As a history enthusiast myself this information and the very odd, yet fascinating, version of history it presents is to much to pass up!
Guest blog post from Matthew Quinn of the wonderful blog The World According to Quinn, who is also the writer of many fine stories which may be found on Amazon, and should really be added to your Kindle!
----
From A New Look at Sokullu Mehmed Pasha, published at Miskatonic University.
The consensus of historians on the assassination of Grand Vizier Sokullu Mehmed Pasha on October 11, 1579 AD (or 20 Sha'ban 987 AH in the Islamic reckoning) is fairly well-known in our field. The Ottoman Sultan Murad III, alienated from the vizier who had served his father and grandfather so long and ably by his mother Narbanu Sultan and Venetian-born wife Safiye Sultan, took steps to reduce the vizier's influence on government. The vizier's allies were sent to faraway positions or assassinated. Ultimately, a mentally-unstable dervish talked his way into the vizier's office and stabbed him. This kind of intrigue was fairly common in the Ottoman Empire, especially during the period known as the Sultanate of Women.
However, some recent discoveries by Miskatonic University researchers of documents thought lost forever during the civil unrest that wracked Constantinople when the Janissaries were suppressed has shed new light on the circumstances of the vizier's assassination and an incident that took place in 1571.
These documents paint a far more sinister picture of the vizier. They include accusations of dealings with agents of Safavid Persia, with whom the vizier had counseled peace as opposed to the usual border wars, and even black magic. The documents accuse the vizier of, under the influence of an agent of Persian Shah Tahmasp I, acquiring a book of black magic from an Armenian merchant who had visited the long-vacant shrine of a corrupted Sufi order that had been destroyed by Turkish nomads not long before. The use of this book resulted in an incident in Constantinople that killed dozens of Ottoman soldiers, destroyed one war galley and forced the scuttling of a second, and caused significant damage to the Bayezit II mosque.
These accusations against Sokullu are not new, but have been long dismissed as the slanders from his political enemies. However, the mosque was damaged somehow, necessitating repairs by the famed Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan in 1573 and 1574. Furthermore, it is often said that converts make the best zealots. Safiye Sultan was a Catholic before she became a Muslim, while the most recent evidence suggests Narbanu was an Orthodox Greek from Corfu before her conversion. If Sokullu was involved in the dark arts, or was widely believed so, this could have provoked the ire of the Imperial women. They would not wish one so tainted to continue virtually ruling the Ottoman Empire in place of their son and husband. And the dervish orders might be willing to provide an assassin to dispose of the vizier, especially given his (tangential) connection to a Sufi order that had become warped by dark forces.
Of course, this is all just speculation. The documents describe how the soldiers killed in the incident were buried in a mass grave outside Constantinople that was given special attention by Muslim imams, Orthodox Christian priests, and even a Jewish rabbi, while the materials used by Sokullu in the incident were confiscated, burned, and abandoned in Persia. Should this mass grave or the dumping site be found, it would lend credence to the incident described in the documents.
So just why was the Grand Vizier assassinated, and is the author's theory about dark powers manifesting in Constantinople actually true? Read "The Beast of the Bosporus" on Amazon.com or on Smashwords to find out!
Friday, 8 March 2013
Sunday, 3 March 2013
The Wealth Gap and redefining Monopoly
The Video Shown Here which I reccomend people who read this short blurb watch, really illustrates the staggering wealth gap in American society, and I shudder to think how this would be applied in my own country on the same graph. Though for anyone interested a page here shows the distribution in Canada and a direct comparison to the US. Now for someone like me who has researched this issue it is not what I would call a huge surprise. However, what shocks me is the difference between how people seem to percieve the weatlh gap (which is still pretty unequal by our own collective admission apparently) to how different it actually is!
For those of you having seen the video it truly is staggering just how wrong the common perception seems to be.
Though what shocked me though is something that I suppose in hindsight ought not to have shocked me was this little nugget.
Yes according to this chart the top 1% of the nation owns fifty percent of stocks, bonds and mutual funds.
The idea of them owning more of the nations wealth than the other 80% is not surprising, even the idea of the top 1% owning 40% of the nations wealth didn't really shock me to learn. However, the knowledge that they own 50% (I'll say roughly for fairness sake) of the stock, bonds, and mutual funds is simply a staggering thing to learn. Think about that for a second, that means that only 1% of the country has a virtual monopoly on the stock market and control over its resources.
How that speaks to the way the market works, its faults, and where investment goes and how this invisible wealth is generated and spent I'll leave the reader to speculate on.
The fact remains however, that this gap in wealth, control of the market and industry, and depressingly, who gets their voice known in government (money speaks) shows just how much power, real tangible power, one group in society controls.
It is worth noting this and I would urge readers to really think about what this means for our economic and political system across the world.
For those of you having seen the video it truly is staggering just how wrong the common perception seems to be.
Though what shocked me though is something that I suppose in hindsight ought not to have shocked me was this little nugget.
Yes according to this chart the top 1% of the nation owns fifty percent of stocks, bonds and mutual funds.
The idea of them owning more of the nations wealth than the other 80% is not surprising, even the idea of the top 1% owning 40% of the nations wealth didn't really shock me to learn. However, the knowledge that they own 50% (I'll say roughly for fairness sake) of the stock, bonds, and mutual funds is simply a staggering thing to learn. Think about that for a second, that means that only 1% of the country has a virtual monopoly on the stock market and control over its resources.
How that speaks to the way the market works, its faults, and where investment goes and how this invisible wealth is generated and spent I'll leave the reader to speculate on.
The fact remains however, that this gap in wealth, control of the market and industry, and depressingly, who gets their voice known in government (money speaks) shows just how much power, real tangible power, one group in society controls.
It is worth noting this and I would urge readers to really think about what this means for our economic and political system across the world.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Spots the Space Marine
Well readers it seems a large company have once again embarrased themselves over a ridiculous issue. I can't even begin to comprehend why they would have chosen this issue to embarass themselves over! What am I talking about you ask? Why the Games Workshop Space Marine controversy!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003
Now for those of you who haven't heard about the controversy (or didn't want to read the article) it boils down to this. Spots the Space Marine is an Amazon Novella written by author M.C.A Hogarth. The story is set in the future where humanity has allied with an alien race engaged in a brutal war with another expansionist race of aliens. The titular character is a space marine who is taking part in the fight against these aliens.
