To the very small percentage of Hunger Games fans who are outraged at how different the movie is from the book, I hereby appoint you with the following homework assignment:
1) Read Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief.
2) Watch Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief.
3) Read The Golden Compass.
4) Watch The Golden Compass.
5) Read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
6) Watch Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Once you have completed your assignment, if you still have complaints about The Hunger Games movie, then we can talk.
I'm not even going to bother addressing the even smaller percentage of "fans" who are claiming that Rue, Thresh, and Cinna being black ruined the movie for them.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Freedom of Speech and Religion
In light of yesterday's supreme court ruling, I would like to take a moment to pontificate further on a brief status update I posted on Facebook. In that post, I said:
For example, I personally will never own a gun (due to my moral beliefs and a personal history that I am not about to go into here). But I would never vote in favor of any legislation that would restrict another American's right to make that choice for themselves.
There is a huge difference between exercising your right to free speech, and restricting others of that same right. If you are opposed to gay marriage, or abortion, or gun rights, or pink lawn flamingos wearing Hawaiian grass skirts, you are entitled to that opinion, and you have the right to express that opinion publicly. You do not, however, have the right to restrict others of their right to their opinion or belief.
On the gay marriage issue, people argue that they believe that marriage is defined by the Bible as being between solely a man and a woman. Okay. Fine. That is their religious belief and opinion. They are entitled to that belief. The problem is that there are just as many good, faithful Christians who believe that marriage is more about love than what resides between peoples' legs.
When the first example (Christian A) goes and votes against legalizing gay marriage, they are no longer saying, "These are my beliefs and I am entitled to them." They are now saying, "These are my beliefs, and they are right, so you are not entitled to yours."
On the flip side, when the second example (Christian B) goes and votes in favor of legalizing gay marriage, they are not saying, "You are not entitled to your personal beliefs," but simply saying, "We may have differing opinions on this matter, but it is not our place, or the place of the government, to impose our opinions on anyone else."
The difference between the two is that Christian A has voted against Christian B's right to their opinion, whereas Christian B has voted in favor of both of their rights. If more people came to understand this subtle distinction, I guarantee that there would be a lot less fighting and arguing over these issues.
Anyone who follows my writing most likely will have already heard me say that the only thing I refuse to tolerate is intolerance. I've had many people try to argue that there is a difference between tolerating and condoning. We could go around in circles arguing about the semantics of the definition of tolerance (I personally believe that tolerance is free of judgment, but that is a separate debate), but the simple fact of the matter is that by voting in favor of legislation which bans anything such as gay marriage, abortion, or guns, you are being anything but tolerant, because you are discarding other people's right to make their own decisions and hold their own beliefs that are different from yours.
On the complete opposite side of the coin, forcing a specific church to go against their beliefs and allow same-sex weddings within their walls is just as intolerant. Being a victim of intolerance is not justification for becoming a perpetrator of intolerance, yet history has proven time and time again that the oppressed of yesterday will become the oppressors of tomorrow.
Is it discrimination on the part of these churches? Yes, but unfortunately when it's a choice between discrimination and forcing someone to change their beliefs, I think it's more important that we maintain the fact that we should all have the right to our beliefs and opinions, even if those beliefs and opinions may lead to discriminatory practices. There are enough churches and wedding ministers out there who will not discriminate, that it's really not necessary to go to the extreme of forcing all churches and ministers to go against their beliefs.
Do you still have the right to vote in favor of these various legislations? Yes, of course you do. I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't do. I'm just urging people to think more carefully about what it is that they are actually voting for or against, and not to turn around and tell me that you are tolerant, when you just voted against my right to have my own opinion and belief.
"Anytime you vote in favor of something that effects the way other people can live their lives, remember that regardless of your personal opinions about the matter at hand, you are not expressing your right to free speech and belief, but in fact you are prohibiting others of those rights."To take that same line of thinking from a different angle, voting against any such legislation - such as gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc. - does not necessarily mean that you approve of the issue at hand, just that you recognize that neither you nor the government has the right to dictate how others can live their lives, based on your personal beliefs.
