Log in

02 April 2016 @ 04:54 pm
You know what Donald Trump is?  He is the reincarnation of Henry VIII.

I have spoken.
03 March 2016 @ 07:08 pm
For a few years a while back, I lived with my sister for various economic reasons.  And my sister had two pets, a yellow lab/husky named Boston, and a cat named Zachary, a grey tiger-stripe with a white chest and white forepaws.  Boston was a good dog, very bouncy and energetic, always glad to see everybody.  But it was with Zachary that I truly developed a rapport.

I would be sitting at my desk, typing away at my computer, when a little fuzzy paw would tug at the crook of my elbow.

"Maaeerr?"  (Translation: "Snuggle?")

I would sigh.  "I'm kinda busy right now, cat."

And I would resume typing.

"Maaeerr?"  ("Please?")

"Not now, cat, I'm busy."

And I would go back to typing.

And Zachary would punch me in the arm.


And I would heave a bigger sigh.  "Oh, all right."  And I would swivel my chair toward him.  "Come on."

And he would stare up at me.

"Come on."

Still staring up at me.

"Come on."

And finally he would jump up, and I would have fourteen pounds of cat leaning on my chest.  (Have I mentioned that we are talking about a rather large cat?)

Slowly, very slowly, he would settle down against me, his forepaws clutching at either side of my collar bone.  He would look at me with his eyes half-closed, that universal sign of feline contentment.  And then he would rub his velvety forehead against my face.  Then he would pull back and regard me.  Then he would rub his forehead against my face again...

He would do this for maybe twenty minutes.  And then he would be done, and he would drop to the floor and walk away -- until the next time he needed a snuggle fix.

Zachary, I am sorry to say, was put to sleep recently.  He was 19 years old.  Though I have never had a pet of my own, I can only think this must be the saddest part of owning a pet.  One thing's for sure: I'll miss the little guy.

All fourteen pounds of him.
18 October 2015 @ 06:25 pm

I saw Guillermo del Toro's "Crimson Peak" last Friday. I'm a big fan of del Toro, in no small part because he gets the genres he operates in, be it fantasy ("Hellboy" or "Pan's Labyrinth") or monster movies ("Pacific Rim"). He has already made an excellent ghost story ("The Devil's Backbone"), which cannot be said of all directors (I'm looking at Jan de Bont's 1999 remake of "The Haunting"). So when I heard about "Crimson Peak," I couldn't wait to see it.

There is a homage to a classic ghost movie before the movie proper even starts: when the Universal logo swoops across the forty-foot screen (tinted ghastly red, of course), instead of the braying horn-and-orchestra jingle that has annoyed us for years now, we hear a creepy nursery song sung by a piping child's voice. This is in direct imitation of 1961's "The Innocents," starring the late great Deborah Kerr. This tells you right there that we're dealing with someone who knows his ghost movies.

The story goes into the spooky stuff right off the bat: our heroine, a young writer named Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska, who looks really cute with her hair done up and wearing wire-rimmed spectacles), not only believes in ghosts, she knows for a fact that they exist: she is visited by her mother's shade shortly after her funeral several years before. Mother even says something to Edith: "When the time comes, beware of Crimson Peak." Edith has no idea what this means. And when she learns later on, she's already in deep trouble.

The plot thickens with the arrival of Thomas Sharpe (played by Tom Hiddleston, whom women tend to swoon over, from what I gather), who has come to America from England with his sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain) seeking funds to finance the mining of the red clay with which his family estate practically overflows. Edith is immediately taken with him, but her father, a self-made millionaire and one of the people Thomas approaches for money, sees something in Mr. Sharpe that he doesn't like. He can't put his finger on what it is, though -- at Thomas' presentation to request for funds, Dad remarks that Thomas has the softest hands he has ever seen, unlike his own rough, calloused hands with which he worked his way to the top. And Thomas has already been denied funds in various European locations, which gives Dad reason enough to follow suit. And when Thomas proposes marriage to Edith, Daddy hires a private investigator (Burn Gorman) to look into Thomas' past. What the investigator finds (whatever it is) is more than enough reason to deny permission for marriage.

But then Daddy dies in a brutal "accident." And Edith, though traumatized by her father's death, decides to accept Thomas' marriage proposal, and returns with him and his sister to England.

(If this movie has a moral, it's, "Listen to your parents. They have a wisdom born of experience that you don't.")

The Sharpe's ancestral home, Allerdale Hall, is a veritable movie in itself. It's a masterpiece of gothic design, but it has also seen better days: it has several holes in the roof, through which leaves fall in autumn and snow falls in winter. It also has chimneys that moan and walls that creak when the wind blows outside. And there are several places, particularly the basement level, where Edith is advised never to go, as they are "unsafe."

