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.

Yours,

Erik

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.

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.

BvS:DoJ:MPD

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.

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!"

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.

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.

So...

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 Force.net, 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."

And:

"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."

What?

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.

*cough-prequels-cough*

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!"

Nothing Is Sacred

You see that title, up there? It's not a question. I'm not asking "Is nothing sacred?" It's a declarative statement. I'm telling you "Nothing is sacred." And, nothing should be.

There is a lot of talk about a Big Trouble In Little China remake, starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, and people are going crazy. Not in a good way. I'm hearing a lot of "It's a classic!" and "It's perfect the way it is!" and "Too many remakes!" Of course, these seem to be the same people who have been screaming for the further adventures of Jack Burton, ever since BTILC first hit theaters, in 1986.

I understand. People cleave to that which they hold most dear. And, with a cult classic, you are part of a special group. I get it. I love Big Trouble In Little China. It's a wonderful blend of action and comedy. Kurt Russell is nearly perfect, as Jack Burton. It's a great movie.

But, it's just a movie.

Remakes and sequels have been around almost as long as there have been movies. Let's be clear, "remake" is not a synonym for "bad." Sure, there are some horrible remakes (The Fog. Prom Night.), but there are some pretty decent remakes, as well (Dawn of the Dead.). Sometimes, you get a shitty remake, only to get a good remake, decades later (King Kong). Hell, sometimes a remake gives you a whole new spin on a movie (See all of the westerns based on Kurosawa's samurai films.).

And, for those of you who complain about the lack of original films coming out, I'm willing to bet that the number of sequels and remakes is only a small fraction of the movies released each year.

Here is the thing that you have to remember: A remake in no way affects the original. The Fog remake is a complete piece of crap, but that has nothing to do with the 1980 version. You know what I do? Hold on to your scalps, this is crazy. I don't watch the remake! Such an elegantly simple solution. I love both iterations of Dawn of the Dead. I've watched both multiple times. Which one I choose to watch depends on my mood. If I didn't like one of them, I WOULDN'T WATCH IT!

Are you sitting down? Some remakes are *gasp* better than the original! I know. I know. That's crazy! But, who would argue that the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon isn't better than the 1931 version? (How many people even knew that there was a 1931 version?) (And let's not get into the whole remake vs adaptation argument, please.) (Also, please note that there are only 10 YEARS between the two.)

My point? As I said earlier, it's just a movie. It's not a sacred text that was dug up in some desert. And, even those "sacred" texts aren't sacred. It's all grist for the mill. Get over it. Give it a chance. You might like it. 

And, if you don't, there's always the original.

This Story Should Have Remained Untold

I love movies. Really. Scary movies. Funny movies. Serious movies. Low budget movies. MOVIES!

Whenever I watch a movie, I want to be entertained. I never go in, hoping to be disappointed. I'm not looking for problems. But, sometimes, as much as I want to just relax and get sucked in, problems jump out and smack me in the face.

Before I get too far, I should probably mention that I am not a big fan of Vampires. I don't HATE them. One of my favorite horror novels, The Light At The End by John Skipp and Craig Spector, is about a vampire. I like the movies Near Dark and 30 Days of Night. I love Marvel's version of Dracula.

All of that being said, watching Dracula Untold was excruciating. My overall impression is that someone came up with a bunch of scenes that they thought would look cool, and found a way to shoehorn them into a movie. The story wasn't horrible, but so many things stood out as either bad or lazy storytelling. Some things WERE pretty cool, but there weren't nearly enough good things to outweigh the bad.

You may think I'm nitpicking, and that's okay, but these are just some of the things that bothered me.

Ahead be SPOILERS!

I'm not a huge fan of the film makers trying to make Vlad a hero, who becomes a monster to save his people, but that's not a deal breaker.

