BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE

Well, I’ve never been a big fan of comic book heroes. Not that I have anything against them or specifically dislike them. My reaction is more of a lukewarm enh. I think I mean that in a good way because I’m entertained when I’m reading or watching them, but I don’t seek them out.

Which brings me to this week’s post and I’ve been sitting here unable to think of what to type….

Still nothing. I may have to treat this like a word association game and hope for the best.

I never considered the possibility of including graphic novels into the reading list for this type of course. However, I think it is a good idea and would like to make a suggestion for two others. I Am Legend by Richard Matheson – adapted by Steve Niles and Elman Brown. That is just such a wonderful novel that it is fun to see it presented in different formats. And then there’s the series The Walking Dead. I can’t remember the channel, but the current series on television by the same name is based on the set of graphic novels. Just throwing an idea out there.

I love the scene where the Joker declares: “I’ve demonstrated there’s no difference between me and everyone else! All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy.” It sounds like the claim of every insane person out there. I thought it was interesting that the situation that drove the Joker insane is mirrored with two other characters: Gordon and Batman. Gordon’s daughter is shot and kidnapped; Gordon is kidnapped, shown photos of his daughter, and stripped and caged. Batman visits Gordon’s daughter Barbara in the hospital and learns the extent of her injuries. Now, I don’t know what the relationship is between those two or how close they are (and that’s probably my lack of Batman knowledge), but this does seem to be somebody that he cares about. So both of these men have had to deal with potentially losing someone they’re close to; whereas the Joker lost his wife and unborn child. The situations are not exactly the same, but they are close enough to compare how the men react.

The Joker is the only one who loses it and goes over the edge. Gordon and Batman both maintain their sanity, which is evidenced in how they go after the Joker. Gordon says, “I want him brought in…And I want him brought in by the book!” And Batman complies. Both of them would be justified in seeking revenge, but they don’t.

The Joker seemed a little off to begin with. When we get some of his backstory and see the interaction between him and his wife, he is stressed about being a failed comedian. He flips out when his wife says, “Oh.” It does not see like it would take much more to send him over the edge.

So, let’s take this back to the scene about it only takes one bad day to make someone crazy. While part of me agrees with that idea (even the sanest person can take so much before they snap), this does not seem to be an idea that is supported by the rest of the book. There are two other examples of men going through the loss or abuse of a loved one; the Joker is the only person to go crazy. Gordon is even captured and tortured, and he still maintains his sanity.

I think all of this is what makes these characters interesting. Both Batman and the Joker have troubled pasts, but react in very different ways. Batman takes the more mature path, the higher road, and is dedicated to his cause. Who wouldn't want to be like that? There is a certain physical and emotional strength that is admirable. Then there’s the Joker. He has a crappy past, he’s lost it, and don’t get in his way. Who doesn’t want to be that some days? Everyone has their own unique pile of crap that they have to deal with (and some have a lot more than others); so who wouldn’t want to just say, “Screw it,” and go on a rampage? Most of us have a little voice in our heads that stops us, but I think for a lot of us that crazy rampage is a fleeting thought every now and then.

JOYRIDE by jack ketchum

When I started reading this I immediately thought of the 2001 movie with the same title starring Steve Zahn, Paul Walker, Leelee Sobieski. So when I started reading this book, it took me a little while to figure out what was going on.

By the time I realized that this was going to be a completely different story, I was intrigued by Ketchum’s story. The characters come across as believable because they have so much personal baggage. The action is so fast paced that I had a hard time putting the book down.

This book seems like an essential reading selection for this class. It fits perfectly (not that the others didn’t, but this one just so much more).

The entire book is a dialogue about which killers are crazy and which type of crazy is okay. Carole and Lee murder her abusive ex-husband. On the surface, the murder is wrong; they killed somebody after all. But once you learn about the level of abuse and that she was constantly living in fear, the murder seems okay. Wrong, but understandable. As if to justify this even more for the reader, Rule feels the same way. When Wayne enters the picture and starts his killing spree, these murderers are juxtaposed in such a way that it almost forces the reader to choose sides and see one murderer as better than the other. There is even one part were Lee says to Carole, “I think we were sort of crazy. […] I think he [Howard] made us crazy. For me, anyway…leaving, going away wouldn’t have been enough. After what he did to you…I wanted him dead.” I guess it is a little scary that the explanation makes sense; it sounds like a good reason or excuse.

