|Posted on November 9, 2016 at 4:10 PM||comments (0)|
Do Werewolves Exist?
Reasons Werewolves don’t exist: Contrary to the belif that Native Americans have that a man can change into an animal, people cannot turn into animals, it’s just not humanly possible. Therefore there’s no way possible for a man to turn into a rabid wolf and start going around killing people. Also the moon has no effect on how people act despite what some may say.
Reasons they could exist: Like a suggested in the vampires part again we go back to the evolution chart. In a way early pre-humans were more animal like so in a way a werewolf was more possible. Also there could be a genetic effect in man to which he grow a tremendous amount of hair, so much that he looks like a werewolf. Yes this seems ridiculous but again these are just two theories as to how werewolves could exist.
Do Zombies Exist?
Reasons Zombies exist: Well first off Zombies do exist just not in the way we think they do. Zombies are real and it’s a practice in Africa and of voodoo in which a person is controlled and sometimes even buried to believe they are dead. For a more thorough and better analysis check out a piece called Voodoo Zombies vs Flesh eating Zombies on https://monstersofmidian.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/31-days-of-halloween-day-13-voodoo-zombies-vs-flesh-eating-zombies/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Monsters of Midian’s website. She gives a great breakdown of the difference and how real one is from the other.
Reasons Zombies don’t exist: If you read the link I sent you then you’ll know why and what kind of zombies exist. So the bigger question is do the zombies we perceive in movies and television exist? Yes and no. The truth is they exist except they aren’t called zombies, they’re simply called “cannibals”. People who eat flesh are not zombies they are just cannibals and either psychopaths or people from an ancient tribe in other countries who believe in eating other humans. “Zombie” has no relevance to flesh eaters in the real world but somewhere down the road perhaps George Romero himself decided to create a new type of zombie who is dead and eat’s flesh and brains. The only way such a zombie could exist is if the voodoo sorcerer who made the zombie told him to eat human flesh and brains so by that standard...they could exist although I don’t think they believe in doing that.
|Posted on November 9, 2016 at 4:05 PM||comments (0)|
-Documented Accounts on sightings
Horror Relation: creatures of horror are just like UFO’s and aliens we don’t know if they exist but there’s plenty of accounts that they do.
For centuries our idea and thoughts of whether or not aliens exist has always sparked questions and debates. Like aliens many throughout the years have also claimed to have seen creatures of horror such as vampires, zombies, werewolves and other monsters. Do they exist? Well that’s where evidence comes in. There is tons of evidence and countless documents on people who have sightings on aliens and monsters for years. Some have been just kids playing pranks and others people telling wild stories but then there are those accounts that are to be taken seriously. Many people throughout different areas and countries claim to have seen strange beasts and when these people are all from the same area, chances are authorities and us as a society start to put some thought that there may be something there. With aliens we all know about the endless accounts and sightings but with horror creatures there’s also claims of sightings..only people tend to be looked at as though their off their rockers or not all there in the head. However with every nut job claiming to see a creature there is a legitimate person making a serious claim and sighting. There have been countless vampire, werewolf, zombies, man-made monsters and other beastly sightings of creatures but these most well known four that people don’t think are fiction after all.
Would you know if you saw a vampire? It seems silly but there’s more into the possibility then you may think. Have you ever seen a beast you couldn’t place? A person who seemed a little out of it and lazier than normal? A person that looked so disfigured that you’d swear they were man made? Yes this all seems foolish and ridiculous but people have claimed to have seen them and not all of them are nutty or looking for 15 minutes of fame. After all, when you say to the public that you’ve seen an alien your life as you know it changes and you’ll never get the government off your back. So if that’s the case with aliens then why is it so hard to believe that people claim to see these creatures? What it really all comes down to is that aliens and creatures are the same..they aren’t human and yet millions of people claim to see them. Whether or not they exist is up for debate but then again ask yourself this, if so many people are making claims don’t they account for something? This can be said about bigfoot and personally I think bigfoot is a species of gorilla/human hybrid so the claims that there is only one are fetched. Remember though, horror creatures could be just as real as aliens, bigfoot or the loch ness monster and with so many people claiming such sightings there should be a bit of looking into to see if they truly exist because documents and sightings are still coming out today and they’re only going to become bigger.
-They cause discussions and opinions
Horror Relation: The creatures like aliens are always a topic of discussion. They get people to talk about their opinions on the matter of whether or not they exist and reasons supporting both sides.
Sort of similar to what I stated in the first reason but whether or not you believe in aliens or horror monsters the fact is that they get people to talk and discuss. With aliens of course there is vast opinions where the subject matter is usually back and forth debating on whether or not they’re real. With horror creatures it’s usually whose the best one and not whether or not they exist or which one most likely exists but nevertheless such a vast range of epic monster talk gets people talking just like alien talk does. While people debate the existence of aliens they tend to be more open to the idea of if horror creatures existed and what they would do. Why is this? Well perhaps because horror is a more enjoyed genre whereas not everyone is into aliens and Ufology. Also people grow up watching horror films and see the creatures and while they are supposed to be feared there’s like ability there, with UFO’s and aliens there’s a big unknown factor as well as the possibility they may take over the world. So if I had to guess I’d say people would be more open to the idea of there being horror monsters over ufo’s and aliens but it’s worth knowing that both bring thorough and valid discussions.
-There’s Plenty of Info on Them
Horror Relation: Like Ufology, there’s plenty of information on the topic to go over and look at throughout the years. Whether it’s old info or current and modern information the fact is that there’s enough to work with.
Obviously there is tons of info on everything but from a theoretical, hypothetical and debating standpoint they both have a substantial amounts of information for ideas to which we can only speculate as to whether or not existence is true. Also the info on them is similar in the sense that they are entities and there’s no solid conclusive and definitive evidence that states they they are on this earth and they exist.
|Posted on October 18, 2016 at 4:05 PM||comments (0)|
Politics, a topic that you either like and enjoy making an opinion about or have no interest in whatsoever and couldn’t care less. If your like me you fall under the second category but given that we have a presidential election this year lots of people such as myself who have no business talking politics are talking about it and rightfully so. This year more than any other year there is clear evidence that there’s horror in politics. Now I could sit here and slam both parties running for president but that’s not the point of this article. The point is to show that the overall basis of their simple being, their tactics and the whole running for president in itself has become downright horrific. Politics have always been like this, it doesn’t take a follower of it to see that but when you have two people running for president whose wild views and opinions are out there, it makes you wonder how it’s come to this and really makes you say “oh the horror!”. Go down the line and you’ll see countless dirty politicians doing whatever they can to win a seat or become president but it just feels that this year is the worst and it makes me as the biggest question of all...what is our country in for with either party becoming president?