At the beginning of the movie, Vlad, and a couple of his dudes, travel to Broke Tooth Mountain, in less than one day. I thought this was a bit of a stretch, but, when Vlad leaves, he is on a horse, so I figured maybe they could have made it, if that's how they were travelling. BUT, later, when Vlad returns, looking for the ancient vampire, we see him scaling the cliffs. Now, first of all, if that's how he and his dudes did it the first time, I no longer believe that they could have made it in a day. Secondly, the entrance in the second scene looks nothing like the entrance in the first scene. Are there two entrances? If so, Why does Vlad assume that the second would lead to the same place as the first? (Okay. This one does seem really nitpicky.)

Vlad is selfish. He keeps saying that he is doing these things to save his people, but it's actually only about his wife and son. SO many of his people die, while he's focused on his family. Yes, family is important, but don't tell me it's about more than that, when it obviously isn't.

When the Turks attack Castle Dracula, they have hundreds (thousands?) of soldiers. To keep things simple, lets say they have 20 ranks of 20 men. That's 400 soldiers. Vlad flays through the middle of, let's say, 15 ranks, taking out three or four men in each of those ranks. That leaves at least 240 men, that Vlad has already passed by, who, instead of continuing on to the castle, turn around to fight Vlad. All 400 (again, it could be many more) soldiers focus on one man. Not a single one thinks "I should keep going, and do the job I was sent here to do."

Watching the scenes in which Vlad and his people are camped out, on their way to the monastery, there is NO WAY that much sunlight could reach Vlad's tent.

When the citizens of Castle Dracula are schlepping to the monastery, and are attacked by the Turks, Vlad turns into a bunch of bats, and quickly takes out some bad guys. BUT, when his wife and son are in danger, he DICKS AROUND with the guy who is threatening them. Of course, this means that that guy lives, so that he can come back to kill Vlad's wife.

Speaking of a dead Mirena, she falls from an incredible height, and there is no indication that Vlad caught her before she hit the ground. (I watched it over and over, looking for some sign that he did.) She would be nothing but a huge red stain on the ground. BUT, not only is she still alive, she TALKS to Vlad! No. Just no.

Oh, yeah. Right before that, Vlad is talking to his wife, and says something like "It's almost dawn. If we don't defeat the Turks before the sun rises, I will be helpless." Uhm...ALMOST DAWN?! What the fuck have you been doing all night?

The timing of many events is this movie seems to be pretty wonky.

An army marching blindfolded? I call bullshit.

How freaking long did Mehmed have to set up the silver trap, in his tent? And, again, why does Vlad dick around with Mehmed? Just swoop in, as bats, and kill him!

Why does the sun burn Vlad more slowly than it does the other vampires? Maybe it's because Vlad fed from the ancient vamp, and the others fed from Vlad, but it's never made clear.

Dracula can control the weather?

You know what would have been a great ending? If Vlad had listened to his buddy, and killed his own son, completing his transformation into a monster.

In the very last scene, the ancient vampire is following Vlad and Mina, in 2015, and he says "Let the games begin." Uhm...you waited over 500 years to begin your vampire games? Sure, this is a set up for a sequel, but I can't see myself watching it, so I guess I will never know why he waited so long.

That's less than half of the things that popped out at me. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, but when things like this are so obvious, I can't let it slide. (Don't get me started on The Dark Knight Rises.) I wasn't looking for problems; problems found me.

There. I've vented. Do you agree? Disagree? Am I being a douchebag? Let me know.

Game On! or Curse You, Wil Wheaton!

I have always loved playing games. As a child I played the classics: Candyland, Mousetrap, Don't Break The Ice. A few years later, I was the first kid on the block to own Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition!). When collectible card games came along, I eventually acquired a few dozen different games (Magic: The Gathering being a recent addition.).

So, yeah, I like games. The thing is, until recently, I have only purchased a few games a year. Then, well...

All I was doing was looking for a Youtube video about the great Lovecraftian game Elder Sign.

          (Explore an Arkham museum, using dice to complete tasks and fend off maddening horrors.)

So, looking on YouTube, and what pops up? Some Wil Wheaton hosted show called Table Top. I like Wil Wheaton, I like games, I like watching videos. I hit play, and was whisked away to a wonderland of fun and...well, what I got was a video of Wil Wheaton and his friends playing Elder Sign.

