At first we didn't believe it. We thought it was a hoax, some sort of mass hysteria, something like that. It just seemed so unlikely, you know?
But it was true.
It was an archaeological project in Armenia that set them loose. That's what they say, anyhow: a bunch of academic types using a small army of grad students and local labor to unearth some very old ruins. They breached the wrong vault, and found something inside - and then they died screaming in the darkness.
That night, most of Armenia was overrun. The night after that, Georgia and Azerbaijan and parts of Turkey and Iran. On the third night, they pushed down into Iraq and Syria, and up as far as Volgograd. A hastily-assembled U.N. task force moved in to try to close the vault. They were still fifteen miles from the site when darkness fell. Nobody made it back out.
The following morning, they bombed the ruins. Maybe that sealed the vault, maybe it didn't - nobody can get close enough to be sure. It doesn't matter anyway - whatever came out of there had already established nests outside the ruins.
A year later, we still don't know what they are. Hell, we don't even know that they're a "they" and not an "it." We know more than we did at first, but that's not saying much. The little ones are about the size of birds. They don't look that dangerous, but if they get you with those tentacle-tongue things... You don't come back from that. And the big ones are worse.
We know they don't come out in daylight, but we don't know why. Maybe light hurts them, but maybe not, too. There's some evidence that they don't actually feel pain, not the way we do. We don't know if they're intelligent, or if the things that look like planning are actually just instinct. We don't know if they communicate, and if they do we don't know how.
We know they're everywhere. The cities are still safe - anywhere there's enough light is safe. But without the countryside, the cities are dying. Maybe we'll reach a point of equilibrium, as we lose more of our population; maybe not.
We don't go out at night. We don't want to see those obscene shapes drift past, darker than the night. We don't want to feel that soft, questing touch from the shadows. We don't want to watch our world slipping away from us.
We huddle close to the light. Some of us, the ones who haven't given up hope, still search for something, anything, that will save us from the things in the darkness. The others... they hold on for as long as they can.
It's all we can do.
Showing posts with label Fear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fear. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Halloween Story 1: Allergies
Becky woke up with a stuffy nose and a slight headache. She didn't think much of it; with the change in temperature and the way the plants were reacting to the recent rain, her allergies had been acting up for the last week. Besides, she didn't have to get to work for another three hours, and she didn't have any deadlines looming for her classes.
She made herself a cup of tea, and ate a blueberry muffin for breakfast. She could still feel the pressure behind her eyes, so she took a couple of painkillers and some decongestant, and drew herself a hot bath. She found a book and settled in, hoping the heat and the steam would help loosen things up.
Half an hour later, Becky's headache suddenly worsened. She sat up in the bath, and unexpected sneezed. For a brief moment, the pressure eased - and some of the pain went with it. She was reaching for something to wipe her nose with when she felt something pull itself back up into her nostrils. The pain was back, and worse than ever: she felt something crack inside her head.
Her boyfriend found her in the bathtub when he came home from class an hour later. She was still breathing, but only barely; the EMTs said things like "deep shock" and "blood loss" and "trauma" and studiously avoided noticing the way her face had been broken outward from the inside.
Weeks passed. Enormous amounts of time and money and effort went into reparative surgeries. Counselors and law enforcement officials, family and friends: everyone wanted to know what had happened to Becky. But Becky almost never spoke again, and when she did it was only to say, over and over: "It hatched. It hatched. It hatched."
She made herself a cup of tea, and ate a blueberry muffin for breakfast. She could still feel the pressure behind her eyes, so she took a couple of painkillers and some decongestant, and drew herself a hot bath. She found a book and settled in, hoping the heat and the steam would help loosen things up.
Half an hour later, Becky's headache suddenly worsened. She sat up in the bath, and unexpected sneezed. For a brief moment, the pressure eased - and some of the pain went with it. She was reaching for something to wipe her nose with when she felt something pull itself back up into her nostrils. The pain was back, and worse than ever: she felt something crack inside her head.
Her boyfriend found her in the bathtub when he came home from class an hour later. She was still breathing, but only barely; the EMTs said things like "deep shock" and "blood loss" and "trauma" and studiously avoided noticing the way her face had been broken outward from the inside.
Weeks passed. Enormous amounts of time and money and effort went into reparative surgeries. Counselors and law enforcement officials, family and friends: everyone wanted to know what had happened to Becky. But Becky almost never spoke again, and when she did it was only to say, over and over: "It hatched. It hatched. It hatched."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Movie Review - Cabin Fever II: Spring Fever
Okay, so... you all know that I have a weakness for bad horror movies, right? I mean, even the really awful ones? Well, guess what genre Cabin Fever II: Spring Fever falls into?