The ending of the book (when Rule covers for Carole) was a little too predictable. As soon as Wayne’s girlfriend started talking and mentioned they were at the Notch, I had a feeling that Howard’s murder would be pinned on him (either by Carole taking advantage of the situation or Rule leading the investigation that direction). It was a little disappointing. However, it also comes across as a pretty strong statement that sometimes murder is okay.

I was completely surprised by how violent and extreme the murder scene towards the end was. I did not see it coming that there would be a bloodbath in the neighborhood. The random, yet brutal killings, could have been enough on their own. But then Wayne takes out most of his neighborhood in a matter of minutes. One of the worst parts of that was thinking about those who were not killed. In some instances, Wayne kills everyone in the house except for one person who he leaves behind. It just deepens the damage that he’s doing and it’s disturbing to even think about.

With as extreme as the murders were, they were believable. While I was reading the book, I was impressed by how real it all felt. But when I read “On Writing Joyride,” it all made sense. Ketchum borrowed a scene from another author and mixed in details about two real killers. On one hand, it’s interesting to see how Ketchum created these characters. On the other hand, it’s kind of scary to read something so intense and realize - after the fact - that it was based on true events.

SEVEN

I don’t know how this happened, but this was my first time watching Seven. This was a great movie and I’m disappointed that it took me so long to finally see it.

It’s interesting to have watched this movie right after reading The Sculptor because there were so many similarities between the serial killers. The Sculptor thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else, and he has a message for the world that will wake everyone from their ignorance. John Doe comes across much the same. He is smart, he has been chosen by a higher power to do his “work,” and his “work” has a message that is intended to impact society. He even makes the comment that you can’t just tap society on the shoulder to get its attention; you have to hit it with a sledgehammer. As characters, they come across as very similar. Team these two up and it would be a pretty deadly (but creative) pair.

The murders, though, share both similarities and differences. The Sculptor actually made his victims into statues. The actual identity of the victim didn’t really matter. John Doe killed his victims in a way related to their own sin and left very specific clues. The selection of his victims was important. However, both of them were amazingly patient and detailed. Not to mention, specific in terms of the messages they were trying to convey.

A few interesting points about the movie:

The conversation between Mills and Somerset about John Doe being crazy. Mills flat out calls the murderer crazy. However, Somerset says that calling him crazy underestimates the killer. It was interesting to see the conversation taking place on screen because it is the same issue we’ve discussed in this class.

To a point, Somerset seems a little crazy himself because there are times when he shows some of the same characteristics we see in John Doe. Somerset is a loner and has an incredible amount of patience. He spends hours researching and reading. He pushes forward to think and figure things out when Mills is ready to give up. Somerset just comes across as having this calculated patience that others around him lack. In addition, there was that scene where he gets up in the middle of the night and is throwing his knife at the dartboard. It was a little creepy. All of those traits work together, though, because he is clearly the man to figure out John Doe.

One of my favorite parts of this movie was the dead guy they find in the bed, with all of the air fresheners hanging from the ceiling ("sloth"). I would not have ever guessed that he was going to be alive. When he gasped and moved around…oh, it was great. Not only was that an awesome scene, but having that victim survive like that for a year says so much about the murderer. I loved it. It was a great detail.

THE SCULPTOR by gregory funaro

I wasn’t sure what to expect with this one, but I enjoyed it much more than I expected to.

Unrelated to the idea of psychos, one of the first things that I noticed was that this book seemed to have a lot of romantic elements. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, however, it was somewhat unexpected to have it come across as so heavy handed. Cathy is in the process of getting a divorce from this crappy guy. Markham walks into her life and fulfills this strong, trustworthy, masculine role; in addition, he has a lot of his own emotional baggage due to the murder of his wife. These two are thrown into a situation where they have to work together. In those initial stages we see the awkwardness as they realize their feelings and figure out how to work together. We see the blushing and the crushing. Eventually their relationship moves to the next level. By the end of the novel, they save each other’s lives (I guess in more way than one), and they get married and are happy.