You see, Table Top is a show on the YouTube channel Geek & Sundry, on which Will and a revolving group of friends play different, well, table top games (Duh.). Wil introduces the game, then the folks who will be playing, and then the games, and the fun, begin.

Here's the problem. Since discovering Table Top, just a few months ago, I have purchased a DOZEN new games. And them things ain't cheap! (Well, some of them are, but most seem to average around $50.00.)

Everything from SmashUp, Castle Panic, and King Of Tokyo

to Small World, Tsuro, and Forbidden Island

has been added to my collection of games.

Because of Wil Wheaton (WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEATOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!) I have spent way too much money on games, over the past few weeks. 

But...

It's been worth it. Not only have I found the fantastic Geek & Sundry channel on YouTube, which is full of wonderful people and videos, but, my friends, family, and I have had hours and hours of fun playing some great games.

So, while my bank balance curses Wil Wheaton, I thank him. (And I'm pulling for you, Wil. I know you can get another win, one of these days.)

Duane Swierczynski Does It Again

Unputdownable. It's not a literal term. Otherwise we would be walking around covered in books, which would make it kinda difficult to eat, sleep, and, well, do just about anything.

But...

Figuratively speaking, Duane Swierczynski's Point & Shoot definitely fits the bill.

Picking up exactly where Hell & Gone left off, the latest Charlie Hardie adventure is a rocketing thrill ride of non-stop craziness.

Fun & Games (the first Charlie Hardie book) was a fast paced thriller.

Hell & Gone (book number two) was an action packed mind game.

Point & Shoot...well, Point & Shoot is a bizarro, buddy road tripping, action adventuring, identity swapping, serial killering, conspiracy filled masterpiece.

As always, Swierczynski's writing is as sharp as a scalpel. With just a few words, he is able to bring each character to life. The dialogue crackles, and the action bursts from the page in a cloud of gun powder and blood. (Again, I'm speaking figuratively. Literally, well, that would be rather gross.)

For anyone looking for a well written, thrilling, breathtaking story, I highly recommend Point & Shoot. I do suggest you read the first two books. Not just to get the whole story, but because they are all fantastic fiction.

Not So Elementary

Seventy-five percent of the time, when I go to the bookstore, I am not looking for anything specific. I like to wonder around, perusing the shelves, hoping to find something new. And so it was, last week, when I entered the local Barnes & Nobles.


As B&N does not have a section just for horror, I start in the “Literature” section, where the horror novels dwell. Then I move on to “Science Fiction and Fantasy.” Finally, I check out the “Mystery” section, and it was here that something caught my eye.

There, on the “new book” shelf I saw a picture of a boar-headed soldier, astride a horse. Below this wonderfully bizarre image was the title: Sherlock Holmes: The Army of Dr. Moreau. Finally, at the very bottom of the cover, the author's name: Guy Adams (The World House; Restoration).

This is not the book I will be reviewing today.

Looking over the book, I learned that it was the second Holmes adventure penned by Mr. Adams. I rushed, well, strolled, well, turned around, and right there, in the “A” section (shocking, I know) was Guy Adams first Holmes novel: Sherlock Holmes: The Breath of God.

This is the book I am reviewing.

A body, killed by mysterious means. A dire warning, brought to Holmes by a semi-reputable source (more on that, in a moment). A second bizarre death. And with that, Holmes and Watson are drawn in to a horrifying mystery.

I'm trying to avoid giving anything away. Except...

The characters. Adams has drawn on some rich literary history, for his book. First, we have the semi-reputable, at least in Holmes' eyes, Dr. John Silence, Physician Extraordinary, created by Algernon Blackwood. Next, we meet Thomas Carnacki, The Ghost Finder, created by William Hope Hodgson. Followed by The Demonologist, Julian Karswell, created by M.R. James. Finally, we have Aleister Crowley, created by his parents, I guess, rounding out the cast.

