Saturday, September 19, 2020

Signal Boost ~ Prince of Shadows (The Covenant Chronicles, Book 3) by Kai Wai Cheah

Find it Here!


The long-awaited third book in pulp auteur Kai Wai (Benjamin) Cheah's Covenant Chronicles is out today! If you've been waiting for this then you don't need me to tell you what it's about, but for those who are new you are in for a treat.

Mr. Cheah is one of the hardest working authors out there today, and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone with the amount of spirit and energy he has. This third book has been a long time coming, so be sure to check out the series for some good old fashioned military sf.

The description is here:

THE OLD GODS ARE COMING BACK!

When a black op goes awry, the Nemesis Project pulls deniable operator Luke Landon off the line. But while mortal authorities want him to stand down, the gods aren't done with him yet.

Pressed into a secret war between infernal and divine powers, Landon is thrust into a new campaign. The elder gods are returning to do battle with the Unmaker—and they are choosing agents to carry out their will.

In Japan, a goddess has chosen a shrine maiden as her soldier. The shadowy Organization, the secret rulers of the world, have her in their sights. Without official sanction or backup, Landon and his allies must go rogue to save her.

Landon has always been prepared to lay down his life. But this time, he may just have to give up his immortal soul.

PRINCE OF SHADOWS is the third volume of The Covenant Chronicles, the supernatural Mil-SF series by Kai Wai Cheah, Hugo-nominated author of Flashpoint: Titan.


You can find Prince of Shadows to purchase here. Check out the third book today!



Thursday, September 17, 2020

It's Eating You

"Do you think you, with these guns you got in your hands, do you think you can shoot anything you don't like? Well, what if what you don't like is inside you? How you gonna shoot it?"


With Hollywood's death spiral currently unfolding before our eyes, those who enjoy cinema are a bit out of luck if they're in the mood for new movies to watch. That is a shame. However, there are decades of films yet to be seen by everyone, and many movie buffs are taking advantage of that fact. Streaming and torrenting are a reality now, so just about any film you've ever wanted to see from and time or place is available at the tip of your fingers.

Just one click is all it takes and you can watch anything that's ever been made. Sounds great, doesn't it? Well, it is. Some of them you won't even find via official channels and, one everything goes digital, will eventually be censored or flushed down the memory hole. The past must destroyed in order to shape the future, after all.

There are certain movies Hollywood wouldn't want you to see or know about these days, and we're going to talk about one of them today. This is a movie you've probably never seen, and if you have you probably only heard of it in passing or offhand, but never gave it much of a shot. This is a film that deserves much more attention than it gets.

I am referring to 1985's The Stuff directed by Larry Cohen (It's Alive!, God Told Me To, Q), which is a smaller, unknown film from the golden age of B-movies. It released right in the center of said golden era. Despite that, unless you're an '80s film buff you've probably never heard of this one, and that's a shame. The fact is that it's more relevant today than when it was first released, but not fully in the way you might think, and possibly not in the way the director intended. Unfortunately, Mr. Cohen died a few years ago so there is no way to ask him about his real intent.

In The Stuff, railroad workers discover a white foam and cream-like substance coming out of the ground. One of them tastes it, like an idiot, and finds it delicious. Not too long later, due to forces well beyond the scope of this movie's plot, the material ends up being sold on store shelves as a pseudo-ice cream and branded The Stuff. Everyone who tastes this food loves it. How can they not? It's tasty, it has no calories, and it gives you incredible energy. This is the exact thing we've been waiting for! Needless to say the Stuff quickly becomes a sensation.

However, there is more to this Stuff than meets the eye. One boy swears he's seen it move, though nobody believes him. Elsewhere, former fed turned industry saboteur, David "Mo" Rutherford, is hired to investigate this meteoric rise of new junk food by the negatively affected ice cream industry. What each protagonist finds ends up turning out to by much worse than they first thought it would be. The Stuff is alive, and it has sinister motives of its own.

By this point you're probably guessing The Stuff is a typical '80s horror movie, and you'd be partially right. There are a lot of horrific happenings to be seen on screen, and there is an obvious bit of satire that you certainly already caught. However, it is mainly an adventure story when it all comes down to it, based on old 1950s horror B-movies.

Going a bit further, there is something to The Stuff that is rarely discussed. While there is a satire element at play, it goes a bit deeper than you might think. 


