I kind of miss gatekeeping.

With Rings of Power finishing its second season in a spectacular fashion (I really enjoy this beautiful show), I started to think about all the review bombs and the multiple ways in which internet trolls tear down these kinds of programs. Oh how far we have come since the early 90's and late 80's.

We live in a time where the worst people have internet access and dwindling, bordering on non-existent, levels of shame. Back in the day, if some sad sack loser wanted to vent about Spider-Man getting married, that dude had to write or type a letter. Then they had to address and stamp an envelope, and then mail said letter to an editor, and then wait months to see whether anyone read their deranged ramblings (or whether it was even printed). This is how things were done.

Now? Not only can the same type of loser set up multiple alts to review bomb a show they haven't seen 50 times before breakfast, but said loser has successfully lost the ability to understand how incredibly weird and damaged that behavior actually is.

I didn't realize at the time (as I was living through it), but there was a ton of gatekeeping in just about every aspect of life (and maybe that was a good thing). A lot of it was unintentional gate keeping. Things were difficult to get done (and expensive) because we simply didn't have a better way. If you wanted to publish a manuscript, it needed to be typed on paper. Once you did that, you needed to find an agent, because an agent was the only way you were ever going to get a thing published. Once you had an agent, then you could get in front of a publishing house. They wouldn't publish your work if it wasn't "good" and it was up to the agent to figure out if something was good enough to warrant a look at. There are tons of other examples of this kind of gatekeeping.

If you wanted the news, there wasn't 24-hour news. You just had to tune in to channels 3, 6, or 8 (out of a maximum of 12-13 channels) on an old tv, and you just had to consume what was told to you by Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow. Once the news hour was over, that was it. You could get some news out of a printed paper, but that required a delivery person and a subscription. My dad would go to the library once a week to read The Wall Street Journal to get the news from New York and see what was happening in the world of stocks and bonds. The writing in the journal was always fantastic, and they always had pictures of people they were talking about made in curious black and white pixelation. Knowledge came from textbooks and encyclopedias, and not from iPhones. If you didn't have an encyclopedia, you had to hit the sidewalks to go to the library and look up things there and take notes. You might be asking: Mike, why was this better?

Well...it wasn't better in the sense that knowledge was hard to obtain. But forcing people to jump through hoops to get a thing also ended up making it much more difficult for everyone to start hating each other for "reasons." Having a filter that only allowed some things through would also set up those who made it to the other side with reasonable incomes. If you were a writer and actually got published by a big publishing company, you could make a career out of that pretty easy. If you were a person that actually managed to get some music published, you would probably be setup for life doing music as your career. If you studied art in high school and college and somehow got hired to do a book cover, you could actually make a career of being an illustrator and gain some notoriety and fame. In a time when people couldn't just blather whatever madness is going through their minds, things like debate and debate performance actually mattered. If you did poorly in a debate, then you probably wouldn't get elected. Nowadays? I don't think that debates actually mean anything. It's like a parade or a show...it's pure entertainment and that's it. Nobody cares. People have already decided long before a debate who gets their vote. Back in the day...being an expert in something actually mattered. But in our land of "everyone has the same platform and can say whatever they want," the experts get labeled as "well that's your opinion," and then some jackass can say whatever they want to say and "this is my opinion and it carries the same weight as yours because I too can publish and make a video."

Now, I totally realize what I'm saying here, and it actually goes against what I would ideally want. As a person who typically gets the short end of the stick, I love that I can actually publish whatever I want and not have to be gate kept by someone (and prevented from having my expressions read). But because I can do this, everyone can. And maybe this is kind of bad for society. Gone are the "water cooler" type discussions I had with people in the past about books I've read thinking that someone else has read the same book. I very rarely come across anyone that has read the same books I've read because there is no central authority telling you what books are good and forcing people to read those books. People no longer know how to structure a sentence. I see grammatical errors and spelling errors all the time, and no one cares because the gatekeeping is gone. There are no consequences for being a bad speller or using improper punctuation. The consequences used to be that maybe you'd get a terrible grade or maybe you wouldn't get published. Well, there are so many people with degrees these days that its hard for any of them to find a job. And if a publisher doesn't publish a book, who cares? You can just go on Amazon and publish away with ai artwork for a cover. It used to be that you could have a certain kind of respect for "knowing things." These days, you can be a complete ignoramus and just use google and know things the same as someone who spent four years studying a subject.