As an aside I've now purchased the novella and I have to say it's written in an interesting format which flows very well and since it's already in partial script format it would transfer easily to television or film. I highly reccomend readers look it up.
http://www.amazon.com/Spots-Space-Marine-Defense-ebook/dp/B006MGJYOE
In line with the rest of the article however, it gets weird. UK based Games Workshop sent a legal application for the book to be taken off Amazon because 'the book infringed on their trademark'. Now Amazon of course took the book down, but this understandbly upset the author, who posted about it and from there the story spread.
It garnered attention from other bloggers, authors, and members of the science fiction community who rightly called it 'absurd' and demanded the legal action be called off. In turn this prompted massive backlash from many of Games Workshops's own supporters and Warhammer players who launched a campaign of their own speaking out against the ridiculous action.
In response Games Workshop released a statement (which due to events I do not have a copy of, more on that in a second however) and have said:
"The law requires us to protect our trademarks in certain ways – and if we do not – we might lose them. As you can imagine, we do not want to lose our trademarks as we would no longer be able to create the great miniatures and tabletop hobby wargames that we pride ourselves on!"
Now let me just say something here, the idea of trademarking the term 'space marine' which has been around since 1932 is ridiculous. It would be like trademarking the word 'drone' or the name 'Enterprise' for a ship. However, Games Workshop has claimed that the loss of being able enforce a tradmark on the term would somehow cause a loss in their revenues or sales to their tabletop games. One of their biggest reasons for cracking down on the term was because of their recent forays into paperback publishing with Warhammer 40k fiction which can be found in the Black Library and much of that fiction has of course featured the ever popular space marine chapters of the Warhammer 40k universe.
However, the thought that someone else using the term space marine in an independent setting will somehow detract from the international sales of these books is absurd. In fact many of Games Workshop's own fans saw through this thinly veiled bully attempt and called them out on it, which lead to the Facebook page for Games Workshop on Facebook being taken down, as mentioned earlier.
Now when you upset your own fans that much you know you have made a mistake. As of time of writing no further legal action has been taken against Hogarth and Spots the Space Marine is back up for sale on Amazon. How Games Workshop will deal with the fallout among their consumer base and supporters remains to be seen, but hopefully they can manage it with grace and dignity.
As a final aside I would normally defend an author or companies intellectual copyright or trademarks, in this case however (just as with the case of DC and Marvel owning the word 'superhero') I do not support it. The idea that you can own a common phrase or word in the English language just because it ties into your franchise is absurd, it would be like Tolkien claiming he owned the term hobbit or halfing, or J.K. Rowling saying she owned the word 'muggle'. This is a case of legal overstretch and murkey copyright laws as they attempt to gain dominance over a subject, but thus far from lack of support and outspoken disagreement they have not been able obtain it.
I would encourage readers to use space marine as much as they please in their own stories or events and to always remember that free press and expression is important, and we can't let people pick and choose what words they want to trademark.
Space Marines forever readers!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003
Now for those of you who haven't heard about the controversy (or didn't want to read the article) it boils down to this. Spots the Space Marine is an Amazon Novella written by author M.C.A Hogarth. The story is set in the future where humanity has allied with an alien race engaged in a brutal war with another expansionist race of aliens. The titular character is a space marine who is taking part in the fight against these aliens.
As an aside I've now purchased the novella and I have to say it's written in an interesting format which flows very well and since it's already in partial script format it would transfer easily to television or film. I highly reccomend readers look it up.
http://www.amazon.com/Spots-Space-Marine-Defense-ebook/dp/B006MGJYOE
In line with the rest of the article however, it gets weird. UK based Games Workshop sent a legal application for the book to be taken off Amazon because 'the book infringed on their trademark'. Now Amazon of course took the book down, but this understandbly upset the author, who posted about it and from there the story spread.
It garnered attention from other bloggers, authors, and members of the science fiction community who rightly called it 'absurd' and demanded the legal action be called off. In turn this prompted massive backlash from many of Games Workshops's own supporters and Warhammer players who launched a campaign of their own speaking out against the ridiculous action.
In response Games Workshop released a statement (which due to events I do not have a copy of, more on that in a second however) and have said:
"The law requires us to protect our trademarks in certain ways – and if we do not – we might lose them. As you can imagine, we do not want to lose our trademarks as we would no longer be able to create the great miniatures and tabletop hobby wargames that we pride ourselves on!"
Now let me just say something here, the idea of trademarking the term 'space marine' which has been around since 1932 is ridiculous. It would be like trademarking the word 'drone' or the name 'Enterprise' for a ship. However, Games Workshop has claimed that the loss of being able enforce a tradmark on the term would somehow cause a loss in their revenues or sales to their tabletop games. One of their biggest reasons for cracking down on the term was because of their recent forays into paperback publishing with Warhammer 40k fiction which can be found in the Black Library and much of that fiction has of course featured the ever popular space marine chapters of the Warhammer 40k universe.
 |
| Or video game series with the 40k logo |
However, the thought that someone else using the term space marine in an independent setting will somehow detract from the international sales of these books is absurd. In fact many of Games Workshop's own fans saw through this thinly veiled bully attempt and called them out on it, which lead to the Facebook page for Games Workshop on Facebook being taken down, as mentioned earlier.
Now when you upset your own fans that much you know you have made a mistake. As of time of writing no further legal action has been taken against Hogarth and Spots the Space Marine is back up for sale on Amazon. How Games Workshop will deal with the fallout among their consumer base and supporters remains to be seen, but hopefully they can manage it with grace and dignity.
As a final aside I would normally defend an author or companies intellectual copyright or trademarks, in this case however (just as with the case of DC and Marvel owning the word 'superhero') I do not support it. The idea that you can own a common phrase or word in the English language just because it ties into your franchise is absurd, it would be like Tolkien claiming he owned the term hobbit or halfing, or J.K. Rowling saying she owned the word 'muggle'. This is a case of legal overstretch and murkey copyright laws as they attempt to gain dominance over a subject, but thus far from lack of support and outspoken disagreement they have not been able obtain it.
I would encourage readers to use space marine as much as they please in their own stories or events and to always remember that free press and expression is important, and we can't let people pick and choose what words they want to trademark.
Space Marines forever readers!
Monday, 11 February 2013
The Undead Menace
Ah readers, this subject always warms my still beating heart. The undead have always held a special place for me in literature and filmography. Zombies in fact are among some of my favorite things to read/write about. Although I've longed to jump on the recent zombie craze I simply haven't found enough to write about with them, or a story that has really stuck with me. Sadly this is something I shall then have to leave for another time.
