IMPORTANT NOTICE, and Thank You To Sasha F.

Hey guys. So, a lovely person named Sasha Fierce pointed out to me that I had written on my post "Dead and Gone" the following phrase:

Funerals are not meant for the living, they are meant for the dead.

...She was understandably confused by this, as it was a horrendous typo that I should have caught. It literally goes against the ENTIRE point of the post (which is to explain how they are meant to affect the LIVING and how they should NOT focus on the dead party specifically), and should in fact read:

Funerals are not meant for the dead, they are meant for the living.

This was completely inexcusable and I'm sorry if it confused any of you. It is fixed now, and I can try and clear up any questions or what not that may have arisen from that. Thank you again to Sasha for drawing it to my attention, I will try to catch things like that in the future.

-BlackFox

(165)

The Garden Path

One step forward, two steps back,
all along the garden path.
Half a league, half a league,
find what you lack,
take one step forward,
two steps back.

One two, one two, keep the pace.
One step forward wins the race.
Onward, onward, to the past.
Two steps backward comes in last.

Few and many keep the pace,
one step, two step, about face.
Last is first, now forward back.
Take one step forward two steps back.

Those ones lost, and those who seek.
The brave, the bold,
the small and meek.
All those on the garden path,
take one step forward,
two steps back.

-BlackFox (Eh, this is just a really random song I wrote a looong time ago.)

(120)

The Thin Line Between Horror and Comedy

Hallo reader. Tis time for a random post. How lucky for you! … What? …. N-No! I am not being lazy! I am... um... broadening my topics. Yes. I am totally not just being too lazy to write serious intelligent posts. Perish the thought! … -cough- … Moving on.

Recently, a very close friend and I were intrigued by the concept of Doctor Who's weeping angels. We had never actually seen the episode, but we had seen enough to get the gist of the idea. We had always been curious, but could never bother to pull up the actual show. Today we decided to actually satisfy our curiosity and look up a clip from the episode they appear in. The results were... unexpected, and I have been inspired to take this opportunity to talk to you about horror.

For those who are unaware, the weeping angels were monsters from the episode entitled “Blink”. The idea around them was this: They are vicious creatures with the appearance of an angel, until they choose to attack wherein they acquire a more demonic facial expression. They turn to stone whenever they are looked upon by any living thing, including others of their kind. Thus, they cover their eyes before this happens whenever possible, since if they were to accidentally lock eyes with each other, they would remain stone eternally. The idea being they can not look away when turned to stone, and so would be unable the immobilizing gaze. The position of bowing their head and covering their eyes gives them the appearance of crying, thus the name “weeping angels”. They are cruel and viscous, and almost never alone.

Sounds pretty promising right? After all, the idea of being endlessly hunted by these creatures is legitimately terrifying. The idea of being cornered by one, unable to blink or look away, unsure of the location of the others and the ever pressing fear that one could appear behind you while the one in front keeps you trapped, is well... scary. But the execution of this cool concept was just awful. The expressions of the angels became so grotesque and demonic it passed the line into ridiculousness. They honestly looked more like cartoon characters than terrifying creatures of the night. They constantly had their face in a roaring position, and held their clawed hands in an almost Frankenstein manner. The entire tension of the scene was broken by these silly caricatures. When the angels were “weeping”, they were actually more intimidating. There was some thing about the sinister nature of their seemingly innocent nature. It was reminiscent of the angelic statues found in graveyards that these were no doubt modeled after. They were creepier, and created infinitely more tension then their snarling counterparts. The final straw of silliness came when they had the angels “rocking” the tardis (no I am not kidding), without actually really shifting position. It just destroyed any horror qualities they may have had.