Before this "rant" gets too long in the tooth, I want to end by saying that none of what I might miss from the days of yore actually matters (as we live in 2024). Access to all information whether it is truth or lies is there for anyone to consume. So it doesn't matter what I think. However, I kind of see modern society as a huge pond now, whereas before it was separate rivers and canals that you had to try and get access to. Because it's a pond, there aren't any preferential areas where the water is clean and pure. If a person on one end of the pond pisses and poops in it (or pollutes it with gasoline), then you eventually get to deal with it on your end. There's no "jumping to another water source," and its actually impossible to keep your side of the pond clean. No matter what, the filth gets in, and whether you like it or not this is the water you drink now. It doesn't feel like this is a better way.

Agatha All Along seems like a nice October distraction before the horrors of November.

Being the month of October, witches, ghouls, and goblins seem to be on everyone's mind. I don't much care for actual scary movies...you know...things like The Conjuring and Salem's Lot. I spoke in a previous blog post about how the new iteration of Salem's Lot is supposed to bring back the frightening version of vampires that has been kind of "out of style" for a decade or two since Buffy and Twilight and perhaps things like Interview with the Vampire made the monster into a sex symbol. But I kinda like the non-scary monsters. Agatha All Along from Disney+ seems to fit this niche nicely at the moment by giving us non-scary witches who still have a lot of compelling things about them.

I'm not completely caught up with the show. However, Aubrey Plaza's character (Rio Vidal) is pretty intriguing. I wonder if we are actually going to get the Marvel version of Death. If you don't know, in the Marvel universe there are these entities like Death and Eternity who are really powerful and basically aspects of the cosmic power that is a universe (I don't say "the" here because Marvel has many different universes). Previously, we've had at least one version of Death, but never the actual Death itself. In Thor: Ragnarok we got Cate Blanchett as Hela, and she even referred to herself as "The Goddess of Death." But, I don't think that counts. In the original comics that featured the infinity stones, Thanos was in love with Death, but Death didn't return the affection (and was probably incapable of doing so). 

Thanos just reasoned in his weird twisted way that he would need to kill off half the universe in order to attract Death's attention. So, it makes me wonder if (at this stage of the game) Rio is supposed to be that version of Death. Or just maybe, she's an avatar of Death kinda like how Moon Knight is an avatar of Khonshu (you guys remember Moon Knight, right?). I also kind of wonder how Agatha and Death got together in the first place. My best guess is that Agatha drew Death's attention because Agatha was offing people who were immortal or extending their lives through the use of her magic. There's got to be some kind of deal that was worked out between these two.

In any event, a show where you can't quite figure out what an antagonist wants usually ends up interesting, and Agatha All Along is that kind of show. Furthermore, it adds to it by creating mystery around its supporting cast, and the protagonist (Agatha) is a mystery as well. So, it's pulling all of those strings all of the time. Every character in this show seems to have "something." Teen (my guess is that this is Wiccan in the comic books) can't say certain things like his name out loud but why? There's Agatha's relationship with Rio (above), Lilia has those delightful premonitions, Jen has the guy who bound her, Alice has the whole deal with the curse... I just hope that all of these story arcs lead to an actual answer. I also wonder if we will actually get to meet Mephisto at some point in this show. That would be something.

Anyway, those are my thoughts as of right now. Anyone else watching this show?

The October IWSG post is all about ghost stories this time around.