"See this hole here? It's getting bigger and bigger, isn't it? So you better eat that, or you're gonna eat this."


The obvious element here is the satire of consumerism. It wasn't that uncommon for the 1980s to parody the absurd buy, buy, buy, nature of the era. Eat, devour, and swallow, everything we give you, but don't actually think about anything you're actually eating. We know this is a bad thing, and it was treated as such back when it was a growing problem in the 1980s, but what The Stuff actually ends up saying is that the root cause comes from something deeper than being tricked by slick corporate advertisement. The Stuff is able to thrive in a world were the hollowness of modern life is trumpeted as normality. The pit in your soul that you can't quite fill exists because something is missing. And what comes in its place? Well, it's what allows subversion to thrive. The main theme of the story is about how humans will consume anything to fill that hole inside of them.

The Stuff represents subversion, not consumerism. This film is actually about this poison and how it destroys a functioning society with empty promises, all stemming from a spiritual vacuum. We all know rampant consumerism exists because of a need for something higher and more fulfilling than what the world offers us, and the Stuff is the poor substitute for what you actually need and crave. But the Stuff doesn't care about you--it attracts you with dopamine hits and high promises before it ends up turning you inside out.

The worst part of the Stuff, is that every one of its victims welcomed it in. They will take anything to fill that pit in their soul, even if it is willing to kill them to do it. It's a higher cause, isn't it? That's more than modern life offers. This is what makes the Stuff far more dangerous than most threats in a horror movie. It actually will give you what you want.

You see, this isn't quite like Invasion of the Body Snatchers where your neighbors are involuntarily being replaced with strangers. Nothing is being forcefully taken--at first.

In The Stuff your neighbors are consuming because it gives them a good feeling, a perfect, healthy high, one they will fight for the death for, even though it is subverting their own lives and warping their insides, turning them to dust. They are fine to give themselves over to some higher cause because the high they achieve from obeying it is the best they can hope to get. This is all they have, and the promises of the Stuff are worth dying for.

To drive the point home, there is a obvious parallel with communism in the movie. Some have tried to state that both the original Body Snatchers and the Twilight Zone episode The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street were parodies of the red hunting going on in Hollywood at the time (even though the writers have said they were not), and at first glance you might be mistaken for thinking this is the same. There is, after all, a good bit of satire ad goofy humor in the movie. But it goes a bit deeper than to say The Stuff is parodying McCarthy. If anything, it's the opposite.

You see, the film is actually about subversion as a whole. It is not shown how the megacorp got its hold on the Stuff to sell it, but the process is mentioned in passing a few times. This might have seemed unbelievable back in the '80s, but seeing how many megacorps actually hate you these days makes it far clearer how something like this could happen. Greasy palms, back alley dealing, and buttering up the right government stooges allowed the untested substance to slide by with minimal checking or deep study. There are no known chemicals or diseases, so what's the problem? It's not like it's being sold as medicine! It isn't poison, so what's the big deal?

But it is poison. The Stuff is used as a weapon in order to get what the megacorp wants. It is even shown how these megacorps devour mom and pop businesses along the way to consuming what they want, which is iron fist control over the Stuff. They are subverting the entire system and the normal supply and demand process in order to get that high they want: mindless profit. They are filling a hole themselves.

However, the secondary effect is that the Stuff they are putting out to be eaten by the masses is turning into something that will usurp the entire system that got them rich to begin with. Those who consume the Stuff become a slave to it, devoted to its very whims. Stuffies won't fraternize with their own family members unless they too accept this pleasant high into their lives, but all they want is that feeling. If everyone is a Stuffie than everything will be alright. The megacorp has no idea what it has unleashed. Anything that gets in the way of the high is to be destroyed, and that includes the ones who let them in the door. Everything must be consumed.

To make the message clearer than a freshly washed window there is a moment in the movie where our heroes meet up with a retired Colonel who lives off the grid with his own platoon of soldiers. He is distrusting of the entire political system. He is spurred into action to help our heroes destroy the Stuff because Mo deliberately draws parallels to communist espionage in government to the way the Stuff is currently operating to destroy the system. This conversation before the climax of the movie really needs to be seen to be believed, because it is not one they would allow in a movie today. To drive the obvious intention home, the Colonel calls the consumer puppets "Stuffies" which is why I used the term above earlier. No, I didn't make that up. This is what the movie is really about.