However, zombies are not the only creatures that inhabit the shadow halls of the necropolis in which dwell the various monsters that we can count among the legions of the damned.
For a better look at these creatures my task here today is to list them off and examine just what kind of horrors they could unleash upon mankind.
First off let us begin by examining probably one of the oldest and most time honored variaties of the undead around, ghosts!
1# Ghosts
Now I can just hear some of you saying 'Wait! Ghosts aren't the undead!' to which I say, wrong! Ghosts are the spirits of people who have passed on (that is to say deceased)(which is to say, dead) and have returned to haunt the living. If that isn't undead in one form I'll eat my hat!
The ghost has been a popular image and idea dating back for as long as humanity can collectively remember. Evil spirits coming back and haunting the living is no new tale. The ancient Romans even believed you could exact revenge on someone using a ghost by scratching a name onto a note and leaving it on a grave!
Soothsayers and seers have used (or 'used' as the case my be) ghosts to try and predict the future or answer questions for millenia, dating back even to Biblical tales! This idea has persisted up until the 21st century and shows no sign of abating yet among the populace who hungrily seek answers to unaswered questions.
Now for horror purposes ghosts continue to be popular. The souls of the damned coming to haunt people or give warnings (as in the movie Shutter) and they hold a special niche in horror movies as monsters and villains like in The Woman in Black and ghosts certainly hold a special place in Gothic horror simply for its emphasis on curses and mysteries. Well nothing is more gut wrenching or mysterious than trying to unravel the mystery of a cursed house while the formed occupant is trying to kill you!
I myself am not particularly fond of ghosts, but I do get a kick out of ghost stories and the telling of them in the dark. I will also admit that I can enjoy scaring myself with them from time to time. It's a fun passtime, but one that I ultimately don't intend to do much with.
However, we have another type of undead which is also surprisingly common around the world, and has its own mix of legends and tales in different cultures. That my dear readers is, the vampire!
#2 Vampires
As pointed out above, the creatures that are seen in Twilight are absolutely not vampires. They are at best creatures which could conceivably resemble, or share certain traits with these undead creatures, but they are not vampires. While they may have some features which in other works might be considered cool, they themselves are bland, unexciting, and terrible.
Ahem, end rant.
Real vampires are bloodsucking creatures of the night which feast upon the blood of the living. These range from being cursed creatures, biological infections, demonic powers, or descendents of Lilith. Either way no matter how you slice them these monsters are strong, fast, and drink lots of red stuff.
Going back in time we have tales of blood drinking monsters in every culture. They took many shapes and many forms, but all were known to drink blood, be hideous, horrifying and undead.
In fact superstition about vampires continued well into the 18th and early 19th century with many villages in Eastern Europe going on a frenzy of stakings bu digging up bodies and running them through with iron rods after reports of people rising from the grave. The hysteria came to such a height that the court physician of the Austrian Empire had to personally go to the countryside to prove that vampires did not exist.
However, the idea that vampires still stock the night continues to be very real in some people's minds. For instance there was the Highgate hysteria surrounding a supposed vampire stalking the cemetery, then we have the disturbing case of the Atlas Vampire, and finally the somehwhat perplexing case of the 2007 staking of the former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. As one can see, the vampire tradition is alive and well today.
The more modern suave and sexy vampire is a very recent creation. Popularized more by Bram Stoker and before him, Varney the Vampire the standard setter for the genre. However, Stoker's creepy count's castle set the standard for what vampires were for nearly a century. The dark dangerous Dracula would appear in many forms and many realizations beoming the standard for what we now view as the modern vampire.
There are of course departures. Modern takes on vampire literature move it from being some magical curse into the realm of biological virus unleashed on an unsuspecting human populace. From the monstrous and disturbing vampires of The Strain to the military supermen gone wrong monsters in Justin Cronan's The Passage.
In film we also get the lovely monsters of ambiguous nature from 30 Days of Night which have a truly brilliant scheme to run around and kill people in a locale they cannot escape from!
Vampires of course offer the writer a wide variety of possibilities that a writer can use, and with a little imagination can be made to be completely the writers own creation for his particular story!
Now on to a somewhat familiar, yet startilingly different creature.
#3 Ghouls
Now I hear some saying 'wait, aren't ghouls zombies?' well no actually. Ghouls are an entirely different creature despite what some media would have you believe.
The Ghoul as we would know it is very different from the original ghoul of Arabian folklore. Originally sired by Iblis (or Shaytan) they are demons and shapeshifters who most popularly take the form of hyenas and scour the deserts for the lost and unwary. They can take human form, but only that of a person they had eaten, or the most recent eaten depending on your views on the subject.
They would often roam graveyards or battlefields and feed like the carrion and take the form of the dead to then steal from the families of the living, or worse, carry off their children and eat them!!! Truly they were despicable creatures in folk tales.
As the picture above shows their reputation has not improved at all with modern retellings. In fact they have probably gotten worse! From mindless monsters roaming graveyards and sniffing out fresh corpses like human vultures, to mindless cannibal savages under the control of necromancers or simply radioactive monsters they've continued to get a bad wrap.
My favorite portrayals of them are from Fallout as the aforemention irradiated monsters, while some are civilized many are just slavering fiends. They make fun enemies and in certain situations they can be downright terrifying!
Many authors though take them and twist them in their own unique ways, I for one experimented with them in a never finished manuscript by having them as cursed magic users who were forced to sew fresh skin onto their own as they continued to have their bodies rot away. Many other writers have of course taken fascinating looks at what the ghouls can do and it is amazing what some people come up with!
Next on our list comes from a similar region, but with different ideas and abilities.
#4 Mummies
Ever since Howard Carter fell prey to the so-called 'Mummies Curse' after opening Tutankhamun's tomb people have been fascinated by these particular undead monsters. From shoddy horror movies early on to later magical and sorcerous rulers brought back from beyond the grave!
Personally I always preffered the films that came later. They gave more depth and imagination to the mummy monster and made it much more terrifying and have better attitude. It also wasn't a shambling corpse in bandages that I could have easily escaped from. Though the curse would have been slightly more problematic if it existed...
Aside from that the movies expanded on not only the Egyptian mummy idea, but also on the idea of mummies from other cultures, most notably the shape shifting former Chinese ruler from the Tomb of the Dragon Emperor who could summon an army of undead warriors and turn into a dragon! Now that my friends is a mummy!