It's October, and all the spooks and haunts are starting to appear in my neighborhood. This is probably the scariest October I can remember due to the pending election, but that's all I'm going to say about that. Being the first Wednesday of the month, it is time for the Insecure Writer's Support Group post. If you've never heard of this before, you can go HERE to sign up. With that out of the way, let's talk about what exactly the Insecure Writer's Support Group is.

What is the Purpose of the IWSG?: It is to share and encourage. Writers can express doubts and concerns without fear of appearing foolish or weak. Those who have been through the fire can offer assistance and guidance. It’s a safe haven for insecure writers of all kinds.

When do y'all post?: The first Wednesday of every month is officially Insecure Writer’s Support Group day. This is when you should post your thoughts on your own blog. Some ideas of what you could talk about include doubts and fears that you have conquered. You could also discuss your struggles and triumphs. Or you could offer a word of encouragement for others who are struggling.

How does this make your online presence grow?: Well, you should visit others in the group and connect with your fellow writers. A good rule of thumb is to aim for a dozen new people each time. When you return comments, you'll find that others follow the breadcrumbs back to your blog. That's it in a nutshell. 

The Twitter (X) handle is @TheIWSG and the hashtag you should use is #IWSG.

The awesome co-hosts for the October 2 posting of the IWSG are Nancy Gideon, Jennifer Lane, Jacqui Murray, and Natalie Aguirre!

Now, every month, we announce a question that members can answer in their IWSG post. These questions may prompt you to share advice, insight, a personal experience or story. You should include your answer to the question in your IWSG post or let it inspire your post if you are struggling with something to say.

But, remember, the question is optional!

October 2nd question - Ghost stories fit right in during this month. What's your favorite classic ghostly tale? Tell us about it and why it sends chills up your spine.

My favorite classic ghostly tale is probably A Christmas Carol. It doesn't scare me so much, but it is just a really good story that pretty much everyone has heard about. I think that Dickens really nailed it when he came to spinning a yarn, and the different versions of ghosts opened my mind to the possibilities that ghosts could be something other than scary. As a bonus, I want to say that my favorite scary story is The Monkey's Paw. This is a short story that involves a person making some pretty scary wishes on an old mummified paw from a monkey. But the way that the wishes come true are horrible beyond imagining. It was really the first time that I realized that maybe we shouldn't crave wishes, because whatever entity that could grant them might be really malevolent.

And that's it. Thanks for visiting.

I think people would stop pirating things if they had enough money to legitimately buy them.

I just read a short while ago that Disney+ plans on actually enforcing its prohibition of sharing a password with someone else in the near future. This disclosure then led to a way in which you could still get away with sharing a password, and that was to bring your device over to the original WiFi that houses the account, stream something for a few seconds, and then you should be good to go for another 30 days as the device gets registered with the service. And then people started weighing in about torrenting and pirating, and how people will just go back to doing that so that they can just watch the things they like for free.

This got me thinking about pirating music, movies, television, comic books...and you name it. The first service I remember that allowed people to pirate things easily was Napster. I remember using it for the first time and thinking... "wow, I get all of these things for free?" Eh... it was all stolen, yes. But you didn't feel like you were stealing because you had the anonymity of the internet, so it's not like you walked into Sam Goody or Musicland and just walked out with a CD. But...essentially...it was really kinda like that.

I have a friend who still pirates, but he also struggles to pay his bills, and he doesn't have health insurance from his employer. He's the same age as me. I haven't pirated anything in decades. I basically pay for everything, but here's the thing: I had the money to pay for everything. That simple truth gave me an idea that I want to share. I think that the rise of pirating decades ago should have woken people up to the fact that people weren't making enough money, i.e., that wages were too low. It should have been "the smoking gun." There's lots of talk about this now in 2024. But there wasn't talk about this in the late 90's, and there should have been. All those years ago, people were struggling. That's why they were pirating things by and large. These people wanted better lives, access to things that brought them joy (like music), access to television shows and movies that they couldn't afford to see. I remember reading somewhere that the guy who created Napster did it so that he could have access to music that he didn't have the money to pay for. I don't think you can spell it out any better than that.