While doing his utmost to stay true to the characters, Adams manages to add some depth to their personalities. While all are quite similar in occupation, the author makes each of them distinct. And Crowley is, well, Crowley.

Adams does a fine job, capturing the voice of Watson, the narrator (of course), without slavishly copying the style of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The plot moves at a brisk pace, with plenty of spooky scenes; perfect for reading on a dark and stormy night. He captures turn of the century London, at least the way that I have always envisioned it, quite well.

As for Sherlock, he is as brilliant, arrogant, and snarky as ever. As a life long fan of Holmes, I find no fault in Adams' portrayal of the “Consulting Detective.”

As Sherlock Holmes rides a new wave of popularity, due, in no small part, to the feature films starring Robert Downey Jr., and the BBC television show, I hope that fans, old and new, pick up Sherlock Holmes: The Breath of God, and feel the thrills and chills that Guy Adams has wrought.

Oh, and I will be reading Sherlock Holmes: The Army of Dr. Moreau very soon. So, stay tuned

City of the Lost

A few weeks ago, I went to Barnes & Nobles to pick up the new Jonathan Maberry novel, Assassin's Code. It was sitting on the new book table, at the front of the store, so I grabbed a copy on my way in, and carried it around, as I looked over all the other goodies on the shelves.

And that's when I saw it.

Bright orange spine. Title in black. Author's name in yellow. City of the Lost. Stephen Blackmoore. I'd never heard of the guy, but, what the hell, I'm always looking for something new. I pulled the book off the shelf. Right off the bat, an interesting cover. A cityscape in shades of orange. And in the foreground, a tough guy with a cigarette, a black leather jacket, and a smoking hole in his chest. Ok. You've got my attention.

I flip the book over; read the back cover. Mm hm. Joe Sunday, Leg breaker for the mob, goes out on a job and ends up a zombie. Sorta. And then the freaks come out. Joe is thrust into a dark world of supernatural horror. Sounds good.

And then...those seven words that had me putting Maberry back on the table (Don't worry, Jonathan. I picked up Assassin's Code the next week.) and taking City of the Lost up to the register: "Cover and interior art by Sean Phillips."

I know Sean's art from his work with Ed Brubaker on Criminal, Incognito, and, most recently, Fatale. To me, Sean is the go to guy for noir artwork. His splash pages for the essays in the back of Brubaker's comics are masterpieces. So, yeah, I want this book.

And what a book it is. It's Criminal, with monsters, and I mean that in the best possible way. It's Richard Stark's Parker, stuck in a horror film. It's supernatural noir! (Not to be confused with Supernatural Noir, a great anthology edited by Ellen Datlow, from Dark Horse Books.)

Joe Sunday is a bad guy, but you will find yourself rooting for him, as he goes up against bizarre foes, even badder than he is. You've got a nazi wizard, a feral dwarf, an incubus bartender, and, of course, a beautiful femme fatale. Everyone is looking for a magic stone. Most want it for something nefarious. Joe needs it to keep from rotting away. They all walk the dark streets of L.A., wheeling, dealing, and dying, as the clock ticks down to the final confrontation.

Blackmoore's writing is slick and fast, like his characters, and Sean Phillip's art is as fantastic as ever. The violence is nice and bloody, and the story is filled with twists and turns. This book is great as both horror and noir, and I would recommend it for fans of both.

I certainly wish for Stephen Blackmoore to have a long and fruitful writing career. Purely for selfish reasons, of course. I want to read much more of his work. (That's the problem with discovering a new author. No backlog to dig up and enjoy.) So, thanls to Stephen and Sean for some great entertainment. Keep it up guys.

The Inkeepers

Before I get into The Inkeepers, Let me tell you a little bit about my history with Ti West. Years ago, I heard of this movie, The Roost, by some hot shot young director (That would be mister West). The reviews I read were all positive, so, when I found a used copy of the movie on DVD, I picked it up, took it home, watched it, and...was not impressed. Flash forward to Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever, another film directed by Ti. I loved the first Cabin Fever, so I had high hopes. Not impressed. (At the time I was unaware that Mr. West was not happy with the final cut of the film, but that's neither here nor there.)

