Whispers in the Dark

Zombies in depth

2011-01-04T10:13:00.003-06:00

Lately, we have been shown three types of zombies.

There is the "classic" zombie which is a body raised from the grave to do the bidding of the one who commands it. This is a non-willed zombie. It has no independent thought on it's own. it is simply an animated corpse.

Next we have the "modern" zombie which is a semi-re-animated corpse in that there is no magic or voodoo person which raised the body. It has no real thought but it does have independent action. It's primary motivation is to feed on living flesh, seeming to prefer human. The cause of this has been related to extra-terrestrial influences, mutated or man-made viruses, bacteria or germs and biological testing by scientists in the form of chemicals or airborne carried.

The last of the bunch is the "un-zombie". These are people who are not actually textbook dead. They are fundamentally still alive but are suffering an illness which renders them similar to a modern zombie. They must either be killed or allowed to die or try to find some antidote to cure them. This is generally said to be caused by a mutated or man made virus, bacteria or germ.

In the case of the last category, the "un-zombie", the scare or threat here is ultimately humans. It is our own science and technology that is our downfall and the greed and power hungry motivations that make it happen. Having said that, the "un-zombies" themselves, while representing a physical threat, do not provide a "scare" related to supernatural causes. It's just us and it ends with us on the "normal" plane. The most recent example of the "Un-zombie" is in the Will Smith movie, "I Am Legend", based on the Richard Matheson story but using zombies instead of vampires.

The first "classic" zombies do provide a supernatural scare, but still related to a man made cause. The voodoo practitioner or witchdoctor. Depending on the method of making the zombies determines how effective they are. Some of the classic zombies are called and controlled in "real time" meaning that the spell only works as long as the witch doctor is actively using it. Another method is a spell using supernatural beings such as spirits or demons to animate the zombies in which once the zombie is called forth, it does not require the witchdoctor to actively control it. This gives it an autonomous quality, but it is still compelled to act on the reasons it was called forth. The intentions of the magician or voodoo practitioner.

The "classic" zombie is usually used as a henchman to kill, attack, defend or otherwise wreak havoc. Usually in relation to something the person controlling it wants to steal, protect or damage.

The "modern" zombie is supernatural in that regardless of how it was animated, it is autonomous and self motivated. It heeds no master or requires no direct control or underlying external intent. There is suggestion that the "modern" zombie, having no "soul" or divine essence as it did when it was alive, can begin, after a period of time, to behave according to habits and basic motivations that it can sometimes make out from the brain.

Stories focusing on "classic" zombies were those depicted in books and movies common until the 1950's and 60's. Most of them based om superstitions and myths having to do with african and south american mysticism.

The "modern" zombie essentially began in the 1960's with George Romero as it's most recognized defining source. We see the "modern" zombie being the most "popular" and fright inducing zombie since then and up to current times.

The "un-zombies" are a bit more recent, though traces of them can be seen as far back as the 1960's with "The Last Man on Earth" movie starring Vincent Price. That movie is an adaption of the Richard Matheson story "I am Legend". However, in the Matheson story, the monsters are vampires, not zombies. The movie with Price is somewhat unclear to that, making un-spoken reference to both vampires and zombies.

"Un-zombies" have been the focus of movies like "28 days...", "28 weeks..", "The Crazies" and others.

Of all the zombie types, perhaps the most "effective" in terms of frightening readers and audiences has been the "modern" zombie in that it, by leaving the reason for animation up in the air most of the time (see the George Romero movies for that being the most common) leaves the most to the imagination of the viewer.

Unlike the other two types, the "modern" zombies just toss out some un-dead cadavers looking to lunch on people and there is not a lot that can stop them. We don't know how they got here, don't know why they are here. What we do know is if we don't stop them, we are goners. Everything else is left up to imagination and speculation. Which, for the imaginative and creative viewer, can be more than enough to send chills down their spine as they can come up with some pretty frightening things to speculate on.

However, in the new age of "do it for me", imagination among viewers is at an all time low. many people don't want to dredge the recesses of their mind to make a story work. They want the story laid out squarely and completely. They want graphics and special effects to show them the most grisly of details.

Because of this, the "un-zombies" have been experiencing a bit of an up-turn for these jaded and un-imaginative people.

There really hasn't been any compelling new stories featuring "classic" zombies presented in the last decade or more to even place it on the awareness scale of most people now. The last time we saw effective "classic" zombies was in a movie like "Poltergeist". In which the spirits animated the zombies to frighten the family into giving the little girl up. That was a very limited and borderline zombie appearance at it's best anyway.

The movie "Re-Animator" from 1985 takes an H.P. Lovecraft theme and sort of falls into the "classic" zombie category. Science is the animating force with dubious results culminating in autonomous, self-willed zombies.

Zombies play on multiple fears for people. Claustrophobia, religious fears, social fears, paranoia and more. Obviously, being eaten alive and seeing decaying cadavers chasing you hits the gross out factor.