While you think about that question let me ask you another, is a certain presidential candidate becoming president just as scary as a horror villain killing people or a gross gory scene? Before you think they have nothing to do with each other just remember this..the presidential candidate is real which means that yes there is most definitely a connection here. I’m sure many would rather be in a world of horror slashers than have to listen to the ignorant rambling of both parties especially the most outspoken one. What I’m really getting at though is the reality of horror. True and real horror exists and I’m not talking about ghosts and paranormal I’m talking about bad decision making along with economical and social decline that our country faces with the next president. It’s real horror, it’s real horror there’s no other way for me to put it. It’s like asking if you want Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees for president and yes you have to vote for one. Sure there’s the green party and libertarian party but let’s say that would be the equivalent of voting for a lesser evil that we know nothing about and we actually put our faith in Myers or Voorhees because at least we have an idea of what they are whereas voting for the lesser evils is a greater risk because not much is known about them.
Now I bet your asking two things, lesser of the two evils? And whose who between Myers and Voorhees? First off, what I mean by the lesser of two evils is that regardless of what we know the known villains are capable of we’d be more prone to vote for one of them because the other two are virtually unknown and therefore can’t be trusted because it could be worse..worse than the two main ones? Okay, okay, I’m sure you get the idea. As for whose who? It’s not important it was merely an example. Bottom line, I think people would rather vote for one of the movie slashers than one of the actual presidential candidates. Politics are evil, they bring out the worst in people and if you’re already deemed a bad person it just shows the world just how bad you truly are in the public eye. To me there are not winners in politics or in the becoming the next president because so much slander and nonsense gets brought up that the two candidates have become so eager to obtain the seat of power that they forget what they are running for...the people. When one of the candidates is clearly not a people person and degrades others what does it really say? It shows that there is true evil in this world and that there is real horror and most of it happens in the misconstrued lines that we call politics.
|Posted on August 29, 2016 at 11:50 PM||comments (0)|
So I've tried to use Pinterest more as a social media outlet and connect with readers and gain potential customers. I feel as though Pinterest is clearly different from Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in the sense that you can't just post what you want on there because on Pinterest there's boards and unless you have a board for what your posting you can't pin it. Here's what I've been doing on there lately:
I've created a board for all my articles and blog posts from my website and used https://pablo.buffer.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Pablo For Buffer to create images for the posts to which I then pinned to the board. This will hopefully let more people see my blog posts on my website as I have always had a lack of views on that section of my site. Also using Pablo For Buffer is fun and made it easy to create simple related images of the posts themselves. This was also how I managed to get Pinterest on my Buffer which I would otherwise have to pay for by getting a premium account.
I created boards for stuff I'm interested in. I saw someone ask once on Twitter if you should create a separate business account on Twitter separate from your personal account and I say no. Given that you can create as many boards as you want you can easily make business/author related boards and boards of things that interest you and have them all on the same account. Any person who follows you or wants to check out your stuff and takes an interest in you can simply follow the boards they want and un-follow the ones they don't. For example I like Frank Sinatra but yet he has nothing to do with my writing, horror or poetry boards but yet I still have a board for him because he interests me. Anyone else who likes him can follow the board and anyone who doesn't can look elsewhere on my account for a board they do like,
I've found that you should make a board secret until you have at least 25 pins within it. This way you can build on it and it's easier to manage when your looking for things to put into it. I've done this with several of my boards as I like to build them up before I make them publicly available to view.
I've even made a board for something I thought I wouldn't but actually decided to based off another board. So upon finding pins of guns for my https://www.pinterest.com/justinbienvenue/weird-westernwestern-horror/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Western Horror board I found that I kept posting and seeing unique guns so rather than keep seeing them and overloading them into a board they don't fit in I created a https://www.pinterest.com/justinbienvenue/unique-guns/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Unique Guns board. Did I plan to? No, but seeing that I kept seeing them eventually I gained an interest in them and found that other do too so it makes for a good way to create boards by seeing if you have a certain amount in one and can make it into another.
Finally, I'd still like to establish my Pinterest more so that I can not only gain readers but connect to my potential audience there. I feel because Pinterest is used for so many things that how I can use it is being outweighed by my lack of really understanding how the site can truly work. I will take it slow and hope the process will eventually make sense and maybe then I will see a positive increase on there.
|Posted on December 19, 2015 at 2:00 PM||comments (0)|
Advice. According to a Webster’s dictionary the definition of advice reads, “suggestion or recommendation regarding a course of action or decision”. Regardless on whether or not the advice is taken it’s is still considered advice, as helping someone out by giving them a pointer. However is it still advice if it’s not serious? For example someone’s advice to another could be to jump off a bridge, this is clearly an old silly saying but what if was meant to be serious? There is quite a difference between serious and joking but then again perhaps it all depends on the individual. Whether or not it’s serious or jokingly the content to which it’s being said and given at the time, it’s considered it to be advice and once again whether or not we take it is our own choice.
Before I get to the funniest piece of advice I’ve ever received I shall tell of one of the funniest places to which I have ever received advice...fortune cookies. First of all, who eats those things? You ever trying eating a fortune cookie? If you have god bless you but I am more interested in the wisdom to which it contains. While I don’t remember all fortunes I’ve received I remember one timeless one which read “A penny saved is a penny earned”, now that’s what I call good ole fashioned advice!
One of the funniest pieces of advice I have ever heard or read came from the late actor Robert Mitchum. He once said, “If your gonna do something do your best at it, if your gonna be a bum be the best bum there is”, I have come to love this quote and it’s not only one of my favorites but I think very good advice to which I myself have used in life.