For example, I personally will never own a gun (due to my moral beliefs and a personal history that I am not about to go into here). But I would never vote in favor of any legislation that would restrict another American's right to make that choice for themselves.
There is a huge difference between exercising your right to free speech, and restricting others of that same right. If you are opposed to gay marriage, or abortion, or gun rights, or pink lawn flamingos wearing Hawaiian grass skirts, you are entitled to that opinion, and you have the right to express that opinion publicly. You do not, however, have the right to restrict others of their right to their opinion or belief.
On the gay marriage issue, people argue that they believe that marriage is defined by the Bible as being between solely a man and a woman. Okay. Fine. That is their religious belief and opinion. They are entitled to that belief. The problem is that there are just as many good, faithful Christians who believe that marriage is more about love than what resides between peoples' legs.
When the first example (Christian A) goes and votes against legalizing gay marriage, they are no longer saying, "These are my beliefs and I am entitled to them." They are now saying, "These are my beliefs, and they are right, so you are not entitled to yours."
On the flip side, when the second example (Christian B) goes and votes in favor of legalizing gay marriage, they are not saying, "You are not entitled to your personal beliefs," but simply saying, "We may have differing opinions on this matter, but it is not our place, or the place of the government, to impose our opinions on anyone else."
The difference between the two is that Christian A has voted against Christian B's right to their opinion, whereas Christian B has voted in favor of both of their rights. If more people came to understand this subtle distinction, I guarantee that there would be a lot less fighting and arguing over these issues.
Anyone who follows my writing most likely will have already heard me say that the only thing I refuse to tolerate is intolerance. I've had many people try to argue that there is a difference between tolerating and condoning. We could go around in circles arguing about the semantics of the definition of tolerance (I personally believe that tolerance is free of judgment, but that is a separate debate), but the simple fact of the matter is that by voting in favor of legislation which bans anything such as gay marriage, abortion, or guns, you are being anything but tolerant, because you are discarding other people's right to make their own decisions and hold their own beliefs that are different from yours.
On the complete opposite side of the coin, forcing a specific church to go against their beliefs and allow same-sex weddings within their walls is just as intolerant. Being a victim of intolerance is not justification for becoming a perpetrator of intolerance, yet history has proven time and time again that the oppressed of yesterday will become the oppressors of tomorrow.
Is it discrimination on the part of these churches? Yes, but unfortunately when it's a choice between discrimination and forcing someone to change their beliefs, I think it's more important that we maintain the fact that we should all have the right to our beliefs and opinions, even if those beliefs and opinions may lead to discriminatory practices. There are enough churches and wedding ministers out there who will not discriminate, that it's really not necessary to go to the extreme of forcing all churches and ministers to go against their beliefs.
Do you still have the right to vote in favor of these various legislations? Yes, of course you do. I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't do. I'm just urging people to think more carefully about what it is that they are actually voting for or against, and not to turn around and tell me that you are tolerant, when you just voted against my right to have my own opinion and belief.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
A Very Scary Christmas Anthology
When Kyra Dawson approached me a few months ago, calling out for any short Christmas-themed horror stories for an upcoming anthology, only one possibility came to mind: You Did It Again. It took quite a bit of digging through very old notebooks, and I was about on the verge of giving up and starting over from scratch when finally I came to the notebook at the bottom of the pile, and lo and behold, at the very back of the book, was this short story I had scribbled down about six years ago.
It all started with what was probably the most vivid nightmare I have ever had - and that's saying something. To this very day, I still recall with stark clarity the image of a girl, kneeling by her dying mother in the snow, the red of the blood-stained snow blending beautifully (and horrifically) with the mother's red hair, which spread out through the snow from her head like an incredible system of red rivers.
As the mother died, she whispered to her daughter, "You did it again." And then I woke up.
Very few dreams stay with me after I wake, but this one in particular haunted me for weeks after, and so I knew I had to write it down.