I'd warn you that there are spoilers ahead, but let's face it: for a movie like this, nobody is going to care.
Let's start by considering the fact that the name makes very little sense in terms of the plot. (The disease doesn't actually cause any sort of fever, and the cabin from the original film is completely absent from the sequel.) Follow that with the observation that the horror-related portions of the plot made very little sense. (Who are the guys in vans? Why are they locking everyone in the school, and then killing them? If they're trying to suppress the outbreak of the disease, wouldn't a quick bit of arson be simpler - and, by the way, how did they know about the outbreak anyhow?)
This would be even more of a problem if the horror elements were more prominent; as it stands, the plot is more of a John Hughes teen-angst drama. Consider, for example, where it places the dramatic tension: in the high school relationships. Will the protagonist end up with the girl of his dreams? Will she get rid of her abusive boyfriend? Will their friend find a date for the prom? So, yeah: it's a teen rom-com which just happens to end with everybody dying horribly from a flesh-eating disease. Which, you know, if that's your thing, then great; I was hoping for more of a horror film, myself.
To be fair, the acting is actually pretty good; I can't fault the actors, except possibly for not finding a better production in which to showcase their skills.
The movie did, however, offer one completely new experience for me. By the time we got to the prom, I really wanted to insert myself into the movie (a la Pleasantville). The reason for this was simple: I was so completely annoyed by every single character in the film that I seriously wanted to go in there and kill them all myself, before they had a chance to die from the disease. Which, from a plotting-and-characterization perspective, is kind of a problem.
Listen, if you're going to make horror films, there's really only one rule. Be scary. Because let me tell you, the alternate ending of the film? The one in my head, featuring me as a spontaneous mass-murderer? Yeah, lame as that was, it would still have been a lot more scary than what was actually on the screen.
I'd warn you that there are spoilers ahead, but let's face it: for a movie like this, nobody is going to care.
Let's start by considering the fact that the name makes very little sense in terms of the plot. (The disease doesn't actually cause any sort of fever, and the cabin from the original film is completely absent from the sequel.) Follow that with the observation that the horror-related portions of the plot made very little sense. (Who are the guys in vans? Why are they locking everyone in the school, and then killing them? If they're trying to suppress the outbreak of the disease, wouldn't a quick bit of arson be simpler - and, by the way, how did they know about the outbreak anyhow?)
This would be even more of a problem if the horror elements were more prominent; as it stands, the plot is more of a John Hughes teen-angst drama. Consider, for example, where it places the dramatic tension: in the high school relationships. Will the protagonist end up with the girl of his dreams? Will she get rid of her abusive boyfriend? Will their friend find a date for the prom? So, yeah: it's a teen rom-com which just happens to end with everybody dying horribly from a flesh-eating disease. Which, you know, if that's your thing, then great; I was hoping for more of a horror film, myself.
To be fair, the acting is actually pretty good; I can't fault the actors, except possibly for not finding a better production in which to showcase their skills.
The movie did, however, offer one completely new experience for me. By the time we got to the prom, I really wanted to insert myself into the movie (a la Pleasantville). The reason for this was simple: I was so completely annoyed by every single character in the film that I seriously wanted to go in there and kill them all myself, before they had a chance to die from the disease. Which, from a plotting-and-characterization perspective, is kind of a problem.
Listen, if you're going to make horror films, there's really only one rule. Be scary. Because let me tell you, the alternate ending of the film? The one in my head, featuring me as a spontaneous mass-murderer? Yeah, lame as that was, it would still have been a lot more scary than what was actually on the screen.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monsters
I love monster movies. Oh, I'll sometimes watch horror movies with human antagonists; some of them (Silence of the Lambs springs to mind) are really quite good. But as a rule, I prefer actual monsters. I like watching people deal with the strange and unknown - and in some ways, the stranger the better.
I've mentioned before that I love zombies, so the fact that zombie films are thick on the ground these days is a great pleasure to me. But I'm good with vampires, too - though (while I understand the temptation to make them heroic), I think in most cases they work better as monsters than heroes. I'd love to see some well-done werewolf films; most werewolf films, even if they aren't completely awful, don't do anywhere near as much with the werewolf-as-a-monster as I think they could.[1] I'd have said the same thing about ghosts, except that Japanese cinema has pretty well fixed that (c.f. The Ring, Pulse, Dark Water, etc.). I'm even seeing some witches (Drag Me To Hell, as a loose example), and though they're technically human, they at least have supernatural powers at their command.