In 2024, I see article after article and news report after news report about how the American Dream is dead. The new generation of people are depressed because home ownership isn't realistic and costs are too high. Wages haven't kept up with prices, and on and on and on. The truth of all of this is that it isn't a 2024 phenomenon. For a really long time, many people haven't been making enough money to get by, and I think that the clearest indicator of this is in the rise of pirating videos, songs, books, and other such things. People actually would pay for those things if they could. I don't know why economists never looked at pirating and said, "You know...what we have here is not a theft problem. It's a wage problem. I bet pirating would go way down if people just got paid a living wage." But all you ever heard was "piracy is bad" and "you're stealing from artists" and other such things. What if instead of "piracy is illegal" running ahead of a video you're about to watch you (instead) got a message like "Not paying a living wage to your employees creates crime"? How do you think that would have reframed the discussion around piracy?

I feel like the United States solves things by reacting to them. If there's a fire you pour water on it to put out the fire. If you are overweight then you take a semiglutide or you go on a diet. Our system never looks at the causes of things. Oh there's a fire? Anyone see if there's an electrical problem that needs fixing? Oh we have an obesity problem? Anyone look to see if people actually have access to low calorie nutritious food and access to exercise? Oh there's a piracy problem? Anyone want to look and see if people are not making enough money at their jobs? Oh there's a fascist candidate running for president? Anyone want to look and see if the people who support him might also be authoritarian and fascist? It's like we are stuck in this never ending cycle of "treat the symptom" but don't "treat the disease." I'm not sure why we do this. Anyway, thanks for stopping by. If you have any comments to add, please do so.

I'm skipping Monday, but I'll be back on Wednesday with an IWSG post. See you then.

I think Lovecraftian storytelling elements can strengthen any story.

On the Lovecraft subreddit, I recently came across some recommendations for old school movies that have a Lovecraftian feel to them. Specifically, the list included notables of horror like John Carpenter's The Thing. But it also included a film I hadn't seen (and was interested in watching) called The Abominable Snowman. Starring Peter Cushing (as a young man), this 1950's black and white science fiction film entertained me. But I'm not necessarily saying it would entertain you, so there is no recommendation to watch it forthcoming. However, I definitely see the Lovecraftian elements in play, and I can understand why the people on the Lovecraft subreddit listed it as a film that used horror elements of which Lovecraft was famous.

In The Abominable Snowman you don't really get a view of the monster. This is (I think) key because the special effects of the time were so bad that showing something like that would make the monster "silly." So, kinda like in the movie Jaws where the shark remains mostly unseen for the majority of the film, you instead get this feeling of "something sinister is out there." Other Lovecraftian elements that sprinkle into the narrative of The Abominable Snowman remind me of the short story The Call of Cthulhu. 

In that short story, there's this mysterious statue of Cthulhu that gets described in loving detail, and it makes the reader question the minds of whomever made the thing in the first place. Who could have possibly made this statue and why? Those are important elements in a Lovecraft-type story. In The Abominable Snowman the setting is in some Tibetan town high in the Himalayan mountains. In this town, the people are all superstitious, and the head of the village is an old monk who serves as both a wise person and as a spiritual leader of his people. An expedition into the mountains comes back with a strange silver canister with writing all over it. Inside the cannister is a single artifact: a claw/nail from the finger of some creature. When the old monk is questioned, he says that the cannister is a precious religious artifact that was stolen, and as for the claw? That was a thing carved by monks a long time ago...carved from bone. It obviously doesn't belong to anything real.

