revenge.), The Star Wars Special Edition, and The Phantom Menace. Sadly, the trauma of seeing The Phantom Menace brought my Star Wars theater viewing to an end. I have seen the other prequels, just not on the big screen.

Just off to my left, I have two shelves of Star Wars Novels (With some toys mixed in, for good measure.). I own the Family Guy Star Wars Trilogy.

I have numerous table-top Star Wars games. On Force Friday (Sept.4th, 2015), I bought a Kylo Ren action figure. (I wanted a Captain Phasma, too, but they didn't have any.) I also picked up Star Wars: Aftermath by Chuck Wendig

(The first "grown-up" novel , in the new canon, that takes place AFTER Return of the Jedi.) (Full disclosure:I bought the book two days before it was officially released.)

I tell you all of this, so that you will understand that I am a Star Wars fan.

You see that word, up there? "Fan." Short for fanatic, defined as: "A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal." Nowadays, when we call ourselves a fan, we usually mean we really like something. "I'm a fan of Pumpkin spice candles."  Fine. Are you a "fanatic" for the aforementioned candles? I doubt it.

What does this have to do with Star Wars?

There is a group called  Alliance To Save The Star Wars Legends, Expanded Universe.

For those who don't know, with Disney's acquisition of the Star Wars property, and the announcement of Episode VII, a new "canon" was started. Initially, this included the six films, and the Clone Wars TV show. Since then, they have added the Rebels TV show, half a dozen "grown-up" novels, many books for kids and young adults, as well as a new series of comic books. All of the books and such that came before is now labeled "Legends."

What this means is that all of the stuff carrying the "Legends" banner is no longer part of the "official" Star Wars story.


The Alliance To Save The Star Wars Legends, Expanded Universe refuses to acknowledge any of the new canon. It seems that they have even gone so far as to start a campaign to flood Amazon with 1-star reviews, for Star Wars: Aftermath. There's a good chance that none of them have even read the book.

From an article on The, regarding the new novel Tarkin by James Luceno: "This isn't Star Wars. this is nothing more than lies," wrote Matt Wilson, in a comment that had 25 likes at press time. "#GiveUsLegends or simply leave what is already a great universe, alone. #BuyLegendsOnly people, it won't be the real Star Wars unless it is Legends. GiveUsMoreLegends."


"I hate the fact that I have to hate this," one of the movement's members said in the comments of the Tarkin Facebook post. "This has all the makings of a good story, then you guys have to go and ruin it by making it not art of Legends."


A good story is a good story. What does it matter, if it's not a part of "Legends?" I may have mentioned that I am a Star Wars fan. I'm disappointed when there is a bad story, within the Star Wars universe.


I love it when there is a great story, as well. Canon, not canon, it doesn't matter. I've still got plenty of "Legends" books to read, but I'm gonna read the new stuff, too. (I've already finished Star Wars: Aftermath.) Because I want to read good stories. And, for the most part, these are good stories.

And, That's just what these things are: stories. No one is rewriting history. This is fiction. Something to be enjoyed, when done right. Something to share with your family and friends, in a simple "Hey, that was cool" kind of way. Read the books. Watch the movies and TV shows. Play the games. Dress up as your favorite characters. But, remember, it's only a story.

(I'm not even going to get in to the people who are upset that the new canon has introduced gay characters.)

Finally, just to incite some nerd rage, I will quote William Shatner (In a Star Wars article? NO!): "Get a life!"