There have been efforts to make zombie movies "fun" by adding a comedic element to them, which has had mixed success. Movies like "Shaun of the Dead" have made an effort to keep the spirit of the "modern" zombie movie in force while interjecting humor into the dialogue.

All in all, I prefer the "modern" zombies and have a respect for the "classic" zombies. The "un-zombies" don't do much for me. If I want to see mans failures at playing with nature, all I have to do is watch the news.

Living without a soul

2010-10-16T15:58:00.000-05:00

In a previous article, I commented my belief that zombies are soul-less creatures, most of which are dead bodies re-animated. I also said that we see many living people behaving as though they are soul-less but they are alive and I called and compared them to "living" zombies.

Is that accurate though?

Is there a class or type of "monster" that involves living people having had their souls removed or lost from them?

I referenced the people out there who fit the description. People who brutalize and enact extreme violence on others to fulfill some 'need' within them. Something inside them that demands a blood sacrifice.

Not only does it demand the violence, but it feels no remorse for it. It only knows that for self survival, to avoid being locked up or killed themselves for such actions, they must hide their actions.

Is the loss of the soul in these people something that happens to them as a result of super-natural activity? For example, for those who believe in demon activity and possession, could these people be victims of demons stealing their souls, left to wander and behave in ways no human with a soul would?

Are these people, or some of them, people who through some cosmic 'accident' born without a soul? The flesh is born, but the soul is not within it to begin with. Going through life looking into the world of those with souls as a stranger looking in through a plate glass window, always from the outside.

Perhaps some of them are people who gave their soul away, thinking they could make a 'deal with the devil' so to speak, and it cost them more than they ever thought it might. When the devil or demon said it wanted their soul in trade, they didn't realize it meant immediately.

As wild dogs

2010-09-22T17:56:00.000-05:00

Where are we as civilized beings?

Is it possible that within the framework of our civilization, we have protected the wild pack, the mob which rules when any hint of chaos lays low over the ground as a fog?

Cities erupt into insanity when chaos approaches. People begin looting and taking anything they can get hold of, even if they take it out of someone else's hands. Even if they have to shoot or stab someone with no defenses to get it.

Is that what the zombies really are? Not soul-less monsters craving human flesh but empty hearts and minds. Caring only for themselves and those things they can take.

Are the small scenes of theft and murder we witness every day simply reminders that we are only moments away from that savage dog eat dog world of basic survival. Where true ownership starts at the barrel of a gun, and often ends there as well.

Is civilization only a ruse, a dream, a great hoax we play on ourselves. Is it our grand pretension that we desperately hold on to. Hoping that if we believe in civilization and rules of honor, that others will as well and peace will continue.

Are terrorists and mafia hit men and riotous looters really what lies close at hand underneath our thin masks of civility?

Predators and Cannibals in the Human Animal

2010-08-01T08:22:00.000-05:00

When we use the words "cannibal" and "predator" we think of extremes, hunting, killing and consuming.

There are plenty of examples practically every day of human making prey of other humans. From the extremes of John Joubert, the Gemini killer and the "Grim Sleeper" to John Wayne Gacy and the highway snipers on the east coast.

Are these the only examples of predatory behavior and cannibalism we can see? What about the businesspeople who seem to take satisfaction in taking every bit of money and resources from others? The ones that hold out no mercy for those in bad situations. These are the people who will use every means, both legal and illegal to get what they want, be it land, money, power whatever it is they are after and they will stop at nothing along the way.

These are the people who want to build a new mall or business center and buy all the outstanding mortgages from banks in the area simply to foreclose with little warning on people who do not have the means to fight back. Isn't that predatory behavior?

Perhaps there is little blood, but many lives have been cast into misery and pain due to these predators. How do these people reply when confronted about their actions? "It's only business.", "It's survival of the fittest.", " It's a dog eat dog world out there." All comments and attitudes that pull into context predators and cannibalistic thinking. Whether literal or figurative.

So, do we really oppose predatory and cannibalistic behavior among ourselves or is it just double speak and hypocrisy in our society?

We seem to tolerate and even celebrate these behaviors, even referring to them as signs of success and progress. Until there is blood involved. Then the police come out because the predators have gone too far. They have stepped out of bounds when the blood is drawn and bodies are found.

Up until then though, is it really okay to be a predator among your own? To take others down, strip them of everything and consume their possessions and their pride.

Is the only line drawn in the dirt really a line of blood or are we capable of seeing the fin above the water coming at us regardless of whether it seeks our flesh or our spirit?

Halloween is time to celebrate, not hide

2009-10-30T11:51:00.003-05:00

There are a number of religious groups who would have people beleive that Halloween is a celebration of Evil. They would tell us that Halloween stems from dark pagan traditions that commemorate all things wicked and vile.

They are not seeing the truth of what lays behind Halloween.

