I solicited my fans and friends for blog topics. Rather than pick from those offered, I thought I’d go through all of them.
BigHeath2099 on Twitter suggests: “How about what animal would be scariest if there was a vampire version. I’m thinking giraffe.”
Well, BigHeath 2099, as much as I can see where you’re coming from, giraffes are simply too gangly to be particularly dangerous. Any monster that can be foiled by low ceilings probably won’t make the Most Terrifying list.
The topic isn’t an easy one. I could, of course, point out that there already is a vampire version of several animals, and that a vampire vampire bat would be some sort of double vampire, which is like making Godzilla twice as radioactive. In other words, big trouble. Or vampire leeches, with the ability to become wolves, would be terrifying to behold.
There are two schools of monsterizing animals. The first is to take a relatively harmless animal and embiggen it. And it’s true that there’s nothing like a giant rat, rabbit, or chipmunk to remind us that we’re really not quite as secure in our position on the food chain as we would like. Rarely is an already big animal made larger, although the idea of jumbo-sized elephants or megarhinos could be awesome.
Animals are often zombified, which has become something of a cliche at this point. Although zombie cows are definitely the height of terror. But zombie animals are basically just rabid, flesh-hungry beasts. It’s not really a new genre.
But vampires could be cool. Especially if they were actually allowed to be vampires. A beast that can turn into a bat, transform into mist, climb up walls, and mesmerize its victims would be pretty awesome. Even a giraffe with these abilities could be a dangerous beast indeed. Of course, such a monster would also melt in sunlight, be forbidden from entering uninvited (how would a vampire goose ask for an invitation anyway?), and be repelled by holy water. Still, it could be a problem for even the most experienced vampire hunter.
As usual, I’m probably overthinking it. So rather than debate endlessly with myself, I’m just going to settle on the obvious answer.
RobbClarke on Twitter suggested: “Traditional print for books Vs. electronics.”
It’s a big topic, not easily covered. I’ve already written on this topic before, and it boils down to I like traditional print books and electronic books for different reasons. I like paper books a lot. Not the least of which is that once they are bought they are yours forever (or until nature or carelessness destroys them). They’re easy to trade. And buying them gives me a reason to leave the house.
E-books are just great for accessibility and portability. The need for electricity is a bit of a downside, but at this stage in civilization, electricity is necessary for just about everything. If we lost it tomorrow, we’d have more pressing concerns than e-books. I don’t like that e-books are more impermanent than paper books, but that’s a trade off that is unavoidable.
I think the Print Vs. E-books debate is built on a false dichotomy. Maybe it’s just human nature but we like to pit things against each other in competition and have a clear winner. I’m not going to play that game. (Although if pressed I will say I assume print will eventually lose.) I’m just going to say that each has their advantages and weaknesses, and I’d like both to be around and prosperous as long as possible.
itendswithZ via Twitter says: “do a silly one. like how 3D looks like crap”
I don’t think 3D looks like crap. I just don’t think it really looks like anything. Aside from a novelty value, it doesn’t really add anything to a film. Except making it more expensive and more inconvenient. It doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon because the movie industry is really really determined to make it stick. But that’s about the only reason.
I would prefer though that they stopped retroactivally 3D-ing movies that were shot in 2D. It usually ends up being as successful as colorizing B&W films. You can’t just paste an entirely new format on a film after the fact. It rarely works. Just look at the digital effects pasted into the original Star Wars trilogy. They tend to stick out. A film is not a stack of Lego blocks that can be broken down and reassambled at will. Anymore than a well-constructed book could have blocks of text removed and added at whim. It’s this haphazard disrespect for the medium that makes 3D truly destructive to me.
Okay, that’s enough from me. Thanks for stopping by.
Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,