As for the psycho, I noticed the same idea of the killer making a transformation (much like in Red Dragon). In this case, however, it had to do with an awakening. Not only did The Sculptor undergo an awakening where he realized his true purpose, but he wanted to help society undergo an awakening also. The Sculptor thought that “he was put on this planet to save mankind from its own spiritual destruction. And so, just as he himself had awakened from a lifetime of slumber, The Sculptor would see to it that others would awaken as well.” His sculptures, though, were just one part of it. He felt that Cathy was “a genius on par with his own,” and he was going to use her to “become is mouthpiece – the vehicle through which he would get his message out to the world.” This created an interesting situation in the book because it all started to feel like this weird game. The Sculptor was using Cathy’s book as inspiration for his crimes. The detectives were using Cathy’s book to try to figure out the crimes. And the whole time The Sculptor is trying to plan and organize things in just the right way so that his message is transmitted correctly.

I am not sure how I feel about the ending of this novel. I liked that Cathy gets to take a major role in bringing down The Sculptor. However, I still have a few issues. Markham is taken out of the way as soon as they get to the house, only to come to the rescue at exactly the right moment later, when Cathy would otherwise have been doomed. She does shove The Sculptor into the tub of acetone and snaps one of the locks into place – that was fine. Then a fire starts, The Sculptor is burning, and there is a pretty decent explosion. But The Sculptor’s body can’t be found, which is rationalized with information about chemical fires and explosions. And by the very end there is another murder and it sounds like The Sculptor is at work again. It almost seems too easy. It kind of felt like other goofy cliffhangers where you think the monster/murderer/whatever is dead and then in the last few seconds, you realize it’s not dead. For such a neat idea with the sculptures and the art history aspects, I kind of expected a more interesting ending.

MISERY by stephen king

I have read this book several times and love any excuse to read it again.

One of the things that amazes me each time I read this book is that it is such a simple premise. Woman kidnaps writer. Woman tortures writer. Writer must escape. That’s it for 300+ pages. What’s really impressive is that there is not one part of the book that is boring. On page nine, Paul knows that “Annie Wilkes was dangerously crazy.” By page 201, Paul knows that “If he meant to get out of this, he would have to kill her.” From a writer’s perspective it is simply impressive that Annie’s craziness can be built up for 200 pages and it never seems boring or redundant.

Another thing that impresses me about this book is the chapters from Paul’s novel. Not that I wanted more of that story or anything. There are several pages of excerpts throughout the novel. In a way, it’s a little weird to get such long portions of a book…especially when you realize it’s portions of a fictional character’s book. In a way though, it makes Paul seem very realistic. I’m reading parts of his book. So, when Annie tortures him, it’s that much more real.

One of the creepiest parts of the book for me is when Paul finds Annie’s book with all of the newspaper clippings. (It is also a nice touch of irony that she has her own book that she’s written.) The book itself is creepy because it is confirmation that she crazy and that she’s almost proud of it. She knows what she’s doing and she’s okay with it. But then there’s that moment when she explains to him how she knows he read the book. She tells him that she placed hairs – from her own head – across the book. When she saw that the hairs were broken, she knew that he had read the book. She may be crazy, but she’s smart. She thinks of all those little details. This also works to increase the tension because Paul really has his work cut out for him if he is going to get away from her.

It’s also interesting that Annie may not be the only psycho. Annie is clearly crazy and I don’t think any explanation is required there. Paul is crazy too, although, his is a different kind of crazy. At first, he’s hooked on pain killers. His injuries are serious enough to justify pain medications, but if he takes everything that she gives him then he runs the risk of never being in a state of mind where he can escape. And then he is confined to a wheelchair and is trapped in her house. There are a lot of factors that influence the way he thinks and the decisions he makes. While Annie is crazy on her own, her actions force Paul into a state of mind where he's unstable/crazy.

The strength of this book is that it conveys Paul’s frustrations perfectly. As a reader, I feel like I can experience his fear, anger, and desperation. As a writer, I want to know how to take such a simple concept and make it so amazing.

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

This was the first time that I’ve seen this whole movie, start to finish. I’m a little unimpressed with the whole movie. I’m not saying that I don’t like it. Not at all. I don’t feel as wowed as I guess I think I should. That may have something to do with how I watch this movie. From the first time when I saw only parts of the movie until now, I spend my time looking for the skin suits as if I’m playing a demented version of Where’s Waldo? My grandmother was a seamstress in Pittsburgh when the movie was being made; she was good and she also worked a lot with leather and she (along with several others) created the skin suits used in the movie. I end up focusing on the skin suits more than anything else.