Halloween is indeed a celebration, but not "of" Evil, rather our triumph over Evil.

It is within human nature to mock that which we master. When we have found ourselves to be in a position to stride casually through the dark places in the image of what we see as Evil and fearsome, it is our dominance over Evil and fear that we are wearing for all to see.

If it is not mastery of Evil itself, then it is mastery of our fear of Evil we demonstrate. For it is that fear that has more hold over us than Evil itself. It is through fear we bind ourselves, we find ourselves unable to speak, to take action. It is the fear that paralyzes us and stops us from moving against the Evil that induces that fear.

When we master our fear, conquer our fear, we are well on our way to mastering Evil. If Evil cannot stop us, cannot freeze us or quiet us, then what chance has it against us? None.

Halloween is a time for us to show all the world, we have mastered our fear and face it on it's own terms, wearing even it's own face. Halloween is a time triumphant. A time of defeating the monsters and the ghosts and goblins that would try to take our very souls, would we let them.

So, we celebrate Halloween, we celebrate our victory over Evil and fear. We dance and prance about, in the most ghoulish costumes and garish figures. Rushing bravely into the dark night, ready to out-scare the creepiest creatures we may see.

We celebrate Halloween.

Is Halloween truly Evil?

2009-10-19T10:40:00.000-05:00

From it's roots as the night before All Saints Day, a night when evil creatures roam freely before being cast down by all that is Good the next morn, Halloween has been shrouded by a darkness deeper than the night it takes place in.

From a night of whimsy and jest to a spook-fest full of creepies and crawlies all the way to a night of dementia and psychological distortions people have been affected by Halloween.

For most people, it is a night for children. A time for spooky fun. To play in the twilight and play pranks on friends and neighbors. The night for good-natured scares and collecting candy.

Some people see it in more sinister terms though. They see it a ignorant or "sinful" people, celebrating and being making light of the "sin' and wicked things. To celebrate Halloween is to mock the higher power and all that is "Good".

For even others, it can be a night of indulgence. A time to feel "safe" in letting their hair down, so to speak and be freer with their beliefs and ideals. They feel it is a time to express darker beliefs and practice rituals that larger society might find uncomfortable.

Regardless of where your view of Halloween is, we might all agree that Halloween is a time for all people to reflect upon and more deeply examine the that flip side of the coin called Evil or Bad. How closely we examine it will vary, but it is thrust more into the public space than anytime of the year.

It's also interesting that in Halloween we are given to see the entire spectrum of it's consideration at one time. From the childish and mundane views to the deeply dark and disturbed. Every aspect of Evil and wickedness, badness in it's entirety is laid out for public inspection via movies and stories, songs and social activities.

We are able to see the little children in their costumes, looking for that next piece of candy, shouting "boo" at each other and giggling themselves to pieces.

Step forward to demented persons who feel the moon calling them to shed the blood of innocents to pave the way to Hell in dark rituals.

To see the darkness in the world, to really come to grips with it. Even if only for one day a year can help the introspective and inquisitive person appreciate the balance between Good and Evil all the more so.

Do you truly value the importance of evil and the dark side of the world? Does it make you appreciate all that really is good in the world? If not, why not? Is there so much darkness and badness surrounding you that to see good things only one day a year is more likely?

What if... Poe wasn't just making things up?

2009-08-16T17:56:00.002-05:00

I have read a lot of Edgar Allen Poe's writing. I hold Poe in highest regard as a writer and a master of the language. He is my favorite author of all time.

Poe is credited with being a master of the horror and suspense genre without doubt. Lesser known, he is also credited as giving birth to the modern genres of science fiction as well as the modern detective story.

Even lesser known than that he, in his time, was a renowned and highly respected literary critic. His personal letters and critical pieces are highly sought after artifacts of the highest quality.

Yet, he was also derided as being insane, crazy, a raving alcoholic. He was lambasted at his early death in an obituary piece by someone who was at one time his friend and in the end, caused Poes writing to be placed in the basements of libraries and universities for decades.

What if, however, what if Edgar Allen Poe wasn't crazy or mad at all to have brought forth such terrifying and sinister works?

What if, instead, he was listening in on another 'channel' that most people refuse, or are entirely unable, to hear?

Universities abound with critiques and articles that break down his writing s and try to piece together just what Poe meant when writing any of his poems and stories. Were they allegorical? Were they representative of his real life and the people and happenings within it?

Maybe, just maybe, we are looking too deeply into his writings and instead should be seeing what he placed in front of our eyes.

Where indeed is this mysterious "Mount Yaanek" of the 'boreal pole'. Is there, somewhere a ghoul haunted woodland of Weir, in which resides a Lake of Auber?

Was Mr. Poe somehow historically aware of a rude wine expert who was buried alive underneath an old Italian castle or mansion?

I shudder to think he had some knowledge of a person so mad as to kill another because of cataract.