To tell more would spoil the story, and the fun. Suffice it to say that I highly recommend this movie.

28 July 2015 @ 05:56 pm
Anne E. Johnson has invited me to discuss my novella Saint Nicole on her blog:


31 January 2015 @ 05:34 pm
It seems that Steve Jackson Games has seen fit to reissue my game Tile Chess.  This time with plastic tiles!  You can order it here:


Try it out!  If you like it, tell your friends!  If you hate it, tell your enemies!
11 January 2015 @ 05:59 pm

I reviewed the first Woman in Black movie when it came out back in 2012.  I liked it, so when this sequel came out last week, I looked forward to seeing it.

The first movie starred Daniel Radcliffe (hence its fan-bequeathed alternate title, "Harry Potter and the Woman in Black"), and it was speculated that this played a big role in the movie's box office draw.  This sequel has no big names attached to it, but I think it succeeds on its own merits.

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death takes place 40-some years after the original, during the London Blitz of World War II, when children of the city were evacuated to the remote countryside to spare them from the German bombs, much like the Pevensie children in C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.  Our heroine, a young teacher named Eve Parkins (played by Phoebe Fox) accompanies a small group of these children by train to Eel Marsh House, the setting of the first movie, which has been refurbished as a makeshift boarding school. Even if you haven't seen the first movie, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that no good can come of this.

The village of Crythin Gifford, whose inhabitants gave Daniel Radcliffe's character the cold shoulder in the first movie, is now what Americans call a ghost town save for a crazed old blind man who startles Eve on her arrival (to those who have watched the first movie, this makes perfect sense). And Eel Marsh House, the crumbling abandoned old mansion which is accessible only via a causeway that disappears with the rising tide, is still haunted by the ghost of Jennet Humfrye, a.k.a. the Woman in Black. She has always existed in a sustained state of rage, leading innocent children to their deaths simply because she can, due to her being forcibly relieved of her own illegitimate son, who then drowned when he was eight years old. But it may be that she is even more enraged since the Houdini act that Radcliffe's character pulled in the first movie. And now here comes a whole new batch of children for her to play with.

Not all the children are fleshed out all that much, aside from Tom the bully and Joyce the bossy girl…and then there's Edward, the small boy who hasn't spoken since his parents were killed in a bombing raid the day before he boarded the train. So Edward is a child who has been deprived of his parents. And the Woman in Black is a parent who has been deprived of her child. See where this is going?

This may explain Jennet's change of tactics since the first movie, when she simply lured any child that was available to their death. Now she targets anyone who even looks at Edward funny -- and as in the first movie, once she targets a child, the child is pretty much doomed. It therefore falls to Eve to protect the children as best she can. She is helped in this by Harry (Jeremy Irvine), an RAF pilot who happens to be in the area (and who has a troubled past if his bouts of anxiety and hyperventilation are any indication), and somewhat hampered by Jean (Helen McRory), the headmistress who has no time for such silly things as ghost stories. And the movie cleverly reveals (well, I didn't see it coming) that Eve herself has a bit of a sad history -- in fact, it prompts the Woman in Black to essentially say to her, "You should be on MY side!" -- but Eve fights firmly and resolutely for the children, especially Edward. And resolution is just about the only weapon that has any hope of working against the Woman in Black.

This movie hasn't been getting good reviews, and it hasn't been doing well at the box office, but dangit, I like it. Some people say it's not as scary as the first movie. I say it doesn't have as many jump scares (which I don't think are very scary), focusing instead on atmosphere. And therefore, I recommend it.

Some time ago, I reviewed a movie called Destination: Outer Space, a direct-to-video effort made by local film director and producer Christopher R. Mihm.  Well, Mr. Mihm has actually made more than one such movie (go to www.sainteuphoria.com to see his entire filmography), and among them is what he calls The Late Night Double Feature, which I will now review here.

As its title implies, The Late Night Double Feature is actually two smaller movies glued together to form a single night's entertainment (the whole thing clocks in at 90 minutes, which means each movie is like an hour-long TV episode on average).  The titles of the individual movies are X: The Fiend From Beyond Space, and The Wall People.