It takes our heroes going to the Colonel and getting his soldiers together to storm the plant and take it out of operation. Mo and his friends simply can't trust anyone else to help them fight the subversion, and it turns out to be the right call. The Colonel then uses the radio stations he owns in order to broadcast his warning against this subversive infiltration across the country: Stop eating the Stuff because it is deadly and turning your insides upside down! Hurry up before it's too late!

You might be thinking that there is an obvious outcome here, especially if you've seen modern movies in this vein. Clearly no one is going to listen to the conspiracy nut warning them about what gives them fuzzy feelings, and the entire country, then the world itself, is going to be consumed by this unknown substance. This is a horror movie, after all, and what better way to drive home the point that it is all futile then by showing the Stuff winning over our empty material nature.

But that isn't what happens.

Instead, the message goes through and doubt seeps into the populace. There are riots and the masses eventually turn on the Stuff. Stores are blown up, factories demolished, and containers are burned in bonfires on the street. The people come together and turn against the Stuff. The scourge is eradicated. All because they listened to the crazy retired gun nut veteran who lives off the grid and was right about the subversion taking over. You really can't make this up.

To put a capper on it, Mo then travels to the home of the billionaire that funded this entire mess. You see, even though he was stopped, it doesn't matter. This fool will re-brand the Stuff and start anew, even though the last batch almost wiped out the world and would eventually consume him. He doesn't care what he sells, even if it will end up killing him, so Mo does the only thing he can do to stop this. He force-feeds the billionaire the Stuff at gunpoint. Only after the fool's own appetite is satiated on the same garbage he sold the masses will he understand just what he has done. The police arrive shortly after and our heroes walk out triumphant. The menace was defeated.

The final scene shows a black market sale of the Stuff, implying that as long as man craves something to scratch his itch this new drug will always be around. Emptiness asks to be filled, and the Stuff still promises to do it for you. Only when you defeat the deeper problem will the Stuff be truly eradicated for good.

And that's the end.



"Are you eating it, or is it eating you?"


The Stuff wasn't very successful at the box office, due to many reasons surrounding its troubled release, and it still doesn't have much in the way of a cult following today. The movie doesn't have the best effects or grossest horror, though they are effective at what they are trying to get across. Most just see the general concept and write the movie off as typical. Reviews were mixed at the time with some such as the Chicago Sun Times giving it a low score stating it had a lack of plausibility and no movie to house the ideas it had. This isn't quite true.

Being that The Stuff was very clearly a throwback to 1950s horror didn't help, as these were rarely successful at the time. See Tobe Hooper's underrated remake of Invaders from Mars for proof of that. In fact, aside from a handful of swears, you could put the movie in black and white and most people wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't from that distant decade. Mr. Cohen was very successful with his aesthetic and works for the movie.

The story itself is straightforward, which it needs to be since it is about subversion overturning the normal. The main character speaks like a snake oil salesman yet he ends up being the most honest man in the movie due to having a nose for liars. It is the normality of heroism that saves the day against the poisonous nature of subversion. The monster itself, the weird element, is never explained even after it is defeated at the end. All of this are marks in its favor as a true successor to the Weird Tales legacy. The Stuff definitely follows a tradition older than itself.

Technically it might not be the greatest movie, but as far as execution, ideas, and general entertainment value, The Stuff is easily one of the most overlooked B-movies from an era where they were at their best. It's a shame it is so passed over, because it has quite a lot of value and has dated surprisingly well despite its existence as a deliberate throwback to a now-forgotten age. It is in fact probably more relevant now than when it came out. In an era where subversion is seen as an unquestioned synonym for good, it speaks truth against it.

In this day and age the worst thing you can be is well. Healthiness is unhealthy. Wholesomeness is unwholesome. But there are still those out there who believe in something more than the mire of modern life. The Stuff celebrates the good at the expense of evil.

Eventually this will all pass and the truth will reclaim its place again. Just like in The Stuff, the junk that consumes you will one day fall by the wayside. Then what will you have left to show for yourself? Hopefully more than a dried out husk of a skeleton. Truth always wins, in the end. Be sure you are there to meet it.




Thursday, September 10, 2020

The Odd Odyssey


Permit me, if you will, to take you back to the past--don't worry, it's just for a visit. Remember the way things once were, and can never be again. It'll all make sense shortly.