These are some of the 'nicer' poems and stories Mr. Poe told us of. There are others which if we gave any belief to think they were true, would upset and torment even the calmest of us.

We prefer to believe that the works of Poe are fiction. To think otherwise would cause us to have to admit there are stranger things in this world than we want to know or accept.

Besides, if Poe was telling the truth, What then of Lovecraft?

The monster that might be me

2009-05-05T21:14:00.006-05:00

I love Zombie movies.

I love them because out of all the horror movies that exist, those are going to have the best chance at producing some kind of effect on me.

Most horror movies don't even faze me.

Many actually bore me.

Zombie movies though. I am not frightened by them. That's not quite the effect they have. No, This is more a feeling of ...revulsion.

It's not even the idea of people, or things that resemble, or used to be people, eating people. Cannibalism I can handle easily.

No, the revulsion comes from the ferocity and the abandon the newer movies, especially the "..of the Dead" series( most by George Romero ) attribute to the newly risen dead.

There is an animalistic sense to them. There is also a pseudo intelligence given to them, if not actual thought, the memory of thinking that propels them.

There is a total lack of dignity. Yes, that's the word, dignity, in these creatures.

These things are soulless physical creatures with no 'human-ness" to them anymore.

They are...devoid.

My sense of all this is what leads to the feeling of revulsion. These creatures are entirely contrary to what people should be.

It's as if they are the 'anti-people".

Everything and anything we can call "good" in humans is gone from these things.

There is no caring, no concern, no vestige of compassion what-so-ever in these things.

They are a mockery of what we are.

These 'zombies" are the twisted fun-house mirror reflection of what we are, of what makes us human.

Perhaps it's because I have a pretty good imagination, I can suspend my perception of 'reality' enough to 'get into' the movie, if only for a short time. I see what they are, and I believe them.

I see what we are when the soul is gone and there is nothing left but a physical shell. A creature with nothing in them to distinguish them from a rabid animal.

I can see this mirror reflection all too well in the mirror called the 'news".

In the story of the young man who tosses a baby out of a moving car.

In the story of the woman who shakes a child to death then hides the body in a rented garage.

In the story of men who stand in a circle, watching, while a woman that could be their sister or daughter is raped and abused but consider it all to be her fault because she was walking without a male companion or wearing the wrong kind of clothes.

Where is the humanity in these people? These all too real people who have allowed their reason and sensibility to be overcome by ...what?

Everyday in all parts of the world we see stories of 'zombies' reported.

A man who made a child help chop up her mother after he killed her.

Another man who killed scores of young women who were prostitutes or just unlucky to be on the same road he was on. Not only were they abused and butchered, but fed to pigs afterward.

There is nothing left in these people in terms of humanity. No soul to speak of. They are empty shells.

They are walking cadavers, committing the most heinous acts upon their families and fellow human beings. They are zombies.

It's not the cannibalism that makes the zombie. It's the lack of humanity within them that makes them able to not only kill, but kill savagely and coldly.

To me , I am affected by zombie movies becasue they are the closest to being real.

Look past the walking corpse and see what lies within the zombies. They are already among us.

Loss and greiving for a maniac

2008-12-25T10:16:00.004-06:00

This is interesting.

In an article written this December, chronicling the "loss" of her son to mental illness and homicidal actions, A columnist reveals the notion that parents of murders have lost their child as well.

It's an interesting note on society that a lot of people will associate the guilt of a criminal with the family of the offender.

Many will say it's because of how someone was raised that they went "wrong" so the parents and family must be partly to blame for the crime.

But what of mental illness? What if the offender in question was just a fine or "normal" person until something struck them down. A chemical imbalance perhaps? Witnessing something that alters their entire perspective. Who knows what might cause the change in the person. One day they're seemingly "fine" then some short time later, nothing is fine at all.

How many criminals really fall into the category of being a victim themselves? The liberals in society would have us believe that everyone is a victim in some way.

At what point do we say that someone has lost the self control that restrains us from making horrible choices? That cross the line from being argumentative to slaughtering our fellow man without actually realizing what they are doing or that their actions are abnormal?

I'm sure there are some people who really are victims of mental instability. A medical issue, such as a tumor or cyst that grows in their brain, affecting that persons thinking processes.

A form of insanity that doesn't make the terrible turn to harming another until something the would be offender sees or experiences that "triggers" the avalanche of lunacy which propels them into terrible thoughts and deeds.

For those people, and their family, is there indeed as much of a "loss" as of those that are the victims of these walking time bombs?

Can society allow the parents of an insane or medically affected murder to grieve and feel the pain and loss of the person they thought they knew. Now lost to to the penal system or death themselves.

What role does the media play in channeling greater society's emotions and thoughts about the case, the individuals and the families behind the scene? If the press wants to run with a sensationalist story that may not contain all the facts or worse, although often true, intentionally leaving out information to create a more "exciting" story.