X: The Fiend From Beyond Space gives us a familiar story: a spaceship in the midst of a lengthy voyage somehow gains an eldritch alien passenger, which slowly kills off the crew one by one.  So people viewing this flilm will immediately think ALIEN.  In all fairness, though, ALIEN itself has a precedent in the form of 1958's IT! The Terror From Beyond Space (whose most famous cast member is Dabbs Greer, who went on to play Reverend Alden in Little House on the Prairie, and the older version of Tom Hanks's character in The Green Mile).  So really, Mihm's movie is just the latest in a series of retreads.  But X also pays homage to at least one other classic SF movie: when the first character we see awakens from cryogenic sleep, she is in a tube similar to those found in 1955's This Island Earth.  The monster in X is also reminiscent of the MutAnt from that movie

The characters in X, though, are all their own.  Don't expect any Oscar-winning performances here; Mihm works with a strictly voluntary cast, and his goal is to make movies that are entertaining rather than good (Army of Darkness is a perfect example of this kind of movie).  Most prominent among the characters is Daniel R. Sjerven as the good ol' Southern boy ship captain.  X is a nice short movie that tells a neat little story.

The Wall People is a bit harder to classify. If pressed, I would say that it more resembles an episode of The Outer Limits than a 1950s B-movie.  It tells the story of a scientist, widowed for some time, whose son suddenly disappears from his bedroom without a trace. The police, as you might guess, find no trace of the kid, and the father, now twice bereaved, is intensely distraught.  So when he tells a couple of his friends that he thinks his son has been abducted by aliens from Pluto, they understandably think he's gone off the deep end.  But guess what?

To say more would spoil the story.  I'll just say it comes to a satisfactory ending.  And if you're into low-budget 1950s SF movies, I would recommend The Late Night Double Feature to you
Hi folks,

Just letting you know that I'll be doing another Dreamhaven readng next Wednesday, starting at 6:45 pm.  I'll read from my fiction of course, there will be door prizes (everyone will get something), and afterward we'll retreat to Parkway Pizza for food.

Hope to see you there!


As I've mentioned before on this blog, I've been intrigued by Henry James' novella The Turn of the Screw for some time, ever since seeing a comic book version of the story in my middle school library. I have four movie versions of the story on DVD (the best, of course, being 1961's The Innocents, starring Deborah Kerr), and I look at any pastiches by different authors (like Joyce Carol Oates' "Accursed Inhabitants of the House of Bly") with keen interest. So when I learned of a book in which the events related in The Turn of the Screw are investigated by none other than Sherlock Holmes himself (I'm a big Holmes fan), I got it as soon as I could.

Sherlock Holmes and the Ghosts of Bly is actually a collection of three stories, with the title story bookended by two smaller, unrelated tales. The author, Donald Thomas, was born and raised in England, and it shows. Each story is a highly detailed depiction of late Victorian culture, extremely class-conscious almost to the point of paranoia, with some characters sneering down at others who dare to earn their success rather than inherit it like God intended. Mr. Thomas really knows his stuff, and he also does the voice of Dr. Watson, serving as narrator, very well.

The big thing that has made The Turn of the Screw such an enduring classic is the furious debate over the reliability of the story's narrator. Are the ghosts of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel real, as the unnamed governess believes, or are they just figments of her imagination? Well, I'm sure you can guess Holmes' opinion as to the existence of ghosts (although he doesn't deny their existence outright -- when asked by the man who hires him if he believes in ghosts, he replies, "Bring me the evidence, and I shall sift it as a rational enquirer. Probably I shall find a rational explanation. If not, and all other possibilities are exhausted, I must consider whether these events may not be produced by causes beyond my power to detect. To conclude otherwise would make me a bigot."). But I also don't think it's spoiling anything to say that what the governess saw, at least in this version of the story, aren't just figments of her imagination.

There are several things that Mr. Thomas does that Henry James does not. For one thing, he gives the governess a name (Victoria Temple), and a surname to Miles and little Flora (Mordaunt) -- although it turns out Flora died of diphtheria after being taken to London, so she does not make an appearance. For another, this being a Sherlock Holmes story, we actually get to learn why Miles was expelled from school. Many readers of The Turn of the Screw assume that Miles made homosexual advances toward his classmates -- why else would the headmaster be so reluctant to disclose the reason for Miles' expulsion? But Mr. Thomas seems to say "rubbish" to all that, because the reason he discloses is that Miles got a venerable (but highly unlikeable) schoolmaster in trouble through the adroit psychological manipulation of his classmates -- which he learned at the hands of Peter Quint when he was alive. You can't help but wonder what might have happened had the governess done a shred of investigation instead of making all those intuitive leaps, as she did in the original story. ("Oh, I know! I know!") It's easy to see Holmes (as portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch), saying, "Stop boring me and THINK!"