The funniest piece of advice I have ever received came in 7th grade from one of my teachers. We were talking about something along the lines of endurance and how much pain a person can withstand. This topic brought up the sport of boxing to which the teacher told all of us and mind you we are children, “Boxing is good for people with ADHD and ADD so if any of you have ADHD or ADD I think you’d be good at boxing”. Now while I don’t remember my exact reaction and I never had either, I do know I was quite shocked at such a statement. Why would a teacher tell her students this?! While some may find this totally inappropriate and wild which I totally agree it is, I must say I find it to be one of the funniest pieces of advice I have ever received.
This post is a part of the Festive Spirit Blog Hop:
|Posted on October 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM||comments (0)|
Back in 2013 I created a thread on Goodreads entitled, "Hundred Year Old Horror". At first it started off as a way in which I analyzed classic hundred year old works of famous authors by figuring out their rating on the site and comparing them against one another. After a while my posts expanded into more than just rating and comparing works. I now analyze works and take a deeper look into them and then write about what the work is, what it means and give my own personal take on it. There are quite a bit of posts written and I have started expanding on it more and intend to keep it going. I have also created a Hundred Year Old Horror Board on Pinterest. Here you can check out the books I analyze, rate and talk about.
If you enjoy works of the past and enjoy classic horror then please feel free to check out the thread and board. Also feel free to share and give feedback on your thoughts about the works of classic hundred year old horror.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1396111-hundred-year-old-horror" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Hundred Year Old Horror on Goodreads
https://www.pinterest.com/justinbienvenue/hundred-year-old-horror/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Books of HYOH on Pinterest
|Posted on February 23, 2015 at 4:20 PM||comments (0)|
Everyone familiar with the place? Located in Tombstone, AZ, It opened in December of 1881 and was one of the most wild and hot spots during the Wild West. It's said that 26 people were killed inside during the 1880's. It's also said that there's over 120 bullet holes still imbedded within the walls throughout the building. Men used to gamble inside and ladies used to work within as saloon girls and entertain their clients. A fire in 1882 devastated the town however this place as well as Big Nose Kate's Saloon are the only two remaining buildings standing to having survived the fire.These are the only two places still standing today that really tell of Wild West history and even before stepping inside I would imagine one could just feel the essence and take in the Western nostalgia.
Today the Bird Cage Theatre is a museum and tourist attraction for ghost tours. From an interest standpoint I'd love to visit the museum and enjoy the western history, as an author whose written a Western Horror I'd love to go on a ghost tour to get more inspired. This partly because many vistiors and employees have claimed to have witnessed seeing spirits of former prostitutes and men in cowboy hats. Sounds are heard during the night as if parties are going on. Also many claim to hear people walking on the floor boards even though there's only one person within the place. Two ghost hunting teams have invesitgated the place and both experience some serious activity. Apparenty not only were there wild parties and commotion back in the day but there some still carry on and continue to party late into the night years later. While I don't think there's any zombies there I definitely think there's ghosts and paranormal objects of cowboys and outlaws still roaming within and along the grounds of the place.
I love things like this and this is definitely on my list of places to visit. The town alone is wild west history and so is the outside of the building itself of the Bird Cage Threatre. One step inside must bring a person back in time on a very enjoyable and at times creepy ride. There are many artifacts and objects within the place that are worth looking at and it will really make you appreciate the Wild West. Anytime I see something on television on this place I immediately stop what I'm doing and watch it. I just think it's one of the most fascinating and under appreciated historical places in the united states that more people should know about. Perhaps it's become a bit of an amusement to some but I would still love to go sometime and check the place out as a museum or go on a ghost tour. To take it all in and hear the stories and experiences of what took place there and what still takes place there would be quite exciting to hear.
You can learn out more on the Bird Cage Theatre on their website @
|Posted on January 20, 2015 at 3:15 PM||comments (0)|
A way of writing, a way of expression, a style in which words come about on a paper in such a way that they create a visual image or flow of feelings. Poetry is rhythm without a beat, music without a note, emotion in every sense shape and form. For some it is either a way of expressing ones feelings or to tell a story but no matter how it is written or what is being said it is what it is because the writer makes it so.
Poetry is like art, some see beyond what’s really shown, what’s behind the surface of being told. They see the inner meaning and sometimes take the outer meaning as a silhouette or shell of what the real point is that’s trying to be made. One does not need to be creative or imaginative but there needs to be a sense of emotion and sense of drive to write but it is because of all these things that truly make poetry a whole. Own feelings and experiences make up for more then half of all poems, that’s an estimate but needs to not be proven because of the simple fact that it is irrelevant as to whether or not the writer truly put something of their own into it because if the words speak to the reader then it does not matter if the poet lived it or not.
Poetry is inspiration, interpretation and representation. One can feel inspired and write about what they see, however, like mentioned prior to what the poet writes about and what the reader takes can be two completely different ideas, and neither are wrong because the poem in itself is being represented. Poetry has stood the test of time because there will always be people who have something to say and there will always be people who are willing to read and listen. Whether it be seven syllables in a three sentence structure, a fourteen line sonnet or non rhyme free verse there are so many different ways in which poetry can be written.
Poetry doesn’t seem as popular as it once was in the sense as it’s not out there in your face. Back in the days of Shakespeare; poets were well known and loved by many and poetry was almost a way of life ,a culture if you will. It was an era in which people relied and yearned for it, it wasn’t just about expression but something to be looked forward to and appreciated in every way. It was a movement and generated many followers and inspired many poets alike to come together and just express themselves.
These were the days when the minute the ink feathered pens hit the paper something truly remarkable was going to be written to be enjoyed by so many people. After Shakespeare there was still famous poets coming about and writing. Keats, Longfellow, Frost, Lord Byron, Emily Dickinson just to name a few. These poets all stand the test of time because of what they felt and what they wrote but now it somehow seems as though we have lost touch with that.
Today it’s like poetry has become an underground society or if it is there it’s shy and not as popular and renowned as it once was. It’s not that poetry isn’t being written cause it is but it just seems like there aren’t anymore famous or popular poets like back in the day making it so well respected. It’s like its become a small group of only certain people who know its there and truly appreciate it. I once said “If poetry is dead then I wish to bring it back” I said this because I felt as though a part of poetry has died and it needs someone to come out and make it alive again.