I decided to give up on what I assumed was an over hyped writer/director.

Jump ahead to just a few weeks ago, when I was asked to guest co-host on Fangirl Radio. (Check it out, on Jackaloperadio.com. You won't be disappointed.) The guest was Ti West. I knew that The House of the Devil was streaming on Netflix, so I decided it was time to reacquaint myself with the works of the man.

And...

LOVED IT!

The House of the Devil is a beautifully shot movie with great acting, great dialogue, and a slow burn story that builds to a bloody climax.

Shit. I forgot. Not long ago, I ran across The Roost on late night tv. As I had nothing better to do, I decided to give it another chance, and I quite enjoyed it.

Anyway, The Inkeepers came out on bluray (and DVD, of course) the day after we (we being Jessica Dwyer [THE fangirl], Ren Willocks, and myself) spoke with Ti, so I ran out and picked up a copy. I have just finished watching, and I figured I should write this, whikle it's all fresh in my mind. (Not that it will make me any more coherent.)

Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) are working at The Yankee Pedlar, during it's last weekend of business. The only guests are an angry woman and her young son, and an old actress (played by Kelly McGillis) who has psychic powers. Claire and Luke are searching for proof that the inn is haunted. Funny stuff happens. Spooky stuff happens. That's all you need to know about the story. You ARE going to watch the movie, right?

Despite a rocky start to our "relationship," The Innkeepers has solidified my fandom of Ti West. I think that one of Ti's strengths, which shines in this movie, is his natural sounding dialogue, which the actors deliver with top notch ability. Hopefully you will understand when I say that it doesn't sound like actors delivery their lines, it just seems like two (or three, or whatever) people talking. To me, this is a sign of true talent.

The story itself has that Ti West slow build, that eventually leads to a truly frightening end. This movie isn't a splatterfest, or one scare after another; it takes it's time, letting us get to know, and care about, the characters. Again, another sign of a master storyteller.

Sara Paxton (The Last House on the Left [remake], Shark Night 3D) is quirky and cute, as Claire. Ti said that this role is the closest to the real Sara, and I think it shows. She doesn't seem to be acting. And, I know, good actors never seem like thay are acting, so Sara may take my statement as a double compliment. She is NOT "glammed up," and I think that is why I find her cuter here, than in any other movie I have seen her in. I didn't dislike her, in her other films, but I like her very much in this one.

Pat Healy (Ghost World, Magnolia)...well, the first thing I thought, when seeing him, was "Hey! He looks kinda like Jeffrey Combs!" (I think it's the nose.) That is, Jeffrey Combs with a fauxhawk. Pat plays things low key, imbueing Luke with a dry humor and quiet charm.

Sara and Pat work well together, giving the film a warm, friendly, easy going feel, until, well, until the shit hits the fan. Ti West picked two great leads, for his best film to date. If he keeps up with the top notch writing, casting, and directing, I will keep up with purchasing and watching.

So, do yourself a favor, and check out The Innkeepers. And The House of the Devil. And Fangirl Radio (On jackaloperadio.com!)

SHANE! PART II

SPOILERS!!!

I take it all back.

Ok, not all, but dude went nuts and got what he deserved. I still would have prefered seeing Carl do the deed to LIVE Shane, as opposed to UNDEAD Shane.

And that's all I have to say about that.

It's Sally Time!