Also, I feel compelled to say that Thomas' prose is a lot more readable than James'. When I was in high school, the English teachers taught us how to diagram a sentence, which I thought was a complete waste of time -- until I read The Turn of the Screw. Here's an example of what I mean (from the first paragraph of Chapter II):

The postbag, that evening -- it came late -- contained a letter for me, which, however, in the hand of my employer, I found to be composed but of a few words enclosing another, addressed to himself, with the seal still unbroken.

Why not say:

The evening postbag came late. It contained a short letter for me from my employer, and another (unopened) letter addressed to him.

Ernest Hemingway he ain't.

This is probably why I've read no other work by James. And would the daughter of a poor country parson talk like this? It doesn't seem realistic that a young person in her early twenties, given to jumping to conclusions, would think in such complex sentences. In his essay "Supernatural Horror in Literature," H. P. Lovecraft wrote, "In The Turn of the Screw Henry James triumphs over his inevitable pomposity and prolixity sufficiently well to create a truly potent air of sinister menace…James is perhaps too diffuse, too unctuously urbane, and too much addicted to subtleties of speech to realize fully all the wild and devastating horror in his situations, but for all that there is a rare and mounting tide of fright…" (This is H. P. Lovecraft saying this. Have you read him?) Anyway, Donald Thomas doesn't write anything like that. At least when he's writing as Dr. Watson, he is very readable.

I won't spoil the story by revealing the identity of the dastardly villain behind all of this. But I will say that I highly recommend this book.

04 August 2014 @ 11:34 pm

Hi folks.  Sorry I haven't posted in a while.  I've been working some really odd hours.

I'd like to post to you now about a book I read recently, called The Autistic Brain, by Temple Grandin.  Ever since my Asperger's diagnosis (and for some time before it, when I suspected I had Asperger's), I've been looking out for books on the subject of Asperger's, and for autism in general, under whose umbrella Asperger's falls.  The book currently in question falls squarely in that category.

Temple Grandin, as the blurb on the back cover of this book declares, "may be the most famous person with autism, a condition that affects 1 in 88 people."  A high-functioning autistic herself, her main job is professor of animal science at Colorado State University, but she also lectures frequently about autism, and writes books on the subject like this one.

It's a very quick read -- I went through it in less than a week, and for me that's saying something.  There were parts of this book that had me nodding my head in recognition.  There were other parts that had me thnking, "Yeah, okay, fine," like the parts where she compares brain scans of neurotypical people with those of people on the autism spectrum and says, "The neurotypical brain looks like this, while autistic brain looks like this."  I don't doubt this will help doctors and neurologists understand the condition, but for people like me who have Asperger's/autism and are therefore stuck with it, it's kind of irrelevant in a certain sense.  I have Asperger's.  That die has been cast.  There's little purpose served in X-raying the die.

What had me nodding my head was the part where autistics say they have trouble dealing with crowd noise -- they can't separate the voice of the person they're talking to from the general hubbub of the dozens of other voices talking in the bar. I readily identified with that. I've always had problems picking individual voices out of crowd noise, and it's been a serious detriment to making social connections for me.

Another thing I identified with was in the section where Ms. Grandin talks about ways for autistics/Aspergians to get employment. One instruction she gives is: Sell your work, not yourself. I have never done well at job interviews, and when I asked people why, they never gave an explanation that made sense. (I don’t show emotion? I don't show any enthusiasm? What do either of those things have to do with your ability to do the job?) In the book, Ms. Grandin says:

"If you can avoid the front-door interview, do so. Human resources departments are usually staffed by social people who tend to place a premium on getting along and teamwork, so they might not think a person with autism is the right fit for the workplace. They might not be able to see past the social awkwardness to an individual's hidden talents. A better strategy for getting the job might be to contact the head of a particular department you want to work in (the engineering department, the graphic design department, and so on)." (page 195)

Nobody likes to work with jerks. I get that. It's a big reason I didn't re-enlist after serving two years in the Army. But I like to think I'm not a jerk, and I believe most of the people who know me (cats and toddlers among them) would say I'm not a jerk. I'm just socially awkward. What Ms. Grandin is saying is: show the employer what kind of work you can do rather than the kind of person you are.

Question: isn't the work that you do what the employer is paying you for? This is why the strategies and methods of your run-of-the-mill job interview don't make sense to me. It kind of reminds me of that Dilbert comic strip where the pointy-haired boss says, "I don't know any of you personally, but you all have great hair, so you must be fabulous people!"

It also makes me wonder what would have happened had I been diagnosed with Asperger's earlier. The most frustrating part of my problem, over all these years, was that I didn't understand the problem.