Things have changed a good deal over the past few decades. I've cataloged much of what I've noticed on this blog alone, but there remains just as much I don't quite understand or know about. Life is a journey, after all. The actual reason for these changes is obvious by now, those in charge of western culture decided they no longer wanted art and entertainment that uplifted or inspired the audience, but instead needed material that would bring them down and poison them against imagination. Those that can't look up can't imagine a better world than the one they are in. What's worse is that this happened more or less over a single decade, the '90s, and most people actually did notice--they just don't know what it is that changed, or why. Perhaps they were too distracted living their lives, who knows? The fact of the matter is that there is a reason '90s nostalgia has been around since the beginning of the 2000s and has never really gone away.

It will also never go away.

Of course, we can't just say culture detonated in the '90s, but more that it was spared destruction for about two decades from a tiny space battle movie that made it big unexpectedly in the late '70s. This caused an independent explosion of adventure that the Greatest Generation did not ignore. They saw their grand-kids enjoying this stuff, and they worked overtime to deliver the best they were able to. They funded what the audience wanted. The best toys, the best movies, the best comics . . . you name it. The best of the best was created during this time, because that was the creators' jobs. But then they retired during the '90s, and their successors took over. These new people at the switches had no more use for giving the audience what they wanted--now they would give them what they needed. And that is where we have been since.

The 1970s are still looked on by movie snobs as the peak of cinema, destroyed by the aforementioned filthy space movie that opened the theaters of the 1980s to juvenile pap. This is of course ignoring that the 1970s were dead, spiritually, and morally, which makes many of those 1970s "classics" more worthless than the juvenile goofy space movie. It actually has a moral point, regardless of what you think of it. 1970s cinema, as a whole, did not.

If your art isn't about instilling a greater sensation in your audience aside from hopelessness and misery then chances are you are a making propaganda. These pieces might be crafted impeccably, using the right camera moves and clever dialogue, but they're being used to peddle poison. And that subversion took a long time to happen, so you can understand why they were angered so easily by a filthy space movie that was supposed to be disposable trash. This is how fragile this era of "classic" cinema was.

It took 20 years from that nasty space movie, but by 1997 the powers that be had finally wiped adventure and action off the map to get things back on track again. Poisoned with irony and self-seriousness, these newer creators were given extra aid due to the disaster of 9/11 to make misery normal again. They got so good at it they eventually managed to subvert the very same goofy space movie that broke them to begin with, and make it another arrow in their quiver.

This is their victory dance. They took everything from you, so now enjoy the misery. How many times do they have to teach you this lesson? Be miserable and do as you're told so they can teach you how to not be miserable. Yes, they hate you and want you under their thumb. This is why giving them money is counterproductive. They want your soul, not your pocket-change.

It wasn't that things got bad again in the late '90s, it was that bad was the natural state the industry had concocted after the 1950s and '60s. We merely had a 20 year reprieve because of one costly mistake they couldn't have foreseen in allowing one corny space battle movie to be made. They won't let that happen again, and that is why mainstream entertainment from Hollywood to OldPub refuses to give you the hope and adventure you crave. They can only subvert and can no longer create. That era you are pining for is over, and never coming back.

This was planned by those in charge by doing things such as deliberately crushing the mom and pop video market (including family run businesses), buying up independent studios and publishers, and conforming every neighboring industry to whatever Hollywood wanted the industry to be, customers be damned. Their stranglehold ended up strangling their own cash-cows, and they don't even care.

Remember, the Rural Purge in the 1970s did not improve ratings, it had the opposite effect. And yet they trained audiences to think it was an improvement for television, left you swimming with smart programming, and created an industry objectively superior to what came before it. Why were they so eager to imprint that lie into you? It obviously isn't because they want your money. If that was the case they never would have done things like the Purge or allowed the ACT to even exist, never mind giving these destructors awards for killing an entire industry.

But they did all that, didn't they?

Really gets the noggin joggin'.

Now, whether it is because of Cannon Cruisers or my posts here, I don't know, but I have been receiving messages and e-mail from gracious readers giving me suggestions for entertainment to cover. They typically, and wisely, choose content made during that brief window from the late 1970s to the '90s when pulp was king again and exciting art awaited everywhere you turned. You'd be surprised at how much of it there is, because I sure am. I've been looking into some of it and I can tell you: it is guaranteed you haven't seen it all no matter who you are. As I've done some digging from those suggestions from my readers, I've noticed the pattern mentioned above showing up time and time again. These stories just stopped being created overnight in 1997. Things changed so abruptly in one moment that it was outright odd that no one noticed at the time.