Most of what I recall of the rest of the dream is just vague impressions: a family stranded in a remote cabin during a blizzard, a very creepy child who they bring in from the cold, an old Texas Chainsaw Massacre-esque barn, and the monsters - oh, the monsters.
But that last scene of the mother dying in the snow, and her last words, that image has never left my mind and is still as crystal clear as if I had only just woken up from the dream.
A Very Scary Christmas - the anthology that Kyra Dawson had approached me about - is a collection of seven horror/supernatural-themed Christmas stories, all written by members of the Scriborium Guild.
Also included in this anthology: A man grapples with his sanity as people close to him mysteriously begin vanishing into thin air in William Topek's, That Holiday Spirit; Christmas haunts interrupt a family reunion in Rosey Reay's Christmas Reunion at Villa El Figueral; a modern-day Scrooge finds out what fate lies in store for those deemed beyond redemption by the Spirits of Christmas in Sean Hayden's The Ghost of Christmas Last; mystery unfolds in an abandoned lighthouse in Athol Foden's Windy Lights; Michael faces the demons of lost memory in David Govett's The Christmas Card; and Eden struggles to bring an end to a curse that has plagued her family for generations in Kyra Dawson's I'll Be Home For Christmas.
Related Links:
http://www.amazon.com/A-Very-Scary-Christmas-ebook/dp/B006ACWX3E/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
http://www.fodenpress.com/ebooks.html
http://www.fodenpress.com/Scary_Christmas.html
http://www.fodenpress.com/
It all started with what was probably the most vivid nightmare I have ever had - and that's saying something. To this very day, I still recall with stark clarity the image of a girl, kneeling by her dying mother in the snow, the red of the blood-stained snow blending beautifully (and horrifically) with the mother's red hair, which spread out through the snow from her head like an incredible system of red rivers.
As the mother died, she whispered to her daughter, "You did it again." And then I woke up.
Very few dreams stay with me after I wake, but this one in particular haunted me for weeks after, and so I knew I had to write it down.
Most of what I recall of the rest of the dream is just vague impressions: a family stranded in a remote cabin during a blizzard, a very creepy child who they bring in from the cold, an old Texas Chainsaw Massacre-esque barn, and the monsters - oh, the monsters.
But that last scene of the mother dying in the snow, and her last words, that image has never left my mind and is still as crystal clear as if I had only just woken up from the dream.
A Very Scary Christmas - the anthology that Kyra Dawson had approached me about - is a collection of seven horror/supernatural-themed Christmas stories, all written by members of the Scriborium Guild.
Also included in this anthology: A man grapples with his sanity as people close to him mysteriously begin vanishing into thin air in William Topek's, That Holiday Spirit; Christmas haunts interrupt a family reunion in Rosey Reay's Christmas Reunion at Villa El Figueral; a modern-day Scrooge finds out what fate lies in store for those deemed beyond redemption by the Spirits of Christmas in Sean Hayden's The Ghost of Christmas Last; mystery unfolds in an abandoned lighthouse in Athol Foden's Windy Lights; Michael faces the demons of lost memory in David Govett's The Christmas Card; and Eden struggles to bring an end to a curse that has plagued her family for generations in Kyra Dawson's I'll Be Home For Christmas.
Related Links:
http://www.amazon.com/A-Very-Scary-Christmas-ebook/dp/B006ACWX3E/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
http://www.fodenpress.com/ebooks.html
http://www.fodenpress.com/Scary_Christmas.html
http://www.fodenpress.com/
Saturday, October 8, 2011
For Halloween: Harry Potter and Frankenstein
Very recently, I discovered the Harry Potter fan PodCast, Hogwarts Radio, and I have been going back through all of their older episodes, to get caught up. This past week, I listened to their Halloween 2010 episode, in which they had a very interesting conversation topic for their main discussion (not that they don’t have interesting conversation topics for all of their episodes, but this one in particular caught my attention).
For this discussion, they took three works of classic horror literature – Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde – and compared them to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.