There are several things about this movie that I like. One of them being the portrayal of Hannibal Lecter. There’s no argument that he is one of the two psychos of the film. But, I have mixed feelings about him. Casting Anthony Hopkins in this role further complicates this issue because he does such a great job with the role. For a character who is a brutal killer, I kind of like him. He comes across as smart, sophisticated, and dangerous. The brutality of his attacks is enough that it should make the viewer immediately dislike him. But there’s another side of him that is almost likeable (he’s intelligent, values politeness, likes art, etc.).

Part of this may stem from the idea that I don’t know who to cheer on. For example, Dr. Chilton comes across as arrogant and ineffective. He ends up breaking one of his own rules and accidentally leaves a pen in Lecter’s cell. Lecter takes advantage of this and I felt like the doctor was going to get what he deserved. When he kills the two guards and escapes, I was impressed with the plan and relieved that he got away. That kind of reaction would make sense if he were wrongly imprisoned. But, no. Logically, he needs to be locked up. There are so many layers to this character that it complicates the viewers’ reaction to him. It is both interesting and challenging to create a character that is simultaneously vicious and sympathetic.

On the other hand, we have Buffalo Bill. Another violent killer, but I don’t feel one bit of sympathy for him. Even though he has a troubled past and is working out his own personal issues, I just want him to be caught. And if that meant he had to get killed in the process, I was fine with that too. It’s interesting to have two characters who are both brutal murderers be portrayed in such a way that one is likable and the other not. If nothing else, the book and the movie are valuable tools for studying character development.

RED DRAGON by thomas harris

It’s weird. If someone asked me what type of movies/books I like, I would not respond by saying that I like crime drama, police procedurals, etc. If the story follows the work of a cop or a detective, I typically do not think of it as something I like. However, after I watch or read one of those (as long as it is a well-done one), I like it. And that’s how it was for Red Dragon.

This novel fits well with chapter 5 from Howdunit. However, I’m not sure which category Dolarhyde would fit. He seems to show characteristics of all of them. Here are a few examples:

“Many serial murderers are not considered to be psychologically impaired. They are in touch with the real world but have absolutely no feelings for other people. The opposite of that would be the delusional killer who murders because he has seen or heard people or voices that demand he kill a certain type of person or persons” (42). The Dragon seems to be an actual voice that Dolarhyde hears talking to him. He hears it and responds to it. The voice of the Dragon eventually sounds like his grandmother because the voice tells him to get the teeth and he goes to get the grandmother's teeth. The voice then tells him to “put them in your palms. lock your fingers and squeeze my teeth together.” This is reminiscent of the time when she threatened to cut of his penis using a pair of scissors.

“The delusional serial killer’s crime scene is in total disarray. There are probably signs of forced entry, and the scene shows signs of a struggle, such as the victims attempting to flee” (42-43). I got the impression that the crime scene where the Leeds family died was in disarray. “Graham switched on the lights and bloodstains shouted at him from the walls, from the mattress and the floor. The very air had screams smeared on it.” The whole description was just violent (one kid hid under a bed and was dragged out, the father ran to protect the kids with his throad slit, the bodies were moved around after the fact).

“When the delusional serial killer goes out looking for his victims, he has an idea he wants to kill but doesn’t have a particular person targeted” (43). This part does not seem to match. Dolarhyde was very deliberate in who he selected.

“The goal-oriented serial killer wants to achieve some result from his murders” (43). “The gold-oriented serial killer has an obsessive-compulsive mind-set and may have deep-rooted psychosexual problems, but he is not delusional. This type of killer does not hear voices or see visions directing him to kill certain types of people” (43). Part of this sounds like Dolarhyde. He does have a goal AND he does hear voices giving him direction. “With the fervor of conversion he saw that if he worked at it, if he followed the true urges he had kept down for so long – cultivated them as the inspiration they truly were – he could Become.” He uses his murders to help him reach his goal: “The Jacobis were the first to help him, the first to lift him into the Glory of his Becoming.” Even though this factual part does not fit the description of the character, it does not take away from the character at all. This is not a detail I would have even been aware of had I not read that Howdunit chapter.