Not well used in modern horror circles, they seem to have tappered off from the modern concious and been swept away by the cheap vampire and zombie tides. Even so you'll be hard pressed to find a good representation of mummies in most modern horror. I myself am hoping for a resurgence in the genre, but it may be a forlorn hope.
However, that is only the tip of the iceberg my friends! We have mummies from different cultures all over the world! From South America to Europe! Heck what I wouldn't give to see a story about a Viking chieftan and his followers rise from the grave! The potential for mummies has not yet been fully tapped!
In fact for a horror story I might just have to make my own mummy tale one day. It could take place anywhere and at any time! It would be a fascinating thing to dream up some more modern mummy tales of horror and see where it could go! Though for now I guess any details would have to be under wraps!
Now while I dodge boo's and thrown tomatoes I'll bring up the next itme. Next up on our list is another creature who has risen from the dead.
#5 Liches
Ah Liches, undead sorcerors who have returned from the dead sorcerous powers intact! I can't believe these aren't used as villains more often! Hard to kill like vampires, yet powerful in the arcane arts! What more could you ask for?
Popularized by Dungeons and Dragons, but then picked up by modern media from Warcraft and other videogames they have become a very modern version of the undead and arguably some of the most powerful!
Personally my favorite liche comes from the webcomic Looking for Group with the evil warlock, Richard. The fire spewing undead hilariously evil magic wielder is about enough to melt my heart on a regular basis.
Though beyond that we also get the powerful undead sorcerors from Warhammer in the form of Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts. I've currently been reading some of the Rise of Nagash novels, and if there was ever a better argument for necromancy using villains, I've yet to come upon one.
As a quick note necromancers will not be discussed in this article, as it is living wizards using magic to summon many undead minions. Liche's are different since they don't have to be necromancers (but it helps).
#6 Skeletons.
No necromancy but might as well talk about skeletons. Whats that? A faint shuffling sound down my hallway? Raggedy bones slowly shuffling forwards? Oh no what do I do!?
*Picks up chair and hurls it*
Oh thankfully it was smashed by that well placed object!
What? Unless skeletons get some substantial help from an outside source they're creep, but pretty useless. I'm just throwing you a bone here, what more do you want from me?
#7 Zombies
Ah finally! The masterpiece of modern undead, the slouching monsters that shamble into our nightmares and devour our dreams, (and sometimes our livers) the zombie!
Ah zombies! Since I've been a wee lad these shambling nightmares have been stumbling through my dreams and into my subconcious. What used to give me nightmares now nourishes the inner writer and lover of the macabre in me! From when I first saw them in the Resident Evil games (the originals and the REmake) I was fascinated by them.
These shuffling corpses have wormed their way into the public mind and infected our literature, our video games and finally major television networks! Ever since their big break in Night of the Living Dead by one George A. Romero they have steadily become cult and popular classics!
Don't think for a second however that zombies started there! They were actually popular waaaay back into the 1930s! They were featured in films like the famous White Zombie which prayed on both the fear of the unknown, and racist fears of things like vodoo and black magic still common at the time. This spawned many movies which would continue the zombie theme, but we can today thank Romero for the cult inspired monsters that have shambled their way into the public conciousness.
They come in many forms, from reanimated servants, to shuffling cannibals, and full tilt sprinting runners who tear apart modern societies, even demon possessed monsters from Hell!
In literature they have a plethora of works to chose from, from Lovecraft's Reanimator to Max Brooks World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide! There truly are so many choices!
Personally I cannot say enough about zombies! And all my gushing for their brain eating wonder could not be contained to a single list about the undead! So for now I leave you with this list of the monstrous undead, their threat and the truly diverse forms of horror they come in!
So here, after quite a while, is my humble ode to the undead, may they not eat my brains!
However, zombies are not the only creatures that inhabit the shadow halls of the necropolis in which dwell the various monsters that we can count among the legions of the damned.
For a better look at these creatures my task here today is to list them off and examine just what kind of horrors they could unleash upon mankind.
First off let us begin by examining probably one of the oldest and most time honored variaties of the undead around, ghosts!
1# Ghosts
Now I can just hear some of you saying 'Wait! Ghosts aren't the undead!' to which I say, wrong! Ghosts are the spirits of people who have passed on (that is to say deceased)(which is to say, dead) and have returned to haunt the living. If that isn't undead in one form I'll eat my hat!
The ghost has been a popular image and idea dating back for as long as humanity can collectively remember. Evil spirits coming back and haunting the living is no new tale. The ancient Romans even believed you could exact revenge on someone using a ghost by scratching a name onto a note and leaving it on a grave!
Soothsayers and seers have used (or 'used' as the case my be) ghosts to try and predict the future or answer questions for millenia, dating back even to Biblical tales! This idea has persisted up until the 21st century and shows no sign of abating yet among the populace who hungrily seek answers to unaswered questions.
Now for horror purposes ghosts continue to be popular. The souls of the damned coming to haunt people or give warnings (as in the movie Shutter) and they hold a special niche in horror movies as monsters and villains like in The Woman in Black and ghosts certainly hold a special place in Gothic horror simply for its emphasis on curses and mysteries. Well nothing is more gut wrenching or mysterious than trying to unravel the mystery of a cursed house while the formed occupant is trying to kill you!
I myself am not particularly fond of ghosts, but I do get a kick out of ghost stories and the telling of them in the dark. I will also admit that I can enjoy scaring myself with them from time to time. It's a fun passtime, but one that I ultimately don't intend to do much with.
However, we have another type of undead which is also surprisingly common around the world, and has its own mix of legends and tales in different cultures. That my dear readers is, the vampire!
#2 Vampires
As pointed out above, the creatures that are seen in Twilight are absolutely not vampires. They are at best creatures which could conceivably resemble, or share certain traits with these undead creatures, but they are not vampires. While they may have some features which in other works might be considered cool, they themselves are bland, unexciting, and terrible.
Ahem, end rant.
Real vampires are bloodsucking creatures of the night which feast upon the blood of the living. These range from being cursed creatures, biological infections, demonic powers, or descendents of Lilith. Either way no matter how you slice them these monsters are strong, fast, and drink lots of red stuff.
Going back in time we have tales of blood drinking monsters in every culture. They took many shapes and many forms, but all were known to drink blood, be hideous, horrifying and undead.