It could be taken many ways or be as simple as this, poetry like many things has always been here but just doesn’t have the drive that it once did. However, I don't believe it will become extinct, not by any means. I just think it needs a little push, a spark to ignite it and get it going again. Overall though one thing should be taken about the last statement, poetry will never die as long as there are writers who pour their hearts out to write it and as long as there is an audience.
|Posted on October 21, 2014 at 6:15 PM||comments (0)|
We’ve all seen some of the iconic horror movies with the infamous killers in them. Their impact on the society has reached well beyond the horror and movie world. However I am not going to be getting into the impact they have on modern culture but rather take a look as to which one is the scariest of all. Who has the title of being the greatest and scariest horror slasher out of all of them? I will device a list and tell a brief description on who they are and what makes them a possibility and what weakness they have that may let us to consider someone else.
5. CHUCKY- The living maniac killing doll is no doubt one of the most underrated and vicious of them all. Chucky is result of a former serial killer who died and his spirit went into this Buddy doll for kids. The killer then decided to take up killing again and will stop at nothing until he succeeds. Not gonna lie, as a kid I was scared of Chucky; probably because he was a doll and kids and dolls are suppose to be friendly and well yeah, let’s just say I had one too many nightmares of our beloved horror doll.
Reason to Consider: He’s a doll and he’s small which makes leaves him to be underestimated and hide in places that most killers wouldn’t even consider. He’s a former serial killer and apparently he’s quite sadistic and not even being in a small plastic body is going to stop him from killing. He’s determined, now I understand that most of them all are but I’d like to think that given the fact that he has it less fortunate then they others, he’s a bit more determined then the rest. He goes after kids, not just teens and adults, this is a big factor.
Weakness- He’s a doll. Odd that his reason to consider is also his weakness but yeah he’s a doll which means in most cases people just believe they can get rid of him easily. A simple drop kick or throw into a wood chipper and he’s pretty much a goner. Some may not fear dolls or even take them seriously which makes him less successful then the rest. He’s made of plastic so while mostly all of them have been on fire at one point or another Chucky is the most likely to perish because of one.
4. LEATHERFACE- The crazy psychopathic killer of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. This guy leaves nothing to the imagination and any guy with a skin mask is bound to be a bit nutty. Aside from him he also kills with his inbred family and there’s cannibalism mixed in there as well.
Reason to consider: He’s an absolute psychopath. I mean I did say he wears peoples skin as a leather mask so that usually means he’s a bit more deranged then a normal serial killer. His weapon of choice in my opinion is the best of all, the chainsaw. People are genuinely afraid of chainsaws when they aren’t used for chopping wood so you put one in the hands of a killer and you got some real fear and horror to unleash. Just like most killers, he’s out for blood so the reason this makes him one to consider is because he doesn’t seem to know any better then to kill.
Weakness- He’s not right in the head, he’s not all there seems a bit dumb. Then again he’s probably the product of two family members so therefore he could come off as slightly more dumb then most of the slashers making him less venerable. Also, he tends to take orders from his family so perhaps he could be manipulated(keyword: could). Finally, he looks the part but he is a person after all and can be taken down if you are smart enough and have the right arsenal to do so. He’s more human then others.
3. NORMAN BATES- While he’s not the only killer with mommy issues he definitely has the biggest one. Norman Bates is the prolific serial killer of the Bates Motel in the movie Psycho. He starts by killing a young women who stays at his hotel and not only does he kill her but dresses up like his dead mother in order to do so.
Reason to consider: The movie wasn’t called “I’m Perfectly Sane”. Bates has serious issues including psychological, mental disorders along with schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder meaning this guy’s head not only isn’t screwed on right but there’s natural issues which makes him deadly. Another reason to consider him, you won’t see him coming because usually those he kills are in his area being either the house or the rooms of the motel.
Weakness- His mother. If a person survives long enough to know he has issues with his mom then they can use it against him. Some have and it’s worked, talk about his mother and simply use it against him. This does however seem like a rather easy weakness but then again it’s also what makes him so creepy and scary. He’s human which means if anyone were able to stab, shoot or do whatever else they could to kill him they would succeed. Bates’ biggest weakness is that he’s the most venerable to death but getting a chance to kill him is the hard part.
2. JASON VOORHEES/MICHAEL MYERS- I could not decide on which one so they both come in at #2. Jason is the iconic hockey mask killer in Friday the 13th who comes back more times then anyone to kill teens at Camp Crystal Lake. Michael Myers is the man who comes out every Halloween to go after his sister Laurie and kill other along the way. Both killers have similar characteristics and qualities which makes it hard to figure out which is better then the other.
Reason to consider(JASON): He simply won’t die, he can’t die. He’s been shot at, stabbed, pushed off buildings, blown up, you name it, it’s been done to him. He uses his iconic machete to kill people and when he’s not using that well..he comes up with some pretty interesting and creative ways to kill. He’s an evil spirit and considering he won’t die and he’s killed more people then probably anyone on the list, do you need a reason to not consider him?
Weakness- Well he is pretty much immune and immortal after all but apparently has a weakness to water as shown by Freddy in Freddy vs Jason. Then again Jason’s weakness is water because it’s the very reason he is the way he is since he drowned as a boy. So pretty much, if anyone can keep Jason in pieces in a iron box at the bottom of the Lake, then that’s a good enough weakness.
Reason to consider(MICHAEL): Like Jason, He doesn’t seem to wanna die. He’s past being human and has been shot and stabbed countless times like Jason only to get up and kill again and again. Myers is as ruthless as they come, he’s quiet and brutal at the same time. He’s killed and kills as much as Jason perhaps a bit under but has no conscience and no feeling when he kills, which makes him deadly. Since he can’t die or is hard to kill, makes him quite a candidate to consider.
Weakness: Perhaps he can sometimes be reasoned with but other then that there is no weakness of Myers. Sometimes he stops and doesn’t kill and even hesitates but whether or not this is a legitimate weakness can be debated.
1. FREDDY KRUEGER- The killer from “Nightmare on Elm Street” tops the list at 1. Krueger used to prey on young kids until the parents of the young kids killed him by trapping him in a warehouse and lighting it on fire. The invader of dreams, Freddy can kill you many ways and holds no punches but uses blades on his hands to do so.