But then (of course) you suspect that the guy is not telling the entire story. And that right there is Lovecraft in a nutshell. Exploiting what is unknown so that the mind starts to fill in the details is a kind of horror writing that I never was able to master. But I can appreciate it a lot when I see it. That (I think) has been the terrible tragedy of the Alien universe films: they try to explain too much. But with regard to Alien, I get it. I'm a fan of the films, and I had lots of questions. So the writers made films to answer the questions. But when we all got the answers, not everyone liked what we discovered. And now that Alien has gotten so infused into the cultural zeitgeist that it may be getting a Lego set soon... it's probably safe to say that it has gotten away from its Lovecraftian roots. But maybe I'm wrong. Afterall, I know that there are stuffed Cthulhu's that you can buy online, and every presidential election year the meme "Cthulhu for president! Why vote for the lesser evil!" makes its circulation.

It was a real shock for me then to discover that J.R.R. Tolkien is highly regarded as one of the most outstanding Lovecraftian writers of all time. I came across this tidbit in perusing the Rings of Power reddit. One person laid out examples of Lovecraftian horror all throughout Tolkien's stories. There's the nameless evils in the dark places of the world, and the eldritch terror of Sauron and Melkor. In particular, the drums in the deep section of Moria is packed full of Lovecraftian horror, and the ringwraiths (the Nazgul) are embodiments of that kind of inexplicable evil that really isn't explained all too well. They are just there, they are evil, and they are intelligent. The development of all of those nameless things by people playing in Tolkien's sandbox (much to the chagrin of uber fans of his) has been at a steep cost: knowing all the answers doesn't necessarily make for a better story. I (for one) always wanted to know the connection the elves seem to have with actual light, because I could never quite get there on my own, and I don't think Tolkien really knew either (in clinical detail). With the help of the other writers just literally spelling it out to me, e.g., without light elves fade and so does their kingdom and their immortality...I could finally see why light was so important. But now I do, so I'm happy. But others are actually mad about it, and they think that the writers for Rings of Power have shat all over Tolkien's legacy.

If I were writing a story now (presently I'm not), I think that there would be a question in my mind: To Lovecraft or not to Lovecraft? I believe that the answer to that should always be "to Lovecraft" simply because withholding information and creating unresolved questions is a great way to build tension in a story, and it's a great way to enlist a reader's imagination. Given just those two things it honestly doesn't seem to have a downside.

Actual explosions are more powerful than they are portrayed on television.

Explosions are a lot more powerful in real life than you see on television or in the movies. I was at home on Thursday, and I started to hear explosions. They came about once every thirty seconds or so, and they were rattling my windows, and I could feel the shockwave through the floor. I wondered, "What the hell is going on?" I went online and checked NextDoor. It turned out that the entire Salt Lake Valley from the point of the mountain all the way north to Davis county was feeling these explosions (that's about one hundred miles). The news had reported nothing at this point.

Eventually, the explosions stopped and the news finally reported that the explosions were the detonations of old equipment at the Tooele Army Depot on the other side of a mountain range called "The Ochre Mountains." Yes, you read that right. There's literally a mountain range in-between the Tooele Army Depot and the Salt Lake Valley. Additionally, my windows rattled where I live, and that's about fifty miles away from the Tooele Army Depot. Fifty miles!

My co-worker and friend, Leah, was flying into Salt Lake City and captured these photographs of the explosions that were shaking the ground.

You can kind of see the scale and the distance in these photographs. To me, these explosions look much smaller than anything "nuclear" that I've seen on television. They look smaller than that "mother of all bombs" or "MOAB" that Trump dropped on Afghanistan when he was president. Yet, they still shook my windows in a house a great many miles away and hiding behind actual mountains.

So, I guess I was kind of in awe of how powerful these explosions of weapons/munitions are. They are nothing like what you'd see on television. Real explosions are far deadlier and more destructive than the way in which they are portrayed, especially when you have people just slow walking away from an exploding structure behind them. There's literally no way that they could do that, and these explosions that were felt in the entire valley just validate my point.

Reading a Halo novel made me realize that the act of reading anything isn't necessarily better than watching tv.