In fact superstition about vampires continued well into the 18th and early 19th century with many villages in Eastern Europe going on a frenzy of stakings bu digging up bodies and running them through with iron rods after reports of people rising from the grave. The hysteria came to such a height that the court physician of the Austrian Empire had to personally go to the countryside to prove that vampires did not exist.
However, the idea that vampires still stock the night continues to be very real in some people's minds. For instance there was the Highgate hysteria surrounding a supposed vampire stalking the cemetery, then we have the disturbing case of the Atlas Vampire, and finally the somehwhat perplexing case of the 2007 staking of the former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. As one can see, the vampire tradition is alive and well today.
The more modern suave and sexy vampire is a very recent creation. Popularized more by Bram Stoker and before him, Varney the Vampire the standard setter for the genre. However, Stoker's creepy count's castle set the standard for what vampires were for nearly a century. The dark dangerous Dracula would appear in many forms and many realizations beoming the standard for what we now view as the modern vampire.
There are of course departures. Modern takes on vampire literature move it from being some magical curse into the realm of biological virus unleashed on an unsuspecting human populace. From the monstrous and disturbing vampires of The Strain to the military supermen gone wrong monsters in Justin Cronan's The Passage.
In film we also get the lovely monsters of ambiguous nature from 30 Days of Night which have a truly brilliant scheme to run around and kill people in a locale they cannot escape from!
Vampires of course offer the writer a wide variety of possibilities that a writer can use, and with a little imagination can be made to be completely the writers own creation for his particular story!
Now on to a somewhat familiar, yet startilingly different creature.
#3 Ghouls
Now I hear some saying 'wait, aren't ghouls zombies?' well no actually. Ghouls are an entirely different creature despite what some media would have you believe.
They would often roam graveyards or battlefields and feed like the carrion and take the form of the dead to then steal from the families of the living, or worse, carry off their children and eat them!!! Truly they were despicable creatures in folk tales.
As the picture above shows their reputation has not improved at all with modern retellings. In fact they have probably gotten worse! From mindless monsters roaming graveyards and sniffing out fresh corpses like human vultures, to mindless cannibal savages under the control of necromancers or simply radioactive monsters they've continued to get a bad wrap.
My favorite portrayals of them are from Fallout as the aforemention irradiated monsters, while some are civilized many are just slavering fiends. They make fun enemies and in certain situations they can be downright terrifying!
Many authors though take them and twist them in their own unique ways, I for one experimented with them in a never finished manuscript by having them as cursed magic users who were forced to sew fresh skin onto their own as they continued to have their bodies rot away. Many other writers have of course taken fascinating looks at what the ghouls can do and it is amazing what some people come up with!
Next on our list comes from a similar region, but with different ideas and abilities.
#4 Mummies
Ever since Howard Carter fell prey to the so-called 'Mummies Curse' after opening Tutankhamun's tomb people have been fascinated by these particular undead monsters. From shoddy horror movies early on to later magical and sorcerous rulers brought back from beyond the grave!
 |
| As you can tell I prefer this version |
Aside from that the movies expanded on not only the Egyptian mummy idea, but also on the idea of mummies from other cultures, most notably the shape shifting former Chinese ruler from the Tomb of the Dragon Emperor who could summon an army of undead warriors and turn into a dragon! Now that my friends is a mummy!
Not well used in modern horror circles, they seem to have tappered off from the modern concious and been swept away by the cheap vampire and zombie tides. Even so you'll be hard pressed to find a good representation of mummies in most modern horror. I myself am hoping for a resurgence in the genre, but it may be a forlorn hope.
However, that is only the tip of the iceberg my friends! We have mummies from different cultures all over the world! From South America to Europe! Heck what I wouldn't give to see a story about a Viking chieftan and his followers rise from the grave! The potential for mummies has not yet been fully tapped!
In fact for a horror story I might just have to make my own mummy tale one day. It could take place anywhere and at any time! It would be a fascinating thing to dream up some more modern mummy tales of horror and see where it could go! Though for now I guess any details would have to be under wraps!
Now while I dodge boo's and thrown tomatoes I'll bring up the next itme. Next up on our list is another creature who has risen from the dead.
#5 Liches
Ah Liches, undead sorcerors who have returned from the dead sorcerous powers intact! I can't believe these aren't used as villains more often! Hard to kill like vampires, yet powerful in the arcane arts! What more could you ask for?
Popularized by Dungeons and Dragons, but then picked up by modern media from Warcraft and other videogames they have become a very modern version of the undead and arguably some of the most powerful!
Personally my favorite liche comes from the webcomic Looking for Group with the evil warlock, Richard. The fire spewing undead hilariously evil magic wielder is about enough to melt my heart on a regular basis.
Though beyond that we also get the powerful undead sorcerors from Warhammer in the form of Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts. I've currently been reading some of the Rise of Nagash novels, and if there was ever a better argument for necromancy using villains, I've yet to come upon one.
As a quick note necromancers will not be discussed in this article, as it is living wizards using magic to summon many undead minions. Liche's are different since they don't have to be necromancers (but it helps).
#6 Skeletons.
No necromancy but might as well talk about skeletons. Whats that? A faint shuffling sound down my hallway? Raggedy bones slowly shuffling forwards? Oh no what do I do!?
*Picks up chair and hurls it*
Oh thankfully it was smashed by that well placed object!
#7 Zombies
Ah finally! The masterpiece of modern undead, the slouching monsters that shamble into our nightmares and devour our dreams, (and sometimes our livers) the zombie!
Ah zombies! Since I've been a wee lad these shambling nightmares have been stumbling through my dreams and into my subconcious. What used to give me nightmares now nourishes the inner writer and lover of the macabre in me! From when I first saw them in the Resident Evil games (the originals and the REmake) I was fascinated by them.
These shuffling corpses have wormed their way into the public mind and infected our literature, our video games and finally major television networks! Ever since their big break in Night of the Living Dead by one George A. Romero they have steadily become cult and popular classics!
Don't think for a second however that zombies started there! They were actually popular waaaay back into the 1930s! They were featured in films like the famous White Zombie which prayed on both the fear of the unknown, and racist fears of things like vodoo and black magic still common at the time. This spawned many movies which would continue the zombie theme, but we can today thank Romero for the cult inspired monsters that have shambled their way into the public conciousness.
They come in many forms, from reanimated servants, to shuffling cannibals, and full tilt sprinting runners who tear apart modern societies, even demon possessed monsters from Hell!