From about late-1976 to around the fall of 1996 the majority of popular entertainment, regardless of demographic, was action and adventure in nature. By the end of the '70s the nihilism seeping in since the '60s had been shaken off, but the basic framework of these stories remained unchanged. High concepts, good vs evil, and fun adventure, were the selling points of just about everything created in this 20 year span. And sold they did.

But in 1996 and into 1997 there was a very sudden and strong shift from adventure to soap opera drama. As I said, this change was awkward. It was as if the people making Party of Five and Twentysomething decided they should be in charge of adventure series. The focus entirely changed. None of this was natural, at all.

Should you peruse any list of action and adventure TV shows you will seem the instantly evaporate and completely vanish in 1997. After that point you will find piles of hour long dramas with excessive focus on interpersonal relationships and broken characters, but nothing in the traditional adventure mold about discovering the unknown and clear good fighting clear evil. And then after 9/11 even that style of adventure fiction died out. Though it moved into novels for awhile, effectively chasing that audience away, too. Either way, it was a brief period better left to the mists of time.

The one hold out in these changes I have found were a handful of kid shows from Canada. As said in earlier posts, YTV was one of the last holdouts for this older form of adventure entertainment. These types of series continued a little longer before Nickelodeon and the like swooped in to change the face of the station, choking these shows out by 2001. That also just appears to be the year of western entertainment's final death rattle. A lot of things came together to make things what they are today.

But we've covered that before in other posts.


(1991-1994)


All that said, I decided to take a bit of a detour into this long forgotten era, before soap opera convolution and degeneracy swallowed adventure whole. I did this by looking at a series I hadn't seen since I was a kid. This is going back far.

I've spent some time watching the Canadian family series, The Odyssey, which is available for free on Encore+'s youtube channel. The show had a pilot episode in 1991, then ran for three seasons of 13 half-hour episodes from 1992-1994. Watching this series today feels like visiting another planet in another galaxy. The old system can never make anything like this ever again, and yet this series is completely inoffensive and straightforward.

For one thing, it has a very basic concept. An eleven-year-old boy named Jay wants to get into a club, so he is told to bring something of value to the treehouse in order to be allowed entry. He ends up finding his long-missing father's spyglass and decides to use that for admission, despite the protests of his friend Donna. He gets into a scuffle with Keith, the tough kid in charge of the club, has an accident and falls out of the treehouse. This puts Jay into a coma.

Normally, this would be the plot of a typical drama series today as every character gets into interpersonal drama surrounding this event and we need to know who ends up with who, for whatever reason. However, instead Jay wakes up in a strange pseudo-fantasy world where everything sort of matches reality, but ultimately doesn't. It turns out his long-thought-dead father's spyglass has some sort of magical property and can actually guide him out of this place--back to a world he can't quite remember. He goes off on an adventure with two new friends, who suspiciously look a lot like Keith and Donna from his world, and heads off into this strange, surreal land.

There are only three seasons of thirteen episodes each, and each season has an adventure of its own, somewhat changing in tone with the age of the cast. It starts very much like an eleven year old's fantasy world and by the end matches more the fantasy of a thirteen-year-old struggling to grow up. The quest for home in season 1 takes a turn in the middle, season 2 explores these characters and places we just met while looking for a better solution out of their predicament, and season 3 deals with the fallout of everything that happened. It's quite a tight ship at 39 episodes of half-hour shows and the opposite of how things are done today. They don't ever really tell you what the world is, but they do offer theories far more interesting than the now common and beyond-tired and overused parallel universe explanation, nor does it appear this world is a figment of Jay's imagination due to several hints given. Would the series be done today the mystery and wonder would be torn out and everything would be explained to the letter. For a small family show from Canada there was a lot of effort and thought put into it.

The Odyssey is low budget, even for its time, but it uses what it has well. The show was filmed in British Columbia, Canada, in the early 1990s which gives it a particular feeling and atmosphere. For those who have lived in small towns and suburbs, who have walked back-roads in the country, and remember general life in the west in the late 20th century, this series will give you a strange sense of deja vu. It's a world that doesn't quite look like this anymore. Adults are adults, kids ride their bikes and read comic books, normal is good, and the real world is cherished because it is a place where everything makes sense. It's the world the main character knows he belongs in. It's a whole other world than the one we're dealing with today.