I've been reading a book called Halo: The Fall of Reach. The reason I was reading it was that I was a fan of the now canceled series on Paramount + of the same name minus "The Fall of Reach." There are a few similarities between what we saw in the series, and what we got on Paramount +.  But the big ideas that are present in The Fall of Reach would have been super costly to pull off (I think) in a television series, and the series looked really good. The fight scenes were fantastic. But the space opera like space battles would have taken a Star Wars level budget, and I don't know if that was ever possible for this television show.

As I was reading the book, I kept thinking: have I ever picked up a book that basically explained exactly what it was in the title? I mean...it's about the fall of Reach to the Covenant, who are these super advanced aliens pushing humans to the brink of extinction. "Reach" is a critical planet in the human civilization, protected by all of the human forces, and housing humanity's most important shipyard facilities. The destruction of Reach is a terrible thing. But usually, in a title, it isn't so obvious, right? It would be like naming Return of the Jedi to The Emperor Dies in the End. That just seems kind of...I dunno...a bit "spoiler-iffic?" But what do I know?

The book itself is decent entertainment. It's a consumable for fans of the franchise. But it isn't high literature. Aside from telling you exactly what it is in the title, it seeks to introduce characters like John a.k.a. "The Master Chief" and "Kelly" (these two are both Spartans) and some military brass who you end up liking because they are very clever, and then a doctor named "Halsey" who is also clever if not a bit unscrupulous. None of the characters are ones you can really like, because they don't have much of a personality. However, they do kick ass and take names repeatedly, which I suppose is what you expect from the Halo franchise. And when you frame your story against the high stakes of Armageddon for humanity, does personality really count? All that matters is that you are good at your job. And there is some deep satisfaction at watching people who are good at their job just go to work.

I do have some criticisms in the reading of the book, though. All of the chapter heads have an official "date" thing and time of events printed in courier font to make it look like someone typed them as official orders, or record-keeping. These things added nothing to the read. But, I get it. The nerds who love Halo want to feel like this world of military "super people" is real. It just got a little bit annoying to slow down and commit to memory when (in the Halo timeline) the last chapter started so that you could say, "Oh, this is just a few hours more" or "wow, this is three years later--I guess nothing happened in that three years except military training." 

And there's also the obvious need to keep these books clean of sexual details and other kinds of things because the audience for the books dovetails to the younger side. The way you write books and stories like that is you provide tons of high stakes combat so that there isn't time to get to know anyone. To quote Jesse "The Body" Ventura in the old movie called Predator, this is the "I ain't got time to bleed" moments of storytelling.

So you have all of these characters with the bodies of Olympians and yet they don't have any sex, don't have any relationships, and don't do anything because they are always fighting. It would seem silly to ask: why are you always fighting? When it is clear that the reason for all of the fighting is that humanity has been pushed to the brink. Duh? Don't you get that? Geez... I find some of this as a convenient excuse for a writer to not have to invest anything in the characters other than "they are kick ass" and I'm going to write the ways in which "they kick ass."

Maybe I wouldn't notice these things if I hadn't gotten old. But who knows? I see a lot these days that makes it harder for a person to suspend disbelief. However, after having read The Fall of Reach, I think I'm more convinced than ever that books aren't a sacred thing. There's this oft repeated mantra that I've run into over the years where someone says, "Any reading is great. That person is at least reading." I disagree.

I literally see no difference in educational content to the pulp fiction of The Fall of Reach to any one of the many Star Wars series on Disney +. Sure, there are no moving pictures, and this kind of book may "stimulate your imagination." But any other benefits you might get from books is woefully absent here. Even Halo's satirical message of fascism buried behind patriotism doesn't seem to translate well unless you realize that "authoritarian rule bad!" and know what to look for. But it certainly doesn't come across as bad. Rather, it seems to come across as desirable. It is entertaining, and it does scratch a kind of itch. Maybe in the end all that matters is that we enjoyed ourselves on empty calories.