Often, when people find out their neighbor or friend is losing a family member to some other form of illness, perhaps cancer or any of the other tragic illnesses that strike people, the outpouring of support and remorse for the afflicted and their family can have no bounds.

When the loss of ones kin is to mental or medical illness that drives one to horrible deeds, the support sometimes dries up quickly, if it ever manifests itself at all.

Who are you and where is your heart? Will you condemn the ill for their actions or when you find yourself in that situation, will you be surprised that society has no sympathy?

The measure of a monster

2008-10-09T08:46:00.004-05:00

Just what is a monster anyway? Is it always some thing that escaped the void of space or the earths bowels, creeping, slithering, crawling in our direction?

Do we dare refer to our fellow man as a monster as well, if not in form, in character and deed.

An interesting comparison has intrigued me. By the comparison of two literary "monsters" that are found among men.

One's story was written in 1818 and published in 1831. It was written by a woman of the times and features the the dark doings of a scientific man gone mad with power and seemingly "good" intentions. Although, as we all have heard by now, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The resultant creation of the scientist is a subject that evokes both pity and horror at not only it's visage but it's intentions simultaneously.

The other is a modern story, written by a man in 1981, really not all that long ago, especially as the following stories have dated up to as recently as 2006. The monster herein is also a man of science yet, his deeds are as monstrous as they can be. Also, somewhere, good intentions, twisted as they may be, are at the heart of the story as well.

By now, I am sure you have deduced that the first story is "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus". The second is, of course, the series of novels about Hannibal Lector, starting with "Red Dragon" and concluding with "Hannibal Rising".

I have said before that one man's nightmare is another mans fantasy. If there actually is any such thing as "sanity" it's definition is stretched paper thin and covers as broad a spectrum as anything we could conceive.

In "Frankenstein", the man and the "monster" are two separate entities, and yet, both are one and the same. The latter is merely the embodiment of the formers darkest thoughts. The "good" Doctor Victor Frankenstein wishes to rid the world of sickness and death. Good intentions indeed. Yet, his practices cross the boundary between civilized science and necromancy. He convinces himself that mankind is indeed able to produce life from death and live outside the "natural" order of things. Does he actually consider himself a god or god-like whilst engaged in his thinking, or is there really any thought of God at all present in him?

Some have considered Victor a megalo-maniac. Consumed with the idea that he is able to create life from death and that he, as well as other men of "science" can manipulate the workings of life itself.

What of Victors Monster? A creature he never named. A desperate, horribly disfigured and inarticulate creature that he, Victor, abandoned after seeing it for the first time. Alive. The creature is pitiable in this scenario. It didn't ask for life (as none deliberately "ask" for it at birth) It is dragged into life, created from sewn together corpses. More a mockery of life than anything else.

By his own determination, Victor describes the creature is incredibly strong and durable. yet a failure and vile. All the while, though he ascribes that definition to the creature, a product of his thoughts, imaginings and dark work, he does not see himself, the perpetrator of these things he describes in the same way.

In a way, Victor sees himself as a victim. In his need to rationalize what he sees before him, in order to maintain his "sanity" and perhaps self respect, this creature can obviously not be his fault, but rather a corruption in itself. He is the victim of a fever, illness and fatigue. Thus he is able, to himself at least, absolve himself of blame and responsibility for the creatures existence.

Hannibal Lector is a man of science, a doctor and psychiatrist. Not only is he a medical and scientific genius, he is a master of social arts as well. He indulges in all forms of "higher" arts: the symphony, opera, painting, etc...

He is of "noble' lineage and carries himself with the poise and discretion of his class. He is always on the lookout for the very best that life has to offer.

Yet, Hannibal is himself a monster. Within that august exterior lies a blood-lusting madman. He is capable of unspeakable violence and and literally consumes his victims. He is a cannibal. Adding insult to injury, as if the criminal, violent acts he carries out aren't enough, to consume his fellow man as though he were a predator outside of mankind.

We are later to discover though, that Hannibal is a "victim" also. When he was only a child in war torn Europe, his family was killed by mercenaries. He watched his younger sister be consumed by those same mercenaries in the middle of a desperate winter when food is scarce.

His young mind is ravaged by the images and memories of the savagery he lived through. The rest of his life is torn between living life to it's best and bringing death to any who bring any hint of the chaos and disorder he suffered through. His greatest desire is to find a place for his poor little sister among the living again.

Do we notice a common theme here? Although separated by over 160 years, the concept of victimization persists through both stories. Both stories present mind-numbing violence and degradation of the human character, yet the notion that the monster, the doers of horrible and evil deeds are not entirely to bear the burden of responsibility for their actions because they are victims themselves.

Movies have been made of both stories over time, in which, to make a good show, will modify and even remove elements of the stories that make the monsters more monstrous and the victims more pitiable, but the stories themselves present a raw look at the mad dance of rationalization that we as humans engage in to see ourselves justified and sane.