This setting works well in keeping a mysterious tone and delivering a new adventure every week. This series is for younger audiences from back when that meant something. There is no degeneracy to be found, no cynicism, and no pandering to the lowest common denominator. It's just an adventure show. Think series like Are You Afraid of the Dark? and most Canadian kid content from this time. There was a lot of surprisingly family friendly series at the time from Danger Bay to The Littlest Hobo, aimed at kids and family audiences, and they didn't need to be hour long slogs or focus on soap opera drama to do it.  They expected the kids to be smart enough to understand what was going on and didn't need to talk down or pander to them. The Odyssey is a bit like LOST, only without constant mystery boxes are being dragged on for an interminable time. It's about the adventure. Again, it feels like a whole other world then what exists these days.

Despite all that, the series isn't perfect. The first two seasons more or less tell a complete story, but the third meanders a bit as if they didn't quite know where to take it. But it is still worth seeing as a look into the early '90s when kids were still allowed to be kids, and their entertainment didn't have to be about lecturing them or pandering on social issues like they quickly became in the '00s. Each season is also only 13 episodes and half an hour long so it isn't much of an investment, any warts can easily be forgiven. The acting for the kids is also high school play level for the most part, but since its mainly a kid world we're dealing with that gives it its own charm, especially considering the plot and the adventures the cast goes on.

The Odyssey ran from 1992-1994 (the pilot came out in 1991) and it certainly feels like a product of its time, but it's also a time that no longer feels like it happened at all and might have just been a collective dream we all had. This also gives the series a bit of an edge that it didn't have when it was on television. The Odyssey represents travelling to a fantasy world that isn't quite like ours in an attempt to make our way back to reality again. The part no one could have predicted is that the reality Jay is fighting for no longer really exists anymore and is as fictional as the world he is stranded in. The series comes off a bit differently for those who lived in the early '90s looking back on it now.

We truly do live on another planet.


The Danger Bay cast (1985-1990)

We've talked many times about how 1997 was cultural ground zero, and many have argued against it, but it is inarguable when it comes to television. The landscape from the late '70s up to about 1996 all shared very similar traits with each other. 

As mentioned above, the subversives had finally seized control and banished adventure into the netherworld. All family shows either became loud and moronic cartoons, pandering "school" drama shows that propagandize "real issues" real kids never actually deal with in real life because they have actual problems, or create programming specifically designed for each individual member of the family. Degeneracy is celebrated, normality is mocked, and the good is warped in a way that celebrates misery and hopelessness at the expense of any real happiness. None of this is meant to unite, it wedges the family and their interests apart. It's been like this for near a quarter of a century now, and the audience for it no longer exists.

What replaced them after 1996 were just cheap copies with less to offer. Don't believe me? Then ask yourself why those who watch these newer shows will talk your ear off about character relationships and funny dialogue but will mention little to nothing about the actual adventures they go on. Because the focus was changed from the focus on the exterior to the interior. You can't make adventure insular, so they made them into soap operas instead. Who is going to have sex with who became more important than stopping the villain from destroying the world, no different than what grandma used to puzzle over when she tuned in to General Hospital every day. The mundane became elevated over the wonder. Normal people are no longer "interesting" enough to follow on the journey. We need hot messes that may or may not want to be fixed to be the leads in our adventure stories now. This hatred of the norm has since embedded itself in our stories and has been there for over two decades. It's no wonder so many cannot diagnose the problem.

Is it any wonder we're all so miserable all the time? We've rejected true escapism for "realism" and the mundane. 

All that remained of adventure stories were glorified soap operas that were twice as long as they needed to be that focused more on mundane inner things like going to school or worrying about sex than the outer journey of exploring the unknown. The only ones still doing that, ironically enough, were the Canadian family shows that went on a bit longer than everyone else did. They finally gave up the ghost in 2001, and I think we all know why even they stopped, at that point. Hope, creativity, and excitement, are not things the 2000s were known for. Hence why there is no 2000s nostalgia, and it will never really become a reality or larger movement. There's nothing to be nostalgic for.