Reason to consider: He can kill you while you sleep oh and did I mention he can kill you while you sleep? This to me clearly puts him over the rest of the gang as victims don’t even have to be awake to meet Freddy as he greets them with their untimely end. By being able to kill you in your dreams, Freddy can take many different forms and uses them to kill. Of course he always has his trusty bladed hands to which he can use to slice a person up like an apple.
Weakness: Well considering a fire is what killed him, fire would be a clear sign of his weakness. Also if anyone is able to pull him into the real world that is a big weakness on his part, making him virtually helpless. Freddy can’t be reasoned with or manipulated, at least not in the sense of using it against him as a weakness. Fire and the real world are his two biggest ones.
|Posted on October 10, 2014 at 3:35 PM||comments (0)|
We all know about Dracula. However..to which are we referring, Vlad Dracula or the man Bram Stoker created? Yes Bram Stoker took the concept of Dracula from Vlad the Impaler but how much of that is real and how much is false? He took a real man and made him into a vampire. A blood thirsty evil madman who sucks the blood of his victims and is captivating and alluring among other things. How many of these things did Vlad himself actually do? None. Vlad the Impaler was a man who was a general who ruled for his country of Wallachia. He impaled his victims with huge stakes. Thousands upon thousands at a time upon a site in battle or in town. This is the only actual gruesome thing that we know of about Vlad Tepes. There are rumors that he drank the blood of victims, did odd things at night but again these are simply rumors.
While we are no stranger to deciphering fact from fiction sometimes it's hard to tell what is real and what is not. Dracula needed to have come from somewhere, need a basis and so Vlad was that very basis. Dracula is also based on sixteenth century countess Elizabeth Bathory who bathed in the blood of her virgin servants to remain young and youthful. She too used torture tactics to achieve her own person bloody nirvana. It was said that she too drank blood, this is where I believe Stoker got the whole idea of drinking blood. I believe he took it from Bathory not Vlad since there are more valid evidence that claims Bathory drank blood rather than Vlad. So basically Stoker took certain elements and actual sick rituals and techniques from both people and put them into and created Dracula.
When someone asks is Dracula real? Ehh..he was yes in a sense based off the name and certain ways but in the sense of the very Vampire that we read about not so much. I could see here and bring the whole concept of Vampirism into this but I have't quite done that much research and that may bring this into a whole other discussion. Dracula's origins are that he is from Transylvania. However Vlad Tepes was from Romania which at the time was Transylvania. Note this thought though, Stoker seemed to take the blood shedding and out for blood part from Vlad yet used his very technique against him. Vlad was known as the Impaler because he impaled his victims on long wooden stakes. Yet it's these very wooden stakes to which is the reason of how to kill the fictional Dracula and all vampires. Also the holy cross. We all know that crosses are said to scare off and burn Dracula and vampires if they come too close. Again though Vlad himself was very religious. So much so that he was denounced from the Catholic church and fought for his religious rights. So it's kind of ironic that a cross is one of the weaknesses that Dracula and vampires are prone to. Stoker clearly did his research on the Prince however decided to do a switch and put his own twist on certain ideas.
Having read two books on Dracula and not counting the original by Stoker I noticed interesting things in both. In Vlad: The Last Confession the book focuses on the actual man who became the legendary fictional character. Any references to the words "Dracula", "Dracul" are because of his name which means Son of the Dragon or Devil. Seems only fitting that Stoker took quite the perfect name for his myth. In the book Dracula's Apprentice, Vlad Dracula is mentioned but you don't know whether it's the real Vlad the Impaler or the fictional character. I took it as in the middle being a bit of both which means Dracula has that realistic part to him but also the fictional part to him.
In very simple terms, Dracula was a real man. The story Bram Stoker created has made that very man be seen in a whole new life. Vlad Tepes was a secret agent in a way. In real life he was a ruthless general and in fiction he was a Prince of Darkness, blood drinking vampire. However a person wants to see it without Vlad and without Bram Stoker we would not have vampires. Perhaps vampires were thought of before he I believe there is (again I don't want to get into another side story) but even if there was vampires it wasn't until his tale that we really took a notice to them. His simple horror book of a blood craving pale creature turned the world of writing and horror upside down(no pun intended). It's quite a thought at least to me that one man managed to change the shape of horror as we know it. It makes me wonder if another person today could creature and write about their own creature that takes off a spins a whole new horrific species and starts a phenomenon.
|Posted on October 10, 2014 at 2:40 PM||comments (0)|
We all have either read, watched or even experienced some kind of Horror within our lives. Horror is an untested genre compared to the likes of others, it could stand on it's own but at times is found pairing up with other sub genres and always getting something added to it even though it never truly needs a change or makeover. We are all scared by certain elements of horror but aren't there certain ones that just scare us a little but more then others? Out of all the types of horror there always seems to be solid constants which consist of blood, a victim and the whole foundation to which makes horror so good at what it is...scare. So while I remember making a list a while back of the certains kinds of horror, that was then and this is now and here are the certain types of horror to which we as a society find to scare the living hell out of us but we cannot seem to get enough of.
Classic/Fright Horror- In my classification this would be what we know today as the classic universal horror films like Frankenstein, Dracula, Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc. It's the type of horror that at the time was normal, typical and truly horrifying but now in my opinion has it's own type of horror as almost humorous and gives more laughs and chills then shocks, screams and cries. It's this horror that has set the stage for the horror we know today yes but in it's own honor and right it is a type of horror to which "we can deal with, comprehend and not feel overwhelmed with fear".
The Gore and Gruesome- Now it's no surprise that most horror we know of today has gore and gruesome elements. If it's bloody, it's gruesome and if it's both you can be sure there's a crazed phycopathic killer that's doing all the damage and loving every bit of it. Some just don't have the stomach for such horror which is why it's a certain type, because it's not for everyone but those who do love it seem to get no reaction and love seeing guts, blood and gruesome scenes from books and television.
Spooky- This falls under the ghost, ghouls and paranormal type of horror. The kind that at first glance you think whats so...and before you know it you realize that what you're seeing isn't really there or is only half there. Ghosts are another case of classic horror and they certain pack enough unnerving to scare and spook anyone to kids from 1 to 102. Then of course their are ghouls, the living dead and the whole paranormal type of scare that give this type of horror it's own classification. Sure some investigate and aren't scared in the slightest by this but nevertheless it is a type of horror.