“This killer [the domineering serial killer] actually enjoys seeing his victims suffer. He likes to inspire fear” (44). I saw this in the way Dolarhyde killed Lounds. He glued him to a chair, bit of his lips, and then set him on fire.

The sexually obedient serial killer “is emotionally immature and was probably physically and/or sexually abused as a young child” and he “kills for the sexual pleasure he derives from his killings” (45). I think part of this fits him as well. He murdered the other family members, but he did more than just kill the women. In addition, he was abused as a child and elements of that abuse linger into his adulthood.

In the end though, Dolarhyde is a believable psycho, regardless of how well he matches the descriptions of serial killers. He is believable and totally crazy.


Works Cited

Boertlein, John. Howdunit: How Crimes are Committed and Solved. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books, 2001.

Harris, Thomas. Red Dragon. New York: Berkley Books, 1981.

THE CHURCH OF DEAD GIRLS by stephen dobyns

I have mixed feelings about this book. It is an interesting enough story and it accomplishes several things. 1. It establishes a clear sense of community (or lack of one). There is so much detail that I get that small town feeling where everybody knows everybody else's business. 2. The increasing paranoia of the town comes across wonderfully. The townspeople go from mildly suspicious to shoot-first-ask-questions-later (if at all). The paranoia is almost justified because there are kids involved. At the same time though, they go completely overboard (ransacking a home, for example). 3. The frustrations of people taking the law into their own hands are depicted so clearly that it was a bit scary. I could see people really acting like that and I think that is why it is scary. The mob mentality of angry groups always makes me nervous, and in this book there is a group of people who are both angry and scared. That is just a dangerous combination. In addition, the way this mob develops is interesting. It starts out as the "Friends," a group of people dedicated to finding the missing girls. But it turns into a pretend police force; I could almost picture angry villagers with torches and pitchforks.

All of those elements combine in such a way that this novel seems to have more than one "psycho." The most obvious psycho is the man abducting and killing the girls. But so many other crimes and murders take place, that there are several "psychos" in this one town. Dobyns did such a great job of showing this entire community that it seemed reasonable that the real "psycho" could have been anybody. I liked trying to figure out who it could be and it felt like I had an endless cast of characters from which to choose.

On the other hand, there were two things that I did not like. 1. The point of view. It is a first person narrator, but it really sounds like a thrid person omniscient narrator. This guy seems to know everything. And there are even a few times when the narrator tells us how he knows certain things (that he overheard a conversation, that he was told from another person, etc.). I just felt like the reader knew so much about everybody that a first person narrator was a bad fit. At the same time, it made the narrator seem like a creepy know-it-all and I thought he would turn out to be the murderer. This is not a big enough issue that it made me dislike the book; I simply remember stopping to think about it a couple of times. 2. The pace/details. I understand that all of the details were most likely necessary; it is how the reader learns so much about this town and its inhabitants. It is also how the author creates atmosphere. However, it felt like a little much at times. Sometimes I would get a bit mixed up about which characers were which and at other times the book felt like it moved along so slowly.

One of the more creepy parts of the book was at the very end when the narrator starts talking about hidden desires. "I spend more time with my students. At times it seems that I think of them as sexual creatures more often than I did in the past." "If you could look to the bottom of a human being, what desires would you find? And what desires are concealed beneath my white shirt and bow tie, my civilized veneer?" Then, this is turned on the reader: "What do you do with your fear? And do you dream?" It is a great way to end the book because it is suggesting that we are all a little crazy inside. We are just able to hide it and control it.

For now.

PSYCHO by Robert Bloch

PSYCHO by Robert Bloch

I love this book. It’s fun, entertaining, and well-written. In addition, it is a quick read. I was able to get through the reading in a day; but more importantly, I wanted to get through it quickly because I wanted to see what was going to happen next (even though I already had a pretty good idea).

One of the most interesting things about this book is how Bloch portrays Norman’s relationship with his mother. From the very beginning, I knew that Norman was acting as his mother and that she was dead the whole time. However, I knew this because I saw the movie. I wonder, though, how long that remains a mystery for a reader who has never seen the movie. How much of a surprise was that when the book came out originally?