But all of those are half-human, or once-human, monsters. What I haven't seen as much of, in the last decade or so, is monsters who are just... monsters. Oh, there are some - the giant beast of Cloverfield (and all its little minions), the mind-controlling slugs of Slither, the mutated fish from The Host. Most of what is out there... are either remakes or older films. The Blob, Godzilla, The Thing (either version), the giant ants from Them[2], the autonomous swords of Screamers[3], the mind-controlling parasites of The Puppet Masters, even the velociraptors of Jurassic Park (and the tyrannosaurus rex, for that matter). Also, it occurs to me that I'm neglecting two of the classic franchises: Predator and Alien, both of which feature strange and fearsome beasties.
I'd really, really like to see more films with these kinds of monsters. And, yes, that's a lot of different kinds of monsters. That's pretty much my point.
So, what's your favorite kind of monster? What makes it scary for you? Alternatively, what good (or even decent) monster movies am I missing out on? Or, y'know, feel free to head off on a tangent in the comments.
[1] I'd note that the Ginger Snaps series, especially the second film, is a good example of treating the werewolf itself in new and interesting ways.
[2] I saw this film when I was quite young, and it scared me silly - though not quite as much as The Swarm. Having watched Them again recently, I'm pleasantly surprised by how well it holds up. Yes, the special effects are extremely dated - but the movie relied more on dialogue, pacing, and presentation than special effects anyway. That particular trick where you heard the giant ants before you saw them remains creepily effective.
[3] Despite being nominally science fiction, this movie remains creepier than most actual horror films. The sequel, however, was... disappointing.
I've mentioned before that I love zombies, so the fact that zombie films are thick on the ground these days is a great pleasure to me. But I'm good with vampires, too - though (while I understand the temptation to make them heroic), I think in most cases they work better as monsters than heroes. I'd love to see some well-done werewolf films; most werewolf films, even if they aren't completely awful, don't do anywhere near as much with the werewolf-as-a-monster as I think they could.[1] I'd have said the same thing about ghosts, except that Japanese cinema has pretty well fixed that (c.f. The Ring, Pulse, Dark Water, etc.). I'm even seeing some witches (Drag Me To Hell, as a loose example), and though they're technically human, they at least have supernatural powers at their command.
But all of those are half-human, or once-human, monsters. What I haven't seen as much of, in the last decade or so, is monsters who are just... monsters. Oh, there are some - the giant beast of Cloverfield (and all its little minions), the mind-controlling slugs of Slither, the mutated fish from The Host. Most of what is out there... are either remakes or older films. The Blob, Godzilla, The Thing (either version), the giant ants from Them[2], the autonomous swords of Screamers[3], the mind-controlling parasites of The Puppet Masters, even the velociraptors of Jurassic Park (and the tyrannosaurus rex, for that matter). Also, it occurs to me that I'm neglecting two of the classic franchises: Predator and Alien, both of which feature strange and fearsome beasties.
I'd really, really like to see more films with these kinds of monsters. And, yes, that's a lot of different kinds of monsters. That's pretty much my point.
So, what's your favorite kind of monster? What makes it scary for you? Alternatively, what good (or even decent) monster movies am I missing out on? Or, y'know, feel free to head off on a tangent in the comments.
[1] I'd note that the Ginger Snaps series, especially the second film, is a good example of treating the werewolf itself in new and interesting ways.
[2] I saw this film when I was quite young, and it scared me silly - though not quite as much as The Swarm. Having watched Them again recently, I'm pleasantly surprised by how well it holds up. Yes, the special effects are extremely dated - but the movie relied more on dialogue, pacing, and presentation than special effects anyway. That particular trick where you heard the giant ants before you saw them remains creepily effective.
[3] Despite being nominally science fiction, this movie remains creepier than most actual horror films. The sequel, however, was... disappointing.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Muslim =/= Terrorist
I've mentioned before that I don't think Islam is evil. In other words, while there are Muslims who do horrible things, I don't think that Islam is actually the cause of those horrible things.
When I mention this, people frequently respond that, well, you never see Muslims objecting to these things. And, to be fair, the only Muslims who make the national news are either terrorists, or people trying to do equally nefarious things like build a community center. So I can see how non-Muslims might get the impression that all Muslims are terrorists, at least if the mainstream media is their only source of information.
Also... can we drop the idea that Muslims build mosques on conquered lands? Muslims build mosques where there are Muslims. Period. Full stop. Muslims wanting to build a mosque is about as sinister as Christians wanting to build a church. Just about as unusual, too.