In literature they have a plethora of works to chose from, from Lovecraft's Reanimator to Max Brooks World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide! There truly are so many choices!
Personally I cannot say enough about zombies! And all my gushing for their brain eating wonder could not be contained to a single list about the undead! So for now I leave you with this list of the monstrous undead, their threat and the truly diverse forms of horror they come in!
So here, after quite a while, is my humble ode to the undead, may they not eat my brains!
Monday, 28 January 2013
An Addendum: On Gun Control
I know I've promised my readers here an article on the undead menace (don't worry it's coming) but recent readings and conversations have sparked the necessity of this addendum to my recent article on gun control. Part of it has been from the peculiar American reaction to the idea of a registry and part has been to criticism on how I myself did the article.
First off, I do not blame the United States for gun crime in Canada, I am fully aware that criminals will get access to guns somehow if they are sincerely determined. I am also fully aware just how large the border between our two nations is and just how difficult policing that border is on a regular basis. To clarify, I lay the access of easily obtainable firearms that avoid registration and legal checks on gun merchants operating inside the United States who can (and do) sell firearms to people who are less than angels. That these firearms then find there way to murder scenes in my own country is no one's surprise. My criticism is that by avoiding any sort of national gun registry or system of background checks it is all to easy to for criminals to buy a weapon and then send it across the border to Canada or Mexico. My charge is that this lack of standards merely enable simpler access to firearms for criminals on both a national and an international level in North America.
Secondly I am aware of how controversial the title 'Gun Control' is. However, I do see it as more than a registration of who owns a fire arm and maintain that the system that would be put in place is one which would seek to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of certain individuals who have criminal backgrounds or those who suffer from a mental disorder. To say that this is trying to keep weapons out of the hands of law abiding citiznes is pure madness.
Thirdly I make no apologies for wishing to see the access to semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines limited. Nor do I apologize for wishing to see access to military equipment restricted. As I have said, there is no plausible reason that these weapons could be needed in the hands of the average civilian.
However, to counter points by both members of the right, and members of the revolutionary left I add this. There is no chance of a revolution in the First World at any point in the coneceivable future, and barring events of unprecedented cataclysm or political upheaval, there will not be any scenario where forming militia groups would be necessary. The governments of the First World may be outdated and prone to crony capitalism, but there is nothing which would prevent a concentrated effort of the people from dramatically upseting the political balance of any nation in the First World. There is no tyrannical agency that seeks to stop political change and stifle free press. The multifaceted nature of modern politics, information transfer, and ideas merely acts as a natural buffer to all but the most wealthy of idealogues.
I would go into points on the futility of a modern insurgency inside the First World and how the majority of us who inhabit it want no part in organized violence against state actors in our own nations or against our fellow citizens, but that may be for another time, perhaps never. The modern age provides many examples and assets for conducting a peaceful and non-violent revolution.
This my friends is hopefully my final word on the gun control issue for some time.
First off, I do not blame the United States for gun crime in Canada, I am fully aware that criminals will get access to guns somehow if they are sincerely determined. I am also fully aware just how large the border between our two nations is and just how difficult policing that border is on a regular basis. To clarify, I lay the access of easily obtainable firearms that avoid registration and legal checks on gun merchants operating inside the United States who can (and do) sell firearms to people who are less than angels. That these firearms then find there way to murder scenes in my own country is no one's surprise. My criticism is that by avoiding any sort of national gun registry or system of background checks it is all to easy to for criminals to buy a weapon and then send it across the border to Canada or Mexico. My charge is that this lack of standards merely enable simpler access to firearms for criminals on both a national and an international level in North America.
Secondly I am aware of how controversial the title 'Gun Control' is. However, I do see it as more than a registration of who owns a fire arm and maintain that the system that would be put in place is one which would seek to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of certain individuals who have criminal backgrounds or those who suffer from a mental disorder. To say that this is trying to keep weapons out of the hands of law abiding citiznes is pure madness.
Thirdly I make no apologies for wishing to see the access to semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines limited. Nor do I apologize for wishing to see access to military equipment restricted. As I have said, there is no plausible reason that these weapons could be needed in the hands of the average civilian.
However, to counter points by both members of the right, and members of the revolutionary left I add this. There is no chance of a revolution in the First World at any point in the coneceivable future, and barring events of unprecedented cataclysm or political upheaval, there will not be any scenario where forming militia groups would be necessary. The governments of the First World may be outdated and prone to crony capitalism, but there is nothing which would prevent a concentrated effort of the people from dramatically upseting the political balance of any nation in the First World. There is no tyrannical agency that seeks to stop political change and stifle free press. The multifaceted nature of modern politics, information transfer, and ideas merely acts as a natural buffer to all but the most wealthy of idealogues.
I would go into points on the futility of a modern insurgency inside the First World and how the majority of us who inhabit it want no part in organized violence against state actors in our own nations or against our fellow citizens, but that may be for another time, perhaps never. The modern age provides many examples and assets for conducting a peaceful and non-violent revolution.
This my friends is hopefully my final word on the gun control issue for some time.
Friday, 18 January 2013
On Gun Control
Well as promised in my general post I now come to the second piece of writing for the new year. That is of course something which follows up on another devastating tragedy, this time in the US where twenty-seven people were murdered in an outrageous shooting spree. The greater tragedy still is that many of these were children, young children barely above the age of six. Now while this is a tragedy this has predictably sparked yet another round of debate in the US about gun control.
In the right corner we have those who support the 2nd Ammendment (supposedly) and balk at any idea of gun control or regulation and insist on having the right to be armed at all times whenever and wherever they please.
In the left corner we have those who support the sweeping acts to be carried out by President Obama and wish for tighter regulation, even going so far as to enforce a national gun registry. Then there are those who wish to make many firearms illegal and even some who advocate UK style bans.
Now I myself have spoken on this issue at great length on previous occassions. Here though I will basically be stating my frank opinion of the idea of gun control and it's effects.
Like I've stated previously, I have no problem with the idea of gun control, zip, zero, nada. I think that a government must be able to regulate the type of weaponry that is available to its citizens, and how they can legally go about obtaining these weapons. Mind you most of the weapons I would restrict fall under the category of military grade weapons. For example here is what I see as a reasonable restriction on what a person can own.
No person should be able to own:
Does any of this seem unreasonable? I personally do not think so. There are so few reasons people would need any of these items in their daily lives it boggles my mind to think people actively want to collect and maintain literal arsenals of deadly hardware. I've heard people describe them as tools, like hammers, but machine guns (unlike hammers) have the express purpose of killing people. That is not a tool that can be left unregulated.