Splatterpunk/No Filter- I used a word that's already been coined but it's the best way I can describe the type of horror. Splatterpunk is a type of horror to which goes beyond well beyond the normal amounts of gore, blood and sinister ways a person is used to. It's a detailed and graphic type of horror which tends to have no filter and uses the presence of blood and gore to really drive a story.
It Just Is- How is "It just is" horror? Think back on some films or even books to which you asked yourself, why is that killer they way he is? Why are those people crazy lunaticcs who are out to get people? You think about it long and hard and you come to a starling and horrific conclusion..there is no reason for the horror your seeing and there is no reason as to why the killer is the way they are other then...It just is...IT JUST IS!
|Posted on July 4, 2014 at 8:00 PM||comments (0)|
I am watching the Twilight Zone Marathon right now as i type. I watch it as I do every 4th of July. I am a big fan and have enjoyed the series for as long as I can remember. I have my favorite episodes and I have my least favorite, one of my least favorite's is the episode "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street". This is one of the most iconic episodes because the moral of the story and the plot is so simple that it's ironic and funny when you really think about it. For those unaware of what it's about, A street called Maple has many a people outside doing stuff along with a few inside. A light goes off in the sky and they believe it to be meteors. Then their lights go out, their cars stop working and a boy tells them that he's read stories of martians and that this is how it starts in the stories. They write him off and soon more odd things happen. One man goes out to the other street to see if they are having the same issues and soon they start blaming themselves. One after another they all accuse one another of being a martian or not who they say they are. The man who left comes back only to be shot and mistaken for an alien. Soon they start bashing and ridaculing one another and when they can't find a reasonable solution as to what's happening they blame the one thing they can all agree on, they blame themselves. This episode drives me nuts and I can't stand it yet I still watch it..why? That is but a question I still ask myself to this day. Aside from that let me explain why it bothers me and why it's a good question of thought if we as human beings would do such a thing ourselves even today.
The reason it bothers me is because they all fail to use two things..Common Sense and Rationalization. From the very beginning they see a light in the sky and assume it to be meteors. Then when weird things start happening they all blame each other rather then connect the dots and think that maybe the weird things are related to the strange light they saw a little while ago. Of course this would defy the whole episode but even so, you gotta think that they aren't all the same way are they? Well nope..clearly they all think the same way and they all blame each other and accuse one another of being an alien from outer space. Now if it were me? I would be rational and say hey guys maybe it's just a technical glitch and I'm going to check it out, the heck with what the kid says. Or I would say hey you know maybe it has to do with that light we saw a little while ago. I would be the most rational but maybe they would think that I was the alien because I'm thinking so straight and making sense that clearly I must be the alien because I know and think too much. Well if that is the case then screw you Maple Streeters! God, it's so annoying! Like why would you think it's one of your own, if you've all been outside bickering then how has anyone had a chance to do something weird and mysterious? Or better yet lets sit down and think rationally, rational is the key word here folks. They all are just comepletely out of their minds and given it was the sixties maybe people were a bit off back then but I thought it was from the drugs not the stupidity of not using common sense. Also, one of the guys stares up at the sky at night because he can't sleep, he has insomnia but not according to one lady, she says he's waiting for someone. No lady, He cant sleep! That makes perfect sense to me! No he must be an alien..dear god! The boy must be an alien because he knew what was going to happen...yeah because he reads! He saw something on a t.v and h'es the one who makes the most sense.
There was another version of this episode and the outcome was the same, so it shows that no matter the times we still blame ourselves and clearly some of us are stupid and cannot think of a reasonable idea as to why strange things are happening. The end of the episode shows that it was in fact aliens who are ontop of a hill playing around with technology using a device of their own. One states to the other we blame ourselves and that their are Maple Street's all over. Yes this may be true but I would like to think that those of use who aren't Maple Street are those who use our brains and don't jump to hasty conclusions. I know it's just an episode on a show but my god it's one that is so real and yet so stupid that I cringe every time it's on. If only they opened their eyes, thought logically and maybe just maybe went back to their own homes and went back to their own thing then maybe they wouldn't be so skiddish and freaked out over one another. I would think that if aliens were manipulating our technology and trying to get us to destroy each other that if there were a group of us that one of those people in the group maybe even two would be...RATIONAL! Hey, maybe it is aliens, let's look into this..no no your the alien because your thinking to forward..uhh no I'm making the most sense. Moral of this post? Rod Serling was a genius of his day, we may in fact be stupid and aliens take us for granted and last but not least I thought way too much about this episode.
|Posted on June 23, 2014 at 5:40 PM||comments (0)|
So if you’re a sports or football fan then I’m sure you’ve heard this. If your not a sports fan there’s still a good chance you’ve heard it because it’s on the verge of becoming newsworthy. The NFL franchise the Washing Redskins have been advised that they should change their name and have most recently gotten several trademarks taken away from them because Native Americans find the term “Redskin” offensive. This issue has been circulating quite a bit since last year but had once again resurfaced and Redskins owner Dan Snyder has stayed firm in saying he will not change the name no matter what. Despite recent issues having come forth Snyder still sticks by his original statement and says he will not and does not feel he should change the name of the Redskins to something else. On a side note, a neighbor of Snyder took out a patent trademark on the word “Bravehearts” like the movie starring Mel Gibson, most likely this neighbor was told to do this on behalf of Snyder and this is perhaps an insurance policy a.k.a backup option ready to go in the event that Snyder loses his case. After hearing about this I immediately thought of it and gathered my opinion on the matter and while it may not be how most feel I say, use common sense and look at the obvious facts that cannot be ignored.