The constant need to reboot these old things is the result of several problems going back in western culture. All those problems of the 2000s still exist today. You need more than "better" products to have a proper nostalgic movement. They might try to remake some of the entertainment from that time, but that's as far as they can go. There is nothing else to bring back.

It is easy to see that Hollywood isn't remaking these things because they have fond memories of them; they wouldn't be altering and warping them under the guise of "modernizing" the works so heavily if they were. They are trying to remake the wholesome in their own image as broken and decayed. This is why every one of these unsuccessful reboots that have popped up over the years contains only the shell of what you love, but under the skin is pure rot of the kind that reminds you why no one wants these creators' new stories. They are reduced to Trojan-horsing this garbage into your mind now. This is how far they've fallen.

They have to use nostalgia because tricking you to drink their poison is the only option they have left. They can't create anymore, because they've taught themselves not to for so long. They've run out of gas using the same trick for over twenty years, so now they have to use old properties as puppets to sell you their "creative" ideas.

And this doesn't work. While some might have swallowed the pointless Battlestar Galactica reboot a while back, even though it deliberately went against everything the original did, the main audience for these things has since caught on to what is happening. Where the fanatics are finally catching up with, normal people already see this game for what it is. That trick isn't going to work again. Things aren't the way they used to be even five years ago, and audiences are no longer willing to put up with trash wrapped in a pretty bow. They demand more, and if Hollywood and OldPub aren't willing to give it to them (and they're not) the audiences are just going to walk away from them. They already have, and the pain is being felt.

This is what makes the rise of things such as NewPub so exciting. It is a return to the audience first mentality that has long since been lost by the old guard i their quest for impossible utopianism. We're now on an odyssey of our own, just as Jay was, to find our way back home. We're going to find what it is we lost, and make it great again.

What will we find when we get there? I don't know, but it's sure to be an adventure.



Saturday, September 5, 2020

Signal Boost ~ Labor Day Blowout!

Find it Here!

Welcome to the weekend! Are you in the mood for cheap (or free) books to keep you company? Be sure to check out this sale run by author Hans Schantz and find the book for you!

The description is here:


"Celebrate Labor Day Weekend by topping off your library. Select from over eighty titles each priced at $0.99, including more than a dozen that are absolutely free.

"The selection includes top science fiction, fantasy, and adventure authors like Deplora Boule, C.J. Carella, Paul Clayton, Travis Corcoran, Larry Correia, David Drake, Eric Flint, Declan Finn, Sarah Hoyt, Tom Kratman, Robert Kroese, Jon Mollison, John Ringo, David Weber, David J. West, Michael Z. Williamson, and a wide range of other established and emerging talent.

"Note that pricing is set by the authors or their publishers, so please confirm before you buy."

The full listing can be found on Mr. Schantz website here. There is no shortage of selection so be sure to take your time going through it!




Thursday, September 3, 2020

Escape to the Streets of Fire



I've been blown away with the popularity of the success of The Pulp Mindset. Not just in sales but in how much discussion that has been popping up online about the burgeoning state of NewPub. It's gratifying to know that it has spurred on more people to talk about pulp, the state of the industry, and what exactly makes a good story beyond a formula. There are far more folks out there interested in the subject than I realized, and they won't settle on inane things like "Mystery Boxes" to explain how storytelling works.

Just recently I was fortunate enough to be tagged into a twitter thread by author Daniel J. Davis. He had just finished reading my book, The Pulp Mindset, and had decided to apply his theory of what pulp was using two of his favorite movies, Escape from New York and Streets of Fire. Both of which, I might add, are easy 5/5 movies (which is the score I gave them on Cannon Cruisers), but there is a very clear difference between the two pictures even though their setup is the same.

Mr. Davis mentions setting and general morality, and how things differ from non-pulp works. In essence, it is about how things have changed in adventure storytelling in just a short time. Even though Escape from New York is the older work and feels distinctly '70s, Streets of Fire has a more timeless feel and is less dated than the higher budget movie made years earlier. Just why is that? What is it that makes them so different?

The entire twitter thread is compiled here, but I wanted to highlight one part of his very insightful analysis that we will be focusing on today.


"Two heroes with similar personalities. Nearly identical missions. But what ultimately separates them is thier moral core. Tom Cody is a better man than Snake Plissken will ever be.

"And THAT is why Streets of Fire is pulp. And Escape from New York isn't.
"