I like the comparison that is created between Norman and Mary. On page 44, Norman freaks out in defending his mother and proving that she is not crazy. In response to the suggestion that his mother be institutionalized, Norman says, “But who are you to say a person should be put away? I think perhaps all of us go a little crazy at times.” It is clear that Norman is crazy. But so is Mary. She stole money, swapped out her cars, and is on the run thinking that she can get away with her crime. They both have a crazy element to their personalities.

The initial murder scene is great. It is clean and quick. “It was the knife that, a moment later, cut off her scream. And her head.” There is no count of the number of stabs. There is no account of the placement of stabs. There is no description of the blood spraying or spattering. It is simple and great. I think that the brevity of the killing is a reflection of the insanity of the murderer. It is as if the murder is the most normal or expected event; so much so, that it requires no more detail than the two lines it is given. It also maintains ambiguity about the true identity of the murderer.

It is also interesting that both Mary and Norman were in some way significantly and adversely affected by their mothers. Mary sacrificed pursuing certain goals in order to take care of her ailing mother and to make sure that her sister could go to school. Eventually, after her mother died, Mary recognizes that she lost it. She sees her reflection in the mirror and knows that she has seen the “drawn, contorted countenance” before. Specifically, “after Mom died, when you went to pieces.” I get the feeling that she is a bit sheltered and maybe repressed. Norman on the other hand, makes sacrifices in order to take care of his mother’s corpse after he digs it up. In a way, through their relationships with their mothers, they both sacrifice aspects of their normalcy. (Of course, Norman loses a lot more of his normalcy.)

Overall, this is a great book. The pacing and the characterizations are wonderful. My only criticism is that I would have liked to read the book before watching the movie. I am interested in knowing if anyone had that experience (reading the book first) and what you thought of it.

SNOW

I have mixed feelings about this novel. I like it because it hooked me right away and maintained a good level of suspense. It does not take long for the characters to see that mysterious man looking for his daughter in the middle of the road. Right away, something just seems wrong. From that point on, the action was fast paced and I was wondering what was going to happen next.

But, once I started to realize what was going on, I was a little disappointed. I’ve got to give this book some credit though; these monsters really seemed unique. It’s a nice change of pace to see a monster that stands out. However, I found it a bit difficult to believe in this monster. They were the snow and could materialize long enough to create blade like projections that they used to enter the human body so they could feed. When I first read that, I had to put the book down for a bit and return to it later. I just didn’t get it. I don’t know if it was because I wanted more information. What were they? Where did they come from? Why do they have to feed? If they’re just going to turn back into snow, do they really need to feed? And if what they fed on was so bloody, how do they so easily turn back into white snow? I don’t know why I had a problem with it, but I did.

Maybe not the best questions, but I couldn’t get past them. This made it very difficult to go along with these monsters. I loved the idea that they were in the snow because it was easy to have the monsters everywhere and anywhere. I just wasn’t completely impressed when they did appear. It also seemed like it might be really easy to beat them. Melt the snow. Big fires. Something.

The ending didn’t sit well with me either. There’s the suggestion of other worlds. The monsters leave. And there are multiple reports of these monsters across different parts of the country, all in small towns. It raised more unanswered questions for me.

There were several things I liked. I liked the characters. I liked the conflict. I liked the tension and suspense. I liked that these monsters seemed pretty original. I loved some of the description. The girl with no face at the beginning. The way the monsters didn’t “mix” with kids. More than anything else, I was able to enjoy the story because I was interested in the characters. Even though there were several things I didn’t like and even though part of the novel raised many unanswered questions, I liked the characters and I cared enough about them to see what was going to happen. I think that speaks well for the novel and the writing.

Another issue I had (not monster related) was the author’s use of some vocabulary. “The pain was like a thousand holocausts.” “[…] like a photo from some Nazi concentration camp, charred bodies littered the snow.” Those two lines threw me completely out of the story. I couldn’t help but think there would be better ways to describe something, other than holocaust references.

THE THING

THE THING

This was the first time I have watched this movie the whole way through. Up until now, I have only seen bits and pieces. Wow. What a fun movie. :)

The opening scene was striking (and as a person with a bunch of dogs, I didn’t really like it). But it works so well. It’s attention getting and it raises several questions that recur throughout the movie. What’s wrong with the person/animal? Does he/she/it have some terrible disease? Is he/she/it a monster? How do you know? What will happen if it gets away?