The government should be able to ask a person for registration, permit, and license for a firearm that they own, and a person failing to provide such a permit should be able to have that firearm confiscated. I believe it is privilege for people to own weapons, not a right. A state must have the ability to be able to insert itself into a situation and not have it's own agents (such as police) outgunned by potential criminals, or in some cases would be 'patriots' who think they know better.
Now that being said I recognize that governemnts are not the perfect saintly figures in authority who know everything, hence why I believe that people have at least the right to the privilege of bearing arms. This means people may own weapons for self-defence, but this is a priviledge enshrined in law which can be taken away should it be abused. However, it is important to note I believe it is a privilege that someone is given by both the government and the governed in the trust they will use that firearm properly. If they abuse that privilege they will have it taken away. I believe in punishing an individual for his act and not a group as a whole. Furthermore if citizens come to the conclusion that certain types of weapons should be allowed to the public (eg specific calibres (below something as destructive as .50) of ammunition) then they should have the right to vote on such a thing. I believe that it is the people's responsibility to be aware of what is going on and if they feel a certain item is not dangerous (and vice versa) then they should be able to openly petition the government for laws and restrictions to be changed.
However, I also believe in direct democracy and as such currently view most governments as being primitive in the terms of technological progress today, so many of my ideas seem to be more difficult when placed in the sphere of current democratic forms.
However in the vein of governments, I do think that if a citizen is unwilling to pass a competency test with a firearm, get a license for that firearm, register that firearm with authorities, and renew his competency test every five or so years, then I do not think they are entitled to own it.
Though here I have to say one thing, many opponents of gun control who hear the words immediately hear the words 'gun confiscation' and scream bloody murder. Though might I add many of these also hear the words socialism and think communism and scream bloody murder.
They picture this weird image:
Yet they never consider this tragically true one:
The idea that more guns simply make society more dangerous and making them easily accessable merely helps criminals and delinquents seems foreign to them.
To add something from the most recent tragedy: the strict gun control laws in Conneticut worked and Adam Lanza was turned down from legally purchasing a firearm because of mental health issues, however he obtained his mother's semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle and two pistols which were unsecured in her home and he had easy access to. Had this not been the case then it is certainly probable that Mr. Lanza never would have been able to carry out his shooting. The simple fact is that Conneticut's restrictive gun laws prevented Lanza from obtaining a weapon on his own, but the lack of any regulation requiring his mother to safely secure her own weapons allowed him access to them, and the end result was tragedy.
Had any such restrictions and laws been in place it is conceivable Lanza would not have been able to carry out this attack. However, as I have conceeded before, if Lanza was indeed determined to carry out this attack he most likely would have found a way to either a) legally obtain a weapon from another state or b) buy one on the black market.
I personally believe that the attack shows signs of being premeditated, but the weapons he ended up using were from convenience.
The fact is that unsafe weapons storage is to blame for this tragedy, not any failure of gun control laws and regulations. Does this mean I think weapons should be taken from all law-abiding citizens? No. Does this mean I think that there must be rules and regulations in place on who can buy weapons and how they should be stored? Of course! Depriving a responsible citizen of their weapons makes no sense to me, but the emphasis is on responsible. If a citizen is not going to use their weapon responsibly or be secretive about his aquisition of said weapon he has no business owning it.
However as others have pointed out there are a myriad of problems that must also be addressed before any sort of gun regulation can be implimented in America. States need to actually help inforce federal laws, make an effort to take a stand on closing ridiculous loopholes, and have a national consensus on why they are doing it. Simultaneously background checks and mental health regulations need to be enforced and actual mental health care needs to be accessable. Many of these people are legitimately sick and perhaps, just maybe, if they could get reasonable care they might be disuaded from acting upon their homicidal urges.
Speaking though as a foreigner and someone who lives in a nation with very little gun crime (and a fairly low violent crime rate in general) I am baffled by the nature of American views on weapons. I cannot understand how the right to own deadly weapons is not better regulated or its laws enforced. Cultural attitudes are different and important I understand, but many of the most rabid gun-nuts seem to sincerely believe that the idea of regulation and registry will lead to an outright ban. Speaking as one who lives in a country with some fairly strict gun laws and a registry, we haven't had our rights taken away, our guns aren't being confiscated, and if I so chose (which I probably will someday) I may go and purchase a weapon and have it in my house. Under careful lock and key of course.
The fact is that most of our gun problems are small, and can be pinned directly on the United States. Gangs operating in the cities will frequently simply cross the border and legally (or otherwise) obtain weapons from legitimate firearms dealers, or other gangs who are willing to sell to them. Stopping gun smuggling is actually a big concern of law enforcement here, and it's one we could probably see do much better if the US were willing to enact some substantial legislation of its own. Now that's not to say that if all the guns in the US suddenly disapeared Canada would have no gun crime (although it would drop ridiculously) I do maintain that Canada will have issues with certain weapons (mostly handguns) as long as standards south of the border are lax and allow an easy transfer of illegal weapons north.
I believe that gun control and regulation is important, and essential part of any safe society. I agree that being armed can be a good thing, but that those arms without responsibility and regulation will not protect you.
Those are my two cents for now dear readers, and I hope it's been worthwhile for you.
In the right corner we have those who support the 2nd Ammendment (supposedly) and balk at any idea of gun control or regulation and insist on having the right to be armed at all times whenever and wherever they please.
In the left corner we have those who support the sweeping acts to be carried out by President Obama and wish for tighter regulation, even going so far as to enforce a national gun registry. Then there are those who wish to make many firearms illegal and even some who advocate UK style bans.
Now I myself have spoken on this issue at great length on previous occassions. Here though I will basically be stating my frank opinion of the idea of gun control and it's effects.
Like I've stated previously, I have no problem with the idea of gun control, zip, zero, nada. I think that a government must be able to regulate the type of weaponry that is available to its citizens, and how they can legally go about obtaining these weapons. Mind you most of the weapons I would restrict fall under the category of military grade weapons. For example here is what I see as a reasonable restriction on what a person can own.