The monster that Hannibal is, is well educated, highly bred and aristocratic, yet able to engage in the most despicable behavior. It haunts us. it violates our sense of decency and makes us truly question what exactly is this thing we call 'sanity".

The monster that Victor created is ironically similar. It too becomes well educated, for it's time. It is shown throughout the story of as capable of being kind and generous. At the same time, it is capable of extreme violence and acts of savagery that are difficult to accept as being done by a 'man".

The creature is shunned by man based on it's visage alone. it is run out and attacked by people and yet it stills seeks out someone, anyone, for a friend.

As it is rejected again and again, not only by society, but by his maker as well, the creature explodes into rage. We are constantly reminded that it is not responsible for its condition. Yet, is it's rage righteous? Is his violence justified by his being rejected.

As "good" people, we look at these monsters and say that while their rage and experiences are truly enough to drive anyone mad, they should be held to a standard. The notion that we do not have to be what society attempts to make of us.

Frankensteins monster, while pitiable, is by no means justified, we argue, in allowing his anger and frustration to cause hurt and pain to other people.

Hannibal Lector, while his childhood may be lamentable, is by no means beyond responsibility for his horrible actions.

That is what we normally, as 'good" people, take away from these stories. The monsters are such not just because they were created as such, but because they allowed themselves to become such.

They succumbed to the darker side of themselves and wallow in self pity and justify to themselves that their rage is righteous, their actions "honorable" as their victims somehow brought this on themselves. They, the "monsters" are only the tools.

Where is Good and Evil in these stories? Are they so subtle that they must be plumbed from the cracks and crevices of the stories?

Is Evil so sinister, that it's greatest tool is our own sense of injustice, our ability o question ourselves and our beleifs before we accept that it, capital "E" Evil does exist.

In the first film adaptation of "Dracula" in 1931, Edward Van Sloan, as the character of Van Helsing, said that the vampires greatest strength is that no one will believe in it. Can the same thing be said for Evil itself? Is it so fearsome a concept that to believe it actually exists is too much for the human conscience to bear?

If we look at both of our "monsters" in these stories, we can see that Dr. Lector and Frankenstein and his creature not only engage in evil deeds, but use it's silky subtlety to to convince readers that there is nothing to be on guard against.

The workings of these monsters depends on the notion that no one believes they are actually Evil, but that they are simply misunderstood and victims in their own ways. It is far easier to rationalize "insanity" and rage than to think anything could be inherently Evil and malignant to the core of it's being.

As for the constantly surfacing images of victimization, isn't it interesting that throughout the history of mankind, we have again and again been unable to accept responsibility for our actions and thoughts. It surfaces in our literature and media as well as runs rampant through our daily news. Yet with all these visible reminders, the daily and timeless examples we see, we still cannot find it in ourselves to learn to be responsible for ourselves.

Or is it possible that to accept responsibility for ourselves means accepting the monster that is within us all.

Where is true Evil?

2008-09-27T19:16:00.004-05:00

If one searches the internet and the newspapers, the library and the television news, they will find no shortness of 'bad' in the world. people, events, organizations, animals even described so.

Where do we draw the line at true capital 'E' Evil though?

Can we say there are incremental 'levels' that culminate in true Evil?

Perhaps we start with mischievous. It is not really bad, just , ornery. We all know people who we call mischievous. They are what we might say are 'good' people who like to stir up a minor fiasco. They tease and taunt. Mislead and beguile. There is no real harm intended and often they are only meaning to entertain, those watching, if not just themselves.

Is the next logical step then "bad'? Someone who possesses less than socially acceptable scruples. Someone who is so concerned with his or her own well being that they totally disregard others around them. Is this person beyond salvage? Not usually. Often people would say these "bad" folk can be redeemed by making a positive emotional connection at some point in their life.

How far down must we go taking half steps from these wider definitions till we reach true Evil then?

Would most of us agree that one who is truly Evil is someone for whom compassion is entirely beyonf their grasp. Their intent and planning is always geared toward causing irreparable damage and pain.

Someone who cannot find content within themselves until they think they have reduced another to nothingness.

There have been people who consume pain. They thrive on the degradation and agony of others. They aren't 'happy' until they have caused utter misery.

They care nothing for others thoughts or feelings. They place no real value, if any at all on life outside their own, and even that might be debatable.

Are there such people who do exist? Is this description only evident in fiction? Can society see them as "Evil" or will they see these traits and simply deem that person as mentally unbalanced, insane and a victim of their own mind.

Will society always see through a Freudian tinted glass at such people and pity them as victims of childhood trauma?

To be sure, in todays clinical medically aware world, these people would not be considered evil at all. They want to study and dissect them. Discover chemical imbalances and cranial pressures to explain the abhorrent behavior as is shown.

At some point, where is the line drawn that men become monsters themselves. There is no pity left to give, no care to understand, but to eliminate.