I was particularly intrigued by their discussion on Frankenstein, in which they compared Victor Frankenstein’s monster to Lord Voldemort and, to a slightly lesser extent, Victor Frankenstein to Harry Potter.
As intriguing as their discussion was, I think they rather missed out on a key point that would have enabled them to broaden their comparison even further. Throughout their discussion, they stuck to the analysis of Victor being the protagonist, and the Creature being the antagonist. While this is certainly not an inaccurate analysis of the characters, part of what makes Frankenstein such a wonderful work of literature is that there are many, many layers to the story and its characters.
On the surface, it is very easy to label Victor as “The Hero” and the Creature as “The Villain.” However, when you really delve into analyzing the book, and Mary Shelley’s overall message of the story, it is actually almost more accurate to label the Creature as the protagonist, and Victor as the antagonist.
Everything that happens in the story is because of Victor and his actions – or lack thereof. Victor brought the Creature into the world, and Victor abandoned the Creature when he saw how hideous it was after he had brought it to life. The Creature was initially benevolent in nature, but when left to face the world and the cruelty of human nature alone, his benevolence became warped and twisted by fear and hate. We are left to wonder what might have happened had Victor not abandoned his creation, but proceeded to care for it and educate it himself, and perhaps even introduce it to the world at large, not as a monster, but as an experiment (not unlike Mel Brooks’ envisioning of the story in his timeless parody, Young Frankenstein).
But, unfortunately, Victor did abandon his creation, and therefore the Creature was forced to fend for himself in a world of humans who fear and hate anything that which is different and that they do not understand.
And yet, up until his dying moments, Victor refused to acknowledge the possibility that the Creature was not evil in nature, but became evil due to this abandonment.
So, how does this tie in to Harry Potter? Not very much, even I admit. However, there are very intriguing comparisons to be made, nonetheless. The Hogwarts Radio team made some very interesting observations in their comparisons of Victor to Harry and the Creature to Voldemort, however I find the comparisons between Victor and Voldemort and the Creature and Harry much more intriguing.
For example, Victor created the Creature out of his obsession with conquering death. Voldemort, as we all know, was also obsessed with conquering death, so much so that he went so far as splitting his soul into seven pieces for the purpose of anchoring himself to the mortal realm. It was this blind obsession with defeating death that led Voldemort to Godric’s Hollow on Halloween, where – in a sense – he created Harry Potter by killing Harry’s parents and inadvertently placing a fraction of his soul inside of Harry. In the end, it was Voldemort’s quest for immortality that led to the “creation” of the one who ultimately brought him to his downfall, just as it was Victor’s quest for immortality that led to the creation of the one who ultimately brought him to his downfall.
As I said earlier, up until his last breath, Victor refused to acknowledge the possibility that he might have been wrong about the Creature, and yet the Creature grieved over the death of his creator and the lives he had cost. Despite all the pain Victor had caused the Creature, the Creature was still able to find it in himself to pity and forgive Victor. Likewise, Voldemort also never was able to admit that he might have been wrong about Harry, yet Harry was able to find it in himself to pity and forgive Voldemort.
That’s about as far as I’ve been able to take it. I’m sure that there are even further comparisons that could be made between the two works of literature, if one were to really dissect the two, but those are the obvious ones to be found.
So, even though it may seem on the surface that these two stories – written almost two hundred years apart – may not have all that much in common, we can still see that there are parallels to be drawn, as the Hogwarts Radio crew started to show and that, hopefully, I have elaborated on.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Gone to the Dogs
A friend once told me that in recent years, Mark Hammill has really gone to the dogs. I told her that although I hadn't heard about that particular rumor about Mark Hammill, I had heard about other people deciding to live amongst animals, and while I personally wouldn't choose that path, I really couldn't find any reason to judge other people's choice of lifestyles. She gave me the stink eye and walked away. Some people just aren't very open minded.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Best Years of Your Life
Whenever somebody tells me that their high school years were the best years of their life, I can't help but feel incredibly sorry for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)