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)

Life

No one helps another,

and hunger shadows every door.

Liars betray brothers,

and rich men quickly join the poor.

Sorrow wanders everywhere,

not one alive has seen no pain.

Cheaters tell you to play fair,

and dreams are crushed in pouring rain.

Debt builds up a mighty bill,

and cruelty throws you on your face.

It never changes, never will,

the world is an uncaring place.

Everyone's somehow a crook,

and failure comes with every try.

I see this everywhere I look,

life sucks, and then you die.

-BlackFox (Boredom and cynicism were ne'r a good combination. Also, yay for optimism!)

(101)

Irreducible Creation

Now, for once let us return to the actual topic of the blog shall we? I am well aware that many argue that there is no scientific evidence of a creator, and that what is supported by evidence is evolution. But, why don't we pause for a moment and look at one of the more interesting examples that seem to do the opposite.

We can look at the example of any irreducible complexities in nature. I irreducible complexities are things that can not be built up piece by piece. They function only when they are all present and correctly assembled. For instance, we can see objects like these in small, single celled organisms. Many contain motor like flagella that they use to move. If any part of this structure is removed, it ceases to work. Now we may ask, how does such a thing evolve over time? It does not serve its function without all of its parts. So, either the irreducible machine literally evolved into being completely assembled all at once or, it simply evolved piece by piece. Both have their own problems. Obviously, the odds of it simply coming into existence ready made by pure chance borders on ridiculous. It is virtually impossible for such a thing to happen. If it were to evolve piece by piece, that would mean the organism would evolve over time with a useless lump attached to it until the motor was fully assembled. This idea seems to go against the principles of evolution, where the fittest survive and multiply while those with deformities, or unhelpful mutations die out. The same idea can be seen in the concept of an eye, and other areas. If these things are said to happen by chance, than we must burden ourselves with the sister assertion that such astronomical odds continuously saw themselves through. On the other hand, if a creator is behind this, then the idea of such a machine existing becomes logical. It is now irreducible because it was designed with an intelligent mind, not because a cell won the genetic lottery.

-BlackFox

(348)

Perceptions

For those of you that actually read this blog, you may remember my assigned poem called “The Grave”. It was part of a project where everyone in my class had to write a poem and analysis to go with it. Well, my teacher felt that a lot of the poems were really very good, and collaborated with the literary magazine Plain Brown Wrapper to extend the deadline so people could submit their creation. Pretty much my entire class wanted me to send mine in, and even a few people outside it told me to submit as well. In some sense, I did not really want to let people down, and thought about submitting it. But, much to the confusion of my incredulous class mates... I simply could not do it. In the end I just could not bring myself to fill out the form. A big problem for me I could not send in anonymously. It was just too intimidating.

So, one might ask, why am I rambling on about this? Well, I have found that I am not the only one who feels that way. And, unfortunately, they are also met with a sense of “Why wont you just submit it already? What is the big deal?”. It seems that people find it hard to understand why doing this is so frightening for some people. I want to try and explain what the big deal is. To many, submitting is nothing more than filling out a form and taking a shot at it. For them, the worst thing that can happen is not getting in, and that is not such a big deal. It does not really affect you right?

For someone like me, that is far from right. Submitting is not such a simple matter. When we send our work in, especially with a name on it, we are sending it to be judged by other people. We are opening ourselves up to rejection. This experience can be extremely nerve racking, especially if you dislike your own work. Some people are their own worst critics. They look at their creations and see all the little flaws. They see all the problems in flow, and diction, and sentence structure. They find all the instances of triteness and unnecessary repetition. And when someone else looks over their piece, all those flaws suddenly appear a lot bigger and more evident. Even a paper conference with a draft can be beyond stressful. It can feel as though the work is so awful, they have done something morally wrong by burdening the reader with it. This can be especially true with a panel of judges. Let us create a writer who has these elements in his disposition, and have him send in his work. He now faces two possible outcomes. If they were to reject the piece, it would confirm the worst fears of the writer. That his writing was not good enough, it never was. That he was a fool for ever sending it in when clearly it was not worth the paper he wrote it on. That his hope of its value and success were naive and in vain, and he should never have believed otherwise. Worse yet, his name was on it. Now everyone who judged the poem might connect it to him. They will connect the failure to him. Suddenly they are no longer judging poetry, they are judging the poet behind it as well. Their opinions of the writing become their opinions of the writer, and this thought can become more than one can bear. Or the other path, god forbid, if it would be accepted somehow by some miracle or oversight, then he feels as if it is on display for the whole world to see. That everyone will now read it and form opinions about him. They will connect it with his name, and now the feeling of dread and anxiety is even worse because it goes beyond the room of judges. Now, people everywhere will see it. And suddenly those flaws, so obvious to him, become even more glaring and painful. They become so evident that he feels as if everyone must, simply must, see them. And now, now he can not remove it. He can not take it down, or make it go away. It is there forever, for everyone to see, and there is nothing he can do. In the end, he regrets ever touching the form in the first place. And the worst thing is this experience will follow him all of his life. He will constantly remember this day, and wince whenever he does. The anxiety and stress may even reoccur.

I know for those of you out there who do not see it this way, that this may not make much sense. It may seem unreasonable. It may seem paranoid. It may seem like making a mountain out of a mole hill. But in the end, there are many of us who do feel that way. Who do feel that anxiety and that fear. Who do face this stress. And even if you do not fully understand, I hope this will help explain to you why so many people are paralyzed by the thought of sending in their works. Sometimes the worse that can happen is getting rejected, and sometimes that is only the beginning.

-BlackFox

(898)