The Czarina Catherine used to bathe in the blood of young girls because she believed it would keep her young. They would be killed in front of her, while she sat in the bath, watching and commanding they be cut to their fresh, hot blood poured directly from the body into the the bath. She didn't allow herself to be bothered by screams , pain and signs of torment. She was royalty and these girls were most often peasants.

In Africa, two brothers would hide under a walking bridge and lie in wait while unsuspecting pedestrians were on the bridge. They would jump out and savagely kill the victim, sometimes only render them unconscious, intentionally, and feed on the body. Screams and begging for mercy did not dissuade them.

In the midwest and upper east coast of the U.S. a man stole children. He would torture them by cutting into their skin while they were alive and conscious. Not ignoring the pain and horror in the children's eyes and screams, but indulging on it, soaking their pain into himself. He would violate them in every way imaginable.

These examples show that not only is this capacity for Evil in existence, but it appears anywhere and everywhere people are. it isn't confined or restricted to any one race , culture or creed.

ALL people are susceptible to Evil. Of being overcome and consumed by it.

Dr Josef Mengele, of Nazi Germany notoriety, was a specimen of Evil so clear that his actions are nigh unspeakable to "civilized" people to this day. His "experiments" were atrocities of the worst kind, performed under the guise of science and medicine, however loosely.

It is possible that you disagree. These depictions, you might say, are evident to you of severe mental and criminal instability.

Perhaps, that is the only way people can allow their minds to take in the knowledge of the acts and behaviors committed by these Evil ones. To think of them as intentional, rational, 'sane' actions, would be far too much for a sensible person to take without being driven mad themselves.

cries in the dark

2008-07-30T19:40:00.003-05:00

Is the modern person, be they American or elsewhere, truly becoming de-sensitized to horror?

Do we find ourselves less afraid or alarmed when seeing horrific sights given to us in movies and news media?

I am not sure. I might say regionally and depending on exposure to certain visual stimulation, a person can become de-sensitized to terrible things.

On the other hand, due to this, call it a 'wave', of unobstructed gore and detail, are we becoming more sensitive to the subtleties of terror?

Since the seventies, gore has been in vogue. The bloodier the better. In movies, books, even the news media does not hide the more tragic things it never would have shown pre vietnam.

The human imagination has been un-exercised in perceiving terror and subtleties of of nightmare in certain areas and among certain groups of people.

Human imagination is an incredible thing. In the days of Victorian dresses and stuffy yet provocative clothing, all men needed to see was an ankle, heaven forbid an entire leg, and their imagination went beyond wild.

In the days of Vincent Price, sometimes only his voice was required to frighten child and adult alike out of their collective skins. In the days before television was the opiate it has become, radio, sound, was all that was needed to stir the shadows in our minds.

In todays mass market world of high definition and gross out marketing, where is the modern persons threshold for fear? Where is the tipping point between caution and abject terror?

When we decide how much is too much, are we too long delayed in our reaction? When we as a people are asked to weigh in on a matter of national importance, such as war, have we waited too long? Does the de-sensitizing of some cause a delayed reaction. When we finally sit up and take notice of 'horrible" events around us, is it already too late?

At the same time, has our sensitivity to those things less focused on increased? When we are faced with rampant anti-social behavior, are we disgusted at the outset? Have we focused so long on the gore and guts that the less violent activity now haunts us.

When a houseful of people are left broken and bleeding, most if not all left for dead, do we not shake our heads, comment to each other on the insanity our communities have come to and change the channel to a sitcom?

Yet, when a teacher engages in inappropriate behavior with a student, no blood, no beatings, no death or wanton violence, do we reach for the pitchforks and cry "monster!" to the rafters?

Is the situation with teacher and student any less terrible than the family killing? Some would argue no. Some would say the lack of violence puts it in another class of terrible. Yet, what is the 'watercooler' talk strongest on the next days? is the tale of the teacher so scandalous that it overshadows the other story in reach and breadth?

When we are alone, in the dark and we see an image, something gruesome, stand before us, it is frightening yet we are resolved, for we have seen the beast, the horror and it is not as bad as what we have seen on television.

When we are alone in the dark, and we hear that sound out there, close by and coming nearer. Ragged breath, a slithering, clambering sound, the clacketing of claws on a wood floor. Our senses heightened, our adrenaline rushing, listening. Where is it? What is it? what is it doing?

We cannot see the source, yet it keeps coming, unasked for, unknown.There, down, below, just beneath us. we hold our breath, to hear it better, so it can't hear us.

It's true. De-sensitizing ourselves does not mean a loss in fear. It only means a trade. For that which we accept with less trepidation, the abnormality, the gross out, the blood and gore, we heighten our awareness and lower the bar to other senses.

As we have accepted the sight of the monsters in our midst, we have become more fearful of the insinuation of the others we cannot see. The idea that they are there shocks our senses and fills us with dread. We become hyper-sensitive to those ghouls and creatures, those people doing horrible things that we don't see, that we don't want to see, right behind our backs.