And so but anyway: "Muslim" is not a synonym for "terrorist". Which should be obvious, but apparently we need the reminder. So, for your edification and future reference, here is a list of terrorist plots foiled with the help of the American Muslim community.
When I mention this, people frequently respond that, well, you never see Muslims objecting to these things. And, to be fair, the only Muslims who make the national news are either terrorists, or people trying to do equally nefarious things like build a community center. So I can see how non-Muslims might get the impression that all Muslims are terrorists, at least if the mainstream media is their only source of information.
Also... can we drop the idea that Muslims build mosques on conquered lands? Muslims build mosques where there are Muslims. Period. Full stop. Muslims wanting to build a mosque is about as sinister as Christians wanting to build a church. Just about as unusual, too.
And so but anyway: "Muslim" is not a synonym for "terrorist". Which should be obvious, but apparently we need the reminder. So, for your edification and future reference, here is a list of terrorist plots foiled with the help of the American Muslim community.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Bullied Into Belief
Most of my regular readers are aware of the contributions of Dennis Markuze. If you're coming in late, Dennis - who also posts as DM, Dave (or David) Mabus, AtheistWars, and various other pseudonyms - is a Canadian fellow who lives in Granby, which is a suburb of Montreal. He creates long, incoherent diatribes which are punctuated with links to pictures or videos; then he pastes these creations in the comments of other people's blogs or message boards, or (I believe) sends them out as e-mail. He occasionally attempts a more personalized communication, generally in the form of death threats.
He stopped by a few days ago and left another threat: "michael mock you are a traitor against God and will be executed..." I responded by pointing out that if God is truly all-powerful, then He does not need Dennis' help to give warnings.
Dennis actually gave me a response to that:
Now, several people have pointed out that I'm probably overthinking this, and that Dennis probably does what he does because he's mentally ill. I'm not arguing the point, because (with the usual caveats*) I think it's likely true. What puzzles me, and has all along, is the shape of the pathology. What is Dennis trying to accomplish? Why does he use this particular method?
There's certainly an element of power fantasy to it. There's a grandiose quality to the way he delivers his threats and judgements and warnings; an assertion of knowledge and power that, in real life, he simply does not have. I suspect - though again, I can't be sure - that this is part of reason he's so unwilling to answer questions, or carry on a more normal conversation: delivering his pronouncements makes him feel powerful, and actually communicating would ruin that.
But insofar as this is an anti-atheist/pro-Christian effort - and I think, on some level, it is that, too - I think the goal is to scare people into finding God. The rants and the threats are basically Dennis' version of Scared Straight... or, to pick a more religious and Halloween-appropriate example, Hell Houses.
This is not a terribly winsome (or, I suspect, effective) approach to evangelism. I am not a Christian because, on a fundamental level, Christianity makes no sense to me. Trying to scare me does not change that. Christianity remains as incomprehensible when I'm afraid as it does when I'm happy, sad, angry, or concentrating on something else entirely. So by all means, explain to me that I'm going to Hell for not believing in God. It doesn't work. First of all, I don't believe you;** and second, you obviously don't understand why I don't believe.
I can dismiss the Hell Houses as more-or-less-harmless lunacy. Oh, I think they're placing far too much emphasis on the wrong portions of Christianity and missing the essential point of the Gospel. I can even see where they could do some actual harm - they are basically trying to change behavior through fear, after all, and that's an approach that's almost impossible to use without some level of bullying - but I'm also sure the vast majority of people who attend them are already sympathetic to the view they present. And, of course, if you don't want to be scared by them, you can simply not go.
Dennis Markuze, on the other hand, shows up uninvited, delivers explicit threats loaded with unequivocally violent imagery, and disregards requests that he either moderate his behavior or leave. In doing so, he crosses the line from preaching into bullying - or terrorism, though I think that word gets used far too loosely as it is. It's a strange, self-defeating sort of bullying - most of his "victories" seem to come when he annoys someone enough that they block him from posting, and I'd bet heavy money that the number of people who've read his diatribes and converted to Christianity is exactly zero - but it's bullying nevertheless.
I'm not really sure where to go from here. I still think Dennis needs help from a mental health professional, but obviously he's not going to take my word for that. The bullying behavior is completely inappropriate, but I don't see a really good way to make him stop. Most bullies, if you call their bluff, either escalate or back off and try something else; Dennis just keeps at it. Playing along doesn't seem like a particularly good idea, either; I don't want him to think that his behavior is in any way acceptable.
So I'm keeping the policy in place: meaningless, disruptive bullshit gets deleted. That's not just for Dennis, though he's the only one for whom I've ever had to invoke it.