No person should be able to own:
- Grenades of any type (explosive, gas, smoke, ect)
- Military grade combat armor (torso/legs I am however more leniant on helmets simply because they make wonderful collectables)
- Rocket launchers or RPG's
- Magazines above 10 rounds
- Fully automatic assault rifles
- Certain calibres of ammunition (such as .50 cal)
- Sub-machine guns or machine pistols
Does any of this seem unreasonable? I personally do not think so. There are so few reasons people would need any of these items in their daily lives it boggles my mind to think people actively want to collect and maintain literal arsenals of deadly hardware. I've heard people describe them as tools, like hammers, but machine guns (unlike hammers) have the express purpose of killing people. That is not a tool that can be left unregulated.
The government should be able to ask a person for registration, permit, and license for a firearm that they own, and a person failing to provide such a permit should be able to have that firearm confiscated. I believe it is privilege for people to own weapons, not a right. A state must have the ability to be able to insert itself into a situation and not have it's own agents (such as police) outgunned by potential criminals, or in some cases would be 'patriots' who think they know better.
Now that being said I recognize that governemnts are not the perfect saintly figures in authority who know everything, hence why I believe that people have at least the right to the privilege of bearing arms. This means people may own weapons for self-defence, but this is a priviledge enshrined in law which can be taken away should it be abused. However, it is important to note I believe it is a privilege that someone is given by both the government and the governed in the trust they will use that firearm properly. If they abuse that privilege they will have it taken away. I believe in punishing an individual for his act and not a group as a whole. Furthermore if citizens come to the conclusion that certain types of weapons should be allowed to the public (eg specific calibres (below something as destructive as .50) of ammunition) then they should have the right to vote on such a thing. I believe that it is the people's responsibility to be aware of what is going on and if they feel a certain item is not dangerous (and vice versa) then they should be able to openly petition the government for laws and restrictions to be changed.
However, I also believe in direct democracy and as such currently view most governments as being primitive in the terms of technological progress today, so many of my ideas seem to be more difficult when placed in the sphere of current democratic forms.
However in the vein of governments, I do think that if a citizen is unwilling to pass a competency test with a firearm, get a license for that firearm, register that firearm with authorities, and renew his competency test every five or so years, then I do not think they are entitled to own it.
Though here I have to say one thing, many opponents of gun control who hear the words immediately hear the words 'gun confiscation' and scream bloody murder. Though might I add many of these also hear the words socialism and think communism and scream bloody murder.
They picture this weird image:
Yet they never consider this tragically true one:
The idea that more guns simply make society more dangerous and making them easily accessable merely helps criminals and delinquents seems foreign to them.
To add something from the most recent tragedy: the strict gun control laws in Conneticut worked and Adam Lanza was turned down from legally purchasing a firearm because of mental health issues, however he obtained his mother's semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle and two pistols which were unsecured in her home and he had easy access to. Had this not been the case then it is certainly probable that Mr. Lanza never would have been able to carry out his shooting. The simple fact is that Conneticut's restrictive gun laws prevented Lanza from obtaining a weapon on his own, but the lack of any regulation requiring his mother to safely secure her own weapons allowed him access to them, and the end result was tragedy.
Had any such restrictions and laws been in place it is conceivable Lanza would not have been able to carry out this attack. However, as I have conceeded before, if Lanza was indeed determined to carry out this attack he most likely would have found a way to either a) legally obtain a weapon from another state or b) buy one on the black market.
I personally believe that the attack shows signs of being premeditated, but the weapons he ended up using were from convenience.
The fact is that unsafe weapons storage is to blame for this tragedy, not any failure of gun control laws and regulations. Does this mean I think weapons should be taken from all law-abiding citizens? No. Does this mean I think that there must be rules and regulations in place on who can buy weapons and how they should be stored? Of course! Depriving a responsible citizen of their weapons makes no sense to me, but the emphasis is on responsible. If a citizen is not going to use their weapon responsibly or be secretive about his aquisition of said weapon he has no business owning it.
However as others have pointed out there are a myriad of problems that must also be addressed before any sort of gun regulation can be implimented in America. States need to actually help inforce federal laws, make an effort to take a stand on closing ridiculous loopholes, and have a national consensus on why they are doing it. Simultaneously background checks and mental health regulations need to be enforced and actual mental health care needs to be accessable. Many of these people are legitimately sick and perhaps, just maybe, if they could get reasonable care they might be disuaded from acting upon their homicidal urges.
Speaking though as a foreigner and someone who lives in a nation with very little gun crime (and a fairly low violent crime rate in general) I am baffled by the nature of American views on weapons. I cannot understand how the right to own deadly weapons is not better regulated or its laws enforced. Cultural attitudes are different and important I understand, but many of the most rabid gun-nuts seem to sincerely believe that the idea of regulation and registry will lead to an outright ban. Speaking as one who lives in a country with some fairly strict gun laws and a registry, we haven't had our rights taken away, our guns aren't being confiscated, and if I so chose (which I probably will someday) I may go and purchase a weapon and have it in my house. Under careful lock and key of course.
The fact is that most of our gun problems are small, and can be pinned directly on the United States. Gangs operating in the cities will frequently simply cross the border and legally (or otherwise) obtain weapons from legitimate firearms dealers, or other gangs who are willing to sell to them. Stopping gun smuggling is actually a big concern of law enforcement here, and it's one we could probably see do much better if the US were willing to enact some substantial legislation of its own. Now that's not to say that if all the guns in the US suddenly disapeared Canada would have no gun crime (although it would drop ridiculously) I do maintain that Canada will have issues with certain weapons (mostly handguns) as long as standards south of the border are lax and allow an easy transfer of illegal weapons north.
I believe that gun control and regulation is important, and essential part of any safe society. I agree that being armed can be a good thing, but that those arms without responsibility and regulation will not protect you.
Those are my two cents for now dear readers, and I hope it's been worthwhile for you.
Monday, 3 December 2012
Tis the Season
Well readers December has rolled around and already the holiday spirit is in the air! I'll hopefully have some posts coming out in the near future (read after this week) and of course like any self-respecting fantasy fan I shall be watching and 'reviewing' (as really who could see it as anything but a positive!) The Hobbit when it rolls around to theatres in my area!
So in advance I am apologizing for the likely slow pace of posting this month (especially after the many posts from last month) and will be dutifully posting (and hopefully exceeding my numbers) come January again.
Thanks for continued viewing and support from the internet and facebook!
So in advance I am apologizing for the likely slow pace of posting this month (especially after the many posts from last month) and will be dutifully posting (and hopefully exceeding my numbers) come January again.
Thanks for continued viewing and support from the internet and facebook!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)