I love this type of monster movie. When I say this type, I mean body snatcher type of movies. Next to zombies, these ones are really creepy. Just the thought of monsters/creatures/aliens getting into people, changing the people, and then taking over is scary. It raises the question of “What if this really happened?” How long would it take to notice? Would we notice the changes in others? Would we be aware of a change in ourselves? That particular question gets me. What if I was attacked and some alien took over my body. I wonder if there would be a part of me that is still the same and realizes that something has happened, even though I can’t do anything about it.

Another aspect of this movie is that the monster isn’t always visible, but it’s always there in a way because every suspects everyone else. It feels like there’s the constant question of “Who is the monster?” For example, that blood testing scene in the movie. You have a group of people who work together in an isolated environment every day. For the most part, they work together well. Eventually though, any trust that may have been there is gone and they all suspect each other. To the point that one ties up the rest of them so that their blood can be tested. And they find out that some of the people the suspected the most were actually uninfected. I think that’s the most disturbing part of this movie (and others like it). The thought that the monster could be anyone and that the society can fall apart pretty quickly (and even turn hostile) when people are so distrustful.

Some of the effects weren’t all that great. At times, some weren’t even scary. I did enjoy the scene where the man’s head (I can’t remember the character’s name) grows legs and walks off on it own. While that was cool, I didn’t like when the monster took on the look of a spider. I just thought it was kind of goofy looking and not really scary. Not really even gross. However, after the monster gets to the penned up dogs and they have that huge mass of stuff on the table that they’re checking out…that was interesting and got my attention. It looked gross and I couldn’t easily write it off as looking like something else (like a spider). In addition, their discovery of the body with two faces was another good one. Gross and attention getting. There seemed to be a mix of really interesting effects that worked well, and others that the movie could have done without.

This one is a remake of “The Thing from Another World” right? Anybody see that one? Any good?

THE WOLFMAN by Mayberry

I have mixed feelings about this book. On one hand, it had everything I would expect in a werewolf book. The family drama. The love interest. The realization of the truth. The community’s hunt for the werewolf (even with torches ablaze). That touching moment where we see that the animal side of the critter still has that memory of its human form (of course stemming from the aforementioned love interest). The capture. The continuation.

All stuff that great werelit is made of.

But that’s my problem. This felt like a classic tale retold. That’s fine and everything. It just makes for a boring story. I wanted some neat twist or some new perspective. I was bored.

The werewolf was a werewolf. Plain and simple. The transformation was as expected, and I didn’t expect anything new there. It will happen at the full moon. There will be a change in bone structure, muscle mass, skin and hair, etc. I don’t know or understand the physiology or anatomy of all that. And that’s okay. I don’t need to. I just know that it is going to happen and I do not expect this to be the part of the werewolf story that is changed. It just felt like nothing else was changed either.

What added to my overall dislike of this novel was that the story was so slow. It felt like there was more thinking and talking and brooding than action. The characters thought and talked, and then thought and talked again. It was a cycle of thinking, talking, brooding. Oh my. Some murder and death and hunting were sprinkled in every now and then. When we did get to the action scenes with the werewolf, there was very little that came across as original. It was big and strong and impossibly difficult to defeat.

Speaking of the impossible…I am going to stray from the monster talk for a moment because I have something else to add. Did anyone else notice how often the words “impossible” or “impossibly” were used? He impossibly used those words an impossible number of times. It drove me crazy. Every time I saw that word, it threw me out of the story. I started to focus on the words and not the story.

The whole time I was reading this, I just felt like I was waiting for something (I don’t know what exactly) that never happened. I’m sure this added to how slow it felt. I knew the setting was not going to be modernized at all. I was fine with that. But I wanted something to stand out. And I kept waiting and waiting and waiting. I never got to the point were I felt that I found that part of the story that was cool because it stood out from other werewolf stories. I also never really felt like I liked any of the characters. That was just one more thing that kept me distanced from the story.

RIG: HORROR *NEW FORMAT*

I decided to switch around my pages. This will just be easier. I'll keep my older responses on the other page. All the new ones will be here.

READINGS IN THE GENRE: HORROR