And meanwhile, every time he leaves a threat - anywhere - I see someone who desperately wants to be important and powerful and dangerous, who ardently wants to change the world... and can't.
* I'm not qualified to diagnose him, and even if I were, I couldn't do it over the Internet.
** This should probably go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I'm not talking about all Christians here. I'm not even talking about most Christians. Hell, the denomination I was raised in mainly taught that God expects us to do our best, treat other people well, and trust in His forgiveness for the things we get wrong. As far as I know, that's the mainstream of Christianity - it's just quieter than the "damnation awaits" crowd.
He stopped by a few days ago and left another threat: "michael mock you are a traitor against God and will be executed..." I responded by pointing out that if God is truly all-powerful, then He does not need Dennis' help to give warnings.
Dennis actually gave me a response to that:
don't worry, michael mockThis is interesting to me, because it echoes something from one of my earlier exchanges with him. He said: "repent and turn to God and everything will be ok!"
we are going to have MERCY on you....
we just wanted to give you a little fright...
REPENT AND TURN TO GOD!
Now, several people have pointed out that I'm probably overthinking this, and that Dennis probably does what he does because he's mentally ill. I'm not arguing the point, because (with the usual caveats*) I think it's likely true. What puzzles me, and has all along, is the shape of the pathology. What is Dennis trying to accomplish? Why does he use this particular method?
There's certainly an element of power fantasy to it. There's a grandiose quality to the way he delivers his threats and judgements and warnings; an assertion of knowledge and power that, in real life, he simply does not have. I suspect - though again, I can't be sure - that this is part of reason he's so unwilling to answer questions, or carry on a more normal conversation: delivering his pronouncements makes him feel powerful, and actually communicating would ruin that.
But insofar as this is an anti-atheist/pro-Christian effort - and I think, on some level, it is that, too - I think the goal is to scare people into finding God. The rants and the threats are basically Dennis' version of Scared Straight... or, to pick a more religious and Halloween-appropriate example, Hell Houses.
This is not a terribly winsome (or, I suspect, effective) approach to evangelism. I am not a Christian because, on a fundamental level, Christianity makes no sense to me. Trying to scare me does not change that. Christianity remains as incomprehensible when I'm afraid as it does when I'm happy, sad, angry, or concentrating on something else entirely. So by all means, explain to me that I'm going to Hell for not believing in God. It doesn't work. First of all, I don't believe you;** and second, you obviously don't understand why I don't believe.
I can dismiss the Hell Houses as more-or-less-harmless lunacy. Oh, I think they're placing far too much emphasis on the wrong portions of Christianity and missing the essential point of the Gospel. I can even see where they could do some actual harm - they are basically trying to change behavior through fear, after all, and that's an approach that's almost impossible to use without some level of bullying - but I'm also sure the vast majority of people who attend them are already sympathetic to the view they present. And, of course, if you don't want to be scared by them, you can simply not go.
Dennis Markuze, on the other hand, shows up uninvited, delivers explicit threats loaded with unequivocally violent imagery, and disregards requests that he either moderate his behavior or leave. In doing so, he crosses the line from preaching into bullying - or terrorism, though I think that word gets used far too loosely as it is. It's a strange, self-defeating sort of bullying - most of his "victories" seem to come when he annoys someone enough that they block him from posting, and I'd bet heavy money that the number of people who've read his diatribes and converted to Christianity is exactly zero - but it's bullying nevertheless.
I'm not really sure where to go from here. I still think Dennis needs help from a mental health professional, but obviously he's not going to take my word for that. The bullying behavior is completely inappropriate, but I don't see a really good way to make him stop. Most bullies, if you call their bluff, either escalate or back off and try something else; Dennis just keeps at it. Playing along doesn't seem like a particularly good idea, either; I don't want him to think that his behavior is in any way acceptable.
So I'm keeping the policy in place: meaningless, disruptive bullshit gets deleted. That's not just for Dennis, though he's the only one for whom I've ever had to invoke it.
And meanwhile, every time he leaves a threat - anywhere - I see someone who desperately wants to be important and powerful and dangerous, who ardently wants to change the world... and can't.
* I'm not qualified to diagnose him, and even if I were, I couldn't do it over the Internet.
** This should probably go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I'm not talking about all Christians here. I'm not even talking about most Christians. Hell, the denomination I was raised in mainly taught that God expects us to do our best, treat other people well, and trust in His forgiveness for the things we get wrong. As far as I know, that's the mainstream of Christianity - it's just quieter than the "damnation awaits" crowd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)