I do not feel the Redskins should change their name. Why should they have to? They have been the Washington ‘Redskins” since 1937 which up to today is 77 years! They have had the name for 77 years and just now the Natives are offended? I would think maybe back then they would have been more offended because there was still tension perhaps? I mean we are a much different society and world today compared to back then so why now are the Natives suddenly offended? Or has this always been an issue but we are just now hearing about it? I highly doubt it’s been a continuing issue for 77 years or any amount of years because the NFL and the Washington franchise would have done something about it by now. So why now?(upon further review the issue has come up a few times over the years but not as strong as it is today) Back in the day when the Redskin’s name was first used no Indian/Native American had an issue with it and I would think an Indian back then would be more offended then one of today but then again I suppose that’s solely my opinion. Perhaps they feel that it represents their ancestors and grandparents in a bad light? I can sort of see that but again they have been around for years so if those before you weren’t offended then why should you be? Now I’m not Native American but I believe even if I was I would not be offended by the term “Redskins” even if it was a quote on quote “bad term” representing a ethnicity as it does right now because I realize that it is the name of a sports team and does not mean to offend again if it’s used as a sports team name and has been around for so long how can it be deemed offensive?
I would also like to state another reason as to why this is so odd and makes no sense to me. There are other logo’s and team names which have or represent Native Americans and Indians and no one has said anything about them. Baseball has the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves. Cleveland’s logo is Chief Wahoo who is a red Indian, isn’t the Redskin’s logo of a red Indian? No one’s said that Cleveland’s name or logo is offensive. The Atlanta Braves logo is an axe or tomahawk, a tomahawk is a Native American weapon. Now while I don’t see this as offensive as the other two since it’s the word ‘Brave” I can’t help but think that since a tomahawk is connected to Indian’s that Native’s should somehow be offended but yet they aren’t. In hockey there’s the Chicago Blackhawks who have a logo similar to the Redskins. I am not sure if the name “Blackhawk” was a Native American tribe but again it represent’s them just as the Redskins do and yet no one has found them controversial. To me if your going to say Redskin is offensive then you mind as well say Blackhawk is too. Also given the fact the logo’s are kind similar another reason to throw them into the spotlight of controversy as the Redskins. College Football has the Florida State Seminoles, now I get that Seminole in fact was a tribe but again if your going to single out one name shouldn’t you look over all other names Indian like and consider if they are offensive or even fair to keep if your getting rid of one? Again 77 years and other names of words to represent Native American culture and this one has got to go? It makes no sense. The NFL also has the Kansas City Chiefs, aren’t Chiefs a high class member of Native Americans? I mean sure “chief” is just a word but if your going to go after the Redskin then you should probably look into your other team. Also their logo is an arrowhead and the stadium is called Arrowhead Stadium, your tying and connecting an object like the Brave’s tomahawk to native American’s. I would think this could in some way also be offensive but again since its not a direct name to an Indian/Native American I can see perhaps why it’s looked over but even so, if your going to go after one then you need to look into all of the names.
U.S. Congress has got involved and they are the ones who took trademarks away from the team. Now if this get’s even more serious and the team does in fact have to change their name doesn’t that sort of take away from an amendment of some sort? Doesn’t that go against a whole region’s tradition? There is one more bit of information I find puzzling about all of this. Isn’t the Mascot of the Redskins an actual Native American Indian? From what I remember hearing and seeing, he’s been attending games in his Native Indian attire for over 30 years, 30 years! Why not ask him if he finds the term “redskin offensive” I mean I get that all people have different opinions but if your going to have an actual human and actual Native American as your mascot(official or non-official I don’t think it matters) then don’t you think his opinion matters? Surely he cannot speak for all Native Americans but then again they are a close society of people who tend to stick together and since he is one man representing a franchise in fun then how is it that others are all bent out of shape? So goes my point that one man cannot represent the beliefs and issues of a group of people. I don’t know maybe I’m wrong here but again if your going to have an actual Indian represent your team and he’s totally cool with it, why are you then going to have issues to get the name changed?
Back to the whole tradition thing, it takes away from it. Tradition is a annual continuation, it’s fun, it’s a representation and after 77 years they want to take away tradition from a football team just because Native American’s had a sudden lapse in judgement? I am sure if you look at other team names and I mean dig deep and look into small colleges, lesser known sports, minor league teams you will find a a good handful with some sort of name that could be considered offensive. Also these teams are not likely to have been around anywhere close to the years the Redskin’s have so it would not be breaking up and ruining tradition. To me, it just won’t be the same and it will sort of tarnish something that up until now as seemed so normal that the fact it’s now a controversy just does not make any sense. Now if the do change the name what will it be to? I would assume they will try to maneuver around the “Redskin” name and find something similar that is considered less offensive or not offensive at all. As I stated earlier “Bravehearts” could be a possibility but seeing as that was more of a Irish type of thing, how that would work I don’t know. What it comes down to is simple, why now? Why ruin tradition and have a franchise change it’s name after 77 years just because people find it offensive? If it wasn’t a big issue all these years it should not be a big issue now.
|Posted on August 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM||comments (0)|
Horror, the great core of things that scare us. Horror is known for it’s many sub-par words and genres that make it so and there’s no denying horror is not only what scares us but also what thrills and excites us. It is no wonder as to why horror has seemed to bloom and take off as of late, people just can’t seem to get enough. While movies can be explained as the same the question here is what makes a good horror book? Or what must be done for it to be good horror? Sure we all may enjoy a good cheesy horror film or book every now and then but when it comes to true horror we want the real thing. So how where does true horror begin? Well there are a few basics that all writers and authors or even directors and producers need to take into account before getting started on their latest horror project. These are not standards or rules but again basics that every person should know before they consider taking on horror and all of it’s sinister ways and plays. The first thing to consider when attempting horror is not to work on what you find scary but what others will find scary. Which brings me to the first tip.
Targeting an Audience- Your audience is one of the most important for anything whether it be readers or movie watchers however when it comes to horror fans they tend to want and expect a lot more. You want to appeal to them by making horror what it is..scary, gory, creepy, etc. What want to add a scare factor, something that will not only have them gripping their seat but freaked out or grossed out wanting more. A horror audience will expect to see twists and turns and everything that is to scare and horrify. Not everyone is going to be a fan of not only the horror you have in mind but horror in general so this is why your appealing to the fans, your general horror audience. Decide what direction of horror you want to target specifically and then take the right steps accordingly to determine the type of audience your aiming for.