So why did this seemingly terrifying concept fall flat? Well in essence, they were simply trying too hard. The beauty of these kinds of creatures is they don't need to look vicious. In fact the more innocuous they appear, the better. When something looks basic or bland, it appears more unearthly and in human. Just look at scp 173 or slenderman to see this kind of idea in action. If the angels had simply always covered their eyes when the characters were looking at them, it would vastly improve the effect they had. The idea of turning away, and suddenly having an angel literally in your face is terrifying. It does not need to roar, or grimace, or threaten you with claws. It just needs to be about five feet closer than it was a few minutes ago. Horror is largely about atmosphere. It is not just about monster design. It is not about fangs and claws. It is about lighting, and isolation, and music. It is the emotion and the paranoia. It is about being helpless and alone in the dark.

-BlackFox

(680)

Crime is Pride

Hallo reader, assigned post time again. Yet again, I must valiantly spar with a forced topic for the sake of academics. Yes, yes I know, tis a terrifying fate indeed. But thou, reader, can support me in my endeavorous pursuit of this mission, from which I may not return. Today I have to react, either by refutation or confirmation, to this little gem:

In the following excerpt from Antigone, by the classical Greek playwright Sophocles, the wise Teiresias observes:

Think: all men make mistakes
But a good man yeilds when he
Knows his course is wrong,
And repairs the evil: The only
Crime is pride.

 

…Let us pause and think about this for a moment, shall we? If this quote is valid, and I mean universally valid, in the apparent context of the commission of a crime, then it raises serious implications. Are we to say then, that as long as someone recognizes their offense, repents of it, and at least attempts to reconcile as best their situation allows them, they  have essentially done nothing wrong? Does this mean then, that I can inflict torture, or pain, or even death upon another without warranting any moral fault as long as I simply apologize and attempt to console the victim? Surely this seems a ludicrous assertion. Apologizing does not erase the past or ease the souls of those still living. Perhaps such acts as murder are an exception, since reconciliation would be impossible. What could I possibly do, say, or offer as repayment for a life? There is nothing that holds such value, nothing that could ever atone. Any pitiful attempt on my part would in fact be insulting, as it would devalue the one I have taken away. A grieving family wants nothing from the one who destroyed their parent or child, except maybe their death. If this is the case, then mayhap my own life would be expected as payment for my sins. If it is thus, then would offering this up absolve me? Would that heal the pain of the family left behind? Does it erase that which I have committed? No. Of course it erases nothing. My death would not bring back the dead. It would not make the family feel their loss any less. It would not change the emptiness which I have inflicted upon them. Repentance changes nothing. It cannot absolve you. A murder is guilty of far more than simple pride.

Yet, even now I can hear some of you. I can hear the cries of extreme examples and unfairness to the context. I can hear the insistence that something as severe as murder was not what the author had foremost in their mind. Well then, I do suppose we should at least try to attribute some credibility to this statement, through use of a more minor example. A petty thief perhaps, can serve the spirit of this ideology. If a man, on impulse, steals an object from a store, but later repents of this act and willingly returns it to the store, has he truly committed a crime? After all, the man is compensating the owner of the object, and offering himself up to any form of retribution they might desire. Does he truly warrant moral fault in this situation? The answer of course, is a resounding yes. Repentance does not erase the act morally. A crime has still been committed. He has still done something wrong. The shopkeeper may show mercy, and forgive the thief. He may choose to forget the experience, and reward the man for his honesty and repentance. But in the end, he has still done something wrong, that warrants forgiveness. We do not need to forgive a man who has committed no crime. Yes, we all make mistakes, but they are still in essence mistakes. The mercy or altruism of the injured party does not absolve the thief of his actions. He must still answer to them in the end. He must still face the things he has done, and possibly live with this shadow looming in his past for the rest of his life. Crime is not just about punishment, or refusing to admit mistakes. Crime is not just about forgiveness or the spirit of right and wrong. Crime is not just about rewarding good actions for being good actions, even if they follow bad ones. The thief that repents may truly reform, he may truly repent or reconcile, but that does not mean he was never a thief.

-BlackFox

(711)