In the night.

In the dark.

The inevitable Dr. Lector

2008-07-30T12:54:00.007-05:00

Yes, I thought I would start by discussing Dr. Hannibal Lector. A fictional character made famous by the books of Thomas Harris and made notorious by Hollywood.

Dr Lector is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say reality and fiction come together to form a whole reality in terms of our world.

Thomas Harris, when writing his stories, used his knowledge and awareness of real crimes and criminals to create his fictional settings and people. The result being we have a fictional character that has almost become to seem "real" to to the public. There are chat rooms and fan clubs and discussion sites on the internet for people to talk and share their affinity of Dr. Lector.

One of the great appeals of this character is that his persona is grounded in 'reality'. He is a psychiatrist and a serial murder at the same time. He is a cannibal and a dignified professional. A monster and a cultured aristocrat all in the same package.

Readers and movie-goers are entranced by this contrary individual. His crimes are hideous, his manners impeccable. People want to respect him and admire him yet are horrified by him at the same time. People write posts in fan sites at how they would love to "meet" him and be his friend. How they think he would find them fitting to step into a position such as his fictional counterpart, Clarice Starling.

In many ways, Dr Hannibal Lector has become the pseudo arbiter of good and bad. He is deeply offended by people who disrespect the 'good' things of the world. People who lack "taste" and civility. He is judge, jury and executioner to those who we real people, might agree deserve to be punished for lack of character or possessing no redeeming social skills.

We as people, 'real' people, as opposed to his fictitiousness, are appalled at his extremes in carrying out sentence, but in discussion, so often agree with his determination and judgment.

He epitomizes the ideas of 'dignified' and 'class'. Traits real people admire and aspire to. We are drawn to his clarity of thought and how he 'carries' himself. Some people even find it within themselves to pity him or discover almost 'real' emotions for his situation.

They see him not as a Monster but as a victim of a hard and tragic young life and they see his work to become a disciplined, reasoned doctor as his effort to escape and redeem himself of the darkness within him.

There are romanticized visions of his being a "real' person.

The man is a cold blooded murderer, a serial killer. He eats the bodies of other people. He imposes his intentions, and values on others and takes it upon himself to decide if someone should live or die.

He makes cold, rationale decisions that justify, if only to himself, the worthiness of another person to live or die, and what a gruesome death indeed they are given to.

In other, "real" persons in the world who we hear of in the news who perform atrocities such as these, we condemn them, vilify them and ostracize them from conventional society.

But, Dr Lector, our fictional 'anti-hero' gets tolerated, even lauded, for such anti-social, destructive behavior. He is, after all, only a literary character. He's not 'real'. There is no risk these fans take in making an idol of him.

And yet...

He appeals to the darkness within us. He calls to that shadow of us that doesn't feel the same social responsibilities our sunlight selves do. His mere suggestion of presence tells us "go ahead, do it" when we feel like shoving the person who cut in front of us in line so rudely.

Which of us "hears" Dr Lector as though he were, real, standing right next to us? Is his voice louder to some than to others? Does his perceived "real-ness" indicate that some of us are closer to that shadow self than others? What would it take for each of us to blur the lines between fiction and reality so easily to satisfy the Doctor?

And you, what about you? When stress rises and the shadows stretch long across your life. How real does the Doctor become to you?

scary thoughts and thinking scary

2008-07-30T12:22:00.000-05:00

This blog is intended for discussing what lies behind the shadows of the human mind.

To discuss reality as well as fiction as they both have ties to the way we think and believe.

I invite other thinkers and writers to join me in discussing the things no one likes to discuss in plain daylight. As people, we tend to prefer to talk of nice things, happy things polite things and rational things in the company of each other.

Society is changing though. More and more, we see the things in the darkness of our minds and lives pulled to the daylight by the media.

As government and business try to force people to be polite, fair and un-biased the media squeals in delight at presenting to us on our television screens and magazines, the movies and the books all of the things that don't fit into those proper and well litigated world of today.

Are people any more 'dark' than they were centuries ago? Is the media simply spotlighting it more and bringing it to our attention.

Are people really becoming more desperate and wanton, dark and disturbed by the things we are shown?

Here is a place for fact and theory. Hard nosed logic and thoughtful imagination. let's turn the lights down a bit, no, not all the way off, but comfortable.

We can see for ourselves where the line of shadows is drawn and cross it if we dare.

It has been said that the hardest truth for man to accept, is that of himself. In honesty, we face the darkness within us.

I like to play 'Devil's Advocate'. To the point of arguing something I myself do not believe or practice at all, but simply to provoke the discussion. Watch for this.

Post your comments, volunteer to become a contributor, read and enjoy. But please, be cordial, be polite and respectful. Hold each others hand as we explore the dark rooms and spaces within us.

Big Bear