Element of Surprise- Even if your horror isn’t going in the mystery direction it’s still good to keep people guessing and wondering so a surprise every once in a while will keep them wanting more. It doesn’t have to be a big surprise it doesn’t have to be a shocking revelation just a little twist that the reader or viewer didn’t see coming. Throwing in a surprise keeps the plot fresh and it keeps your readers entertained. This way they not only feel as though they are really into it but you have them wanting more because they don’t know what will happen next. Again whether big or small make it stand out, a little turn can lead to a big event or even a big event can lead to a realization that reader thought was big but they were surprised into finding out that something wasn’t as great as they thought.
Detail to Scare- When writing about horror especially in the sense of something scary write about it in detail. Not just the scary thing whatever it may be but the characters getting scared. Describe their emotions and feelings. Are they one the verge of crying? Having a breakdown? Let the reader take in your thoughts when you wrote it. Let them appreciate every detail about the scary thing and the person being scared. If you describe something with enough detail you can give the reader a clear image in their own heads of what the thing looks like. This not only shows your imagination but the readers as well and if enough detail is given then you’ll make the reader just as scared as the characters in the book/film.
Bring on the Gore- If you want your readers grossed out or just want to quench their lust of reading of blood then make the gore extra gory. Turn it up and give them something good. The gorier it is the more horrific it will be. Chances are however that not every reader is into gore, so while you want to pertain to the readers who enjoy it you may want to consider whether or not you want to do this or write about another type of horror with the gore to accommodate for those who don’t like it. When your adding the gore it’s the same thing above, you want detail. So describe the blood, describe the effects something is having on a person, really develop a presence that can be imagined and taken in by the reader to be enjoyed.
Stay away from cliches- This one is pretty self-explanatory. A reader wants something new something fresh(no pun intended). If your going to go in the direction of a cliche put your own spin on it so it’s not totally the same. Sometimes a cliche is fine but in horror it needs to be done carefully as in putting a spin on it. Horror cliches tend to get boring and redundant rather quick so taking on something new is better than taking on something that’s already been done. Taking on something new means for bringing in new people whereas taking on a cliche means you may pertain to the same general audience you’ve always had. Then again if your writing is good enough you’ll always hope and look to bring in a new audience.
Everyone has a tolerant level- Those who don’t enjoy horror this certainly does not for them. Everyone has a certain amount of horror they can take. Some have tastes for all kinds while others draw a line somewhere at some point. As a writer you cannot possibly know where your readers draw a line so this is where you write about what you like. As a horror writer you want to write your horror level to about the middle, not too much madness but not too little either. This way everyone gets an equal amount of horror without being turned on of off.
|Posted on August 23, 2013 at 2:45 PM||comments (0)|
Ever have that dream where your book gets made into a movie, you know after it’s become a best seller? I’m sure most of us have. While this is a long shot for a lot of us dreamers, those who do aren’t as lucky as we think they are. I’m sure it’s an overwhelming feeling to have one’s book made into a movie but whether or not the author has say and how much of the movie is truly based off the book is another thing. Imagine your books sold pretty well and out of the blue you find out that big movie producers want to bring your book onto the big screen and into a movie. Your probably jumping for joy and ready to shoot off to the moon in total enjoyment and disbelief over it. You meet with and discuss the general idea and sure enough they want to make your book into a movie. You make your way to the set and discuss a little bit more about the book and how it will translate then that first scene gets under way..
You know your book by heart, you’ve not only went over the pages over and over but you’ve created scenes of how it would go as a movie in your own head. To your horror you realize the scene is nothing like it is in the book but you keep calm. You think it’s only one scene but as scenes keep playing out you realize again that they aren’t taking your input into consideration or taking things from the book. They are taking them and twisting them into their own ideas which are nothing like what you would ever think of. You point out that this isn’t in the book and not what you want. The producers and directors tell you, they're the professionals and they know what it takes to make a movie. You tell them this isn’t what you signed up for, that you thought you would have say and input and this is not anything like your book. Again, they tell you to relax, the changes will be better then the book and if you continue to complain this movie will not be made. This is where you must make the decision, Do you pull the plug and walk away, try to reason with the producers and directors or just go with it?
Okay back to reality. If your ever faced with that situation then deal with it then but until then let’s talk about some of the things within that fantasy. Now I am no expert, producer, director or any head hancho for that matter so I have no idea if they would really treat someone like that. Based off what I do know about authors who have made movies I know that they haven’t always had say or input. Ever read one of Stephen King’s books and then watch the movie version and notice that some scenes and takes on the plot are completely different from the book? Now while I’m sure King agreed with and had input on most of these changes and gave the go ahead I know for a fact that there is one major movie to which he was not happy about when changes were made. Most of the movie version of “The Shining” is different than the book. The books focuses on Danny Torrance while the movie focuses more on his father Jack. I read that King agreed to this but not 100% and was really not pleased with a lot of the changes from the book to the movie. Again this is just an example and King is widely popular and one of the best authors of horror but it shows that authors don’t always get what they envision in their books.
Given the fact that most of us will never have our books made into movies let’s look at this discussion from a reader standpoint. As a reader how do you feel when you watch the movie version of one of your beloved favorite books only to scratch your head in bewilderment at the confusion to what’s taking place on screen? Yes I am aware that not every movie based off a book is different from the book itself but those that are what is your take? To me, in pivotal and key moments in the book they must remain the same when going into a movie. The structure of what makes the book ridiculous must be seen somewhere in the movie of else it will feel cheap and just not the same. Many people when you ask them will say “I liked the book better”.
This is true because the movie came after the book and the book is what the author had in mind whereas the movie usually has what the author, producer and director all had in mind. When have you ever known a book to come out after the movie version? I certainly cannot think of any such case. Another thing you may remember hearing people or yourself say when asked if you read a book is “Oh I saw the movie”. Okay well sometimes it’s not the same. Most of us found this out when we were in school doing a book report and instead of reading the book we watched the movie. When it came time to ask a question we were busted because a scene in the movie was not in the book.
So what it all comes down to is this, how do you like your movies that are made from books? Do you like them exactly about the book, exactly about the book with changes here and there or nothing like the book or nothing like the book with some things the same? Personally I like the first two, it let’s me know that the author didn’t sell out and that they had say. It tells me while maybe they could have gone in another direction they decided to keep the movie as the book because they believed in the story that they wanted to tell. Now it may be true that not all movies make big changes compared to the book but even if no changes are made at all we all usually come to the same conclusion, the book version is better.