The snow is melting, birds are singing in the yard, and the breeze carries the sounds of screams and a chainsaw. Spring is on the way, and Chainsaw Sally is bringing the heat.
Episode 6 of The Chainsaw Sally Show Season 2: Season Of The Bitch has just gone live (dropped? I don't fucking know), and I felt that now was the time to pour my guts out, play with them a bit, put them back in, and then write about Sally.
Quick recap: Chainsaw Sally is the creation of JimmyO and April Monique Burril. First she was an internet hostess. Then, the subject of a low budget film. Next came the internet show and the special "It's Groundhog Day, Chainsaw Sally." Now, the intenet show is back for season two, which is bigger and better than ever.
I'm a fan of gore, low budget films, gore, snappy dialogue, gore, hot women, gore, and, uhm, gore. Chainsaw Sally has all of this, and more.
I could go on and on about the great writing, the fun (and scary) characters, the addition of JimmyO (as the frightening Angel Eyes) and Debbie Rochon (as Blondie. SO talented and beautiful) to the cast, or the death of...well..I don't want to give that one away. But what I really want to talk about is my favorite aspect of the show: the relationship between Sally and her brother Ruby (played with demented glee by Azman Toy).
The greatest sibling pair since Cain and Abel, Sally and Ruby are more fun than a barrel of piranhas and monkeys. I'm getting choked up, just thinking about the love that these two have for each other. (Or it could be a little hooker skin, stuck in my throat.) April and Azman bring these two to vivid, crazy life; the loving, frustrated mother/sister and the man-child, who rebels, while still clinging to the only family he has really known.
I could easily watch an entire episode with just the Sally and Ruby puttering around the house, talking about their day, discussing what to have for dinner, what movie to watch, hell, anything. I still laugh, every time I think of Sally asking, in that exasperated tone, "Was your dick with you all day?" (I may think about that more than is healthy, but it's so damn funny!)
The role of Ruby was originated by Alec Joseph, but Azman has taken the part and made it his own. He's a cute little fucker, who exudes a demented innocence. You can't help but feel bad for him, when Sally goes into lecture mode, even if he deserves the frying pan to the head that is on it's way. And I don't think that Sally takes any joy out of wielding that frying pan, and the contusions she creates are filled with equal parts blood and love.

I want to thank JimmyO, April, and Azman for bringing these great characters to life, and bringing a little warmth to these last cold days of winter. (Okay, it hasn't been that cold, but you know what I mean.)
So, go to Chainsawsallyshow.com and check out the show. Come for the blood (and boobs), but stay for the love.

SHANE!

HERE BE SPOILERS! (Seriously, if you are not caught up on The Walking Dead, you may want to stop reading...NOW!)

I started reading the comic book The Walking Dead when the first tpb collection came out. The zombie genre had just recently risen from the grave, and had yet to saturate the market. (At this point, I fear being bored to death more than I fear the zombie apocalypse.) TWD was fresh; masterfully crafted by Robert Kirkman. And the first trade collection ended with one of my favorite scenes in the series, the death of Shane.
For those of you who have watched the show, but not read the comic, remember the scene in season one, when Shane had Rick in his crosshairs, out in the woods, and Dale came along and, well, nothing really happened? In the comic (issue #5 or #6, I believe.), at that Rick in the crosshairs moment...BLAM! Carl pops Shane right in the head.

I was SO hoping to see that scene in season one of the TV show. It is simply bold story telling, and would have said to me that AMC was willing to take chances. (I have taken to calling that kind of scene a "Joss Whedon moment." That dude will kill ANYONE.) Let me be clear, I didn't want Shane dead, I just wanted him to be killed. Does that make sense?
But now? Well, now I'm glad that Shane is still around. He is, hands down, the best character on the show. (Not to be confused with the best PERSON on the show.) Shane is complex, conflicted and confused. He loves Rick like a brother, but he also loves Lori and Carl (and the baby he believes is his) like, well, not a sister and a nephew. He wants to keep the group alive, but Lori and Carl come first.
Let's get this next bit out of the way. The one TRULY bad thing that Shane has done was the attempted rape of Lori. It was a reprehensible act, for which there is no excuse. For this alone, Shane should be punished. But, the show has moved on, and so shall we.
Some people I know feel that the sacrifice of Otis was a selfserving act, on Shane's part. I have to disagree. I like to think that if theirs were the only lives in the balance, Shane would have kept fighting for the both of them. BUT, Carl's life was on the line, and, as already stated, Shane's love for Carl trumps just about anything. If Shane hadn't done what he did, Otis, Carl, and Shane would all be dead. Shane is making some tough calls, and living with the results.
I do agree with Andrea, that he could tone it down a bit. The massacre at the barn was a rash, dangerous act. The smart thing to do, if you wanted to kill all the zombies in the barn, would have been to pick them off from the loft, not let them loose. Shane is a hothead, no doubt. Perhaps he's a bit stressed.
I do think that Shane should quash his amorous feelings for Lori. Rick is back. Period. There is nothing wrong with caring for them, but he needs to move on. (Oh. I do think that Shane did the right thing, lying to Lori, to get her back to the farm. Frankly, I think she was an idiot for leaving the way she did.)
Did I mention complexity?
I would still LOVE to see Carl kill Shane; that would be a great TV moment. But, I am glad that Shane has been around, giving us a wonderful character to both cheer for and grumble about.
Now, about that Daryl guy...

Oops. I almost forgot about Randy. I can certainly see the sense in killing him; Shane isn't completely wrong there. Even if Randy is honest in his current assertion that he wouldn't lead his group to the farm, it's possible that, if he were returned to his crew, he may eventually come to believe that a life on the road is too much, and that the farm is a better option. I can't wait to see what OUR crew decides to do.

Watch out for The Accident People

Charlie Hardie, ex-police consultant and current proffesional house sitter, takes a job on the west coast, watching a home in the Hollywood Hills. It should be a few weeks of drinking, watching old movies, and trying to forget the past. But, when Hardie arrives at the gig, he finds actress Lane Madden hiding in the house, raving about The Accident People, a mysterious group of killers who have Lane in their sights. What follows is a twisting, turning ride, filled with noir sensibilities and James Bond gadgets.

Duane Swierczynski should be a household name, no matter how difficult that name is to spell. Fun & Games is a thriller that earns the label on every page. This is a classic in the making; a "right man in the wrong place" story that easily stands up to the best in the field.

Swierczynski writes crisp prose that keeps the plot moving, yet he doesn't skimp on the character developement. Charlie Hardie is a well fleshed out, which is good, with Fun & Gams being the first in a trilogy. Lane Madden also has plenty of history, as do The Accident People themselves. Even the throwaway characters have depth.

I read this book in one day. It would have been in one sitting, but I haven't perfected the couch/toilet yet. The Accident People are a fascinating group, and it's nice to know that Swierczynski isn't finished with them. And They aren't finished with Charlie Hardie. I can't wait for the next in the series, Hell & Gone, which will be followed by the final book, Point & Shoot. If the last two books are even half as good as Fun & Games, they will still be twice as good as alot of what passes for thrillers nowadays.

If you are looking for a great story, with great characters, and fantastic writing, you can't go wrong with Fun & Games.

'Nids: Visiting The Drive-in, Without Leaving The Couch

Got your popcorn? Speaker hanging from the window? (This here is an old fashioned drive-in.) Girlfriend, or boyfriend, snuggled up close? Get ready, the movie is about to begin.

Ray Garton's 'Nids evokes all the great feelings of going to the drive-in and watching the latest creature feature to come out of La La Land. (Well, not ALL of the feelings, unless you can makeout and read a book at the same time.) Teenagers at Lovers' Lookout, explosions at a secret research facility, and giant spiders ripping through the population like a machete through a camp counselor, all scream "Let's go to the movies!"

I'm a huge fan of "animals killing/eating people" stories. And if it's GIANT animals, well, that's even better. And giant SPIDERS! I'd better have a sock handy. (Too much? Suck it up, this is my blog, and I'll be gross if I wanna.)

Garton is a great writer, who takes time to develop his characters, without slowing down the story. Too bad most of those characters ain't gonna make it. Still, Garton makes them real people, so that their deaths are real tragedies.

This is a bloodier, more sexual take on the great movies of a bygone day, like Earth vs The Spider and THEM!, a great romp of a story that should be read in 3D! The kind with the red and blue cardboard glasses, not the new-fangled plastic ones.

What I'm trying to say is, it's fun, it's gorey, it's a great read! Just make sure to wipe your fngers, after eating your popcorn; you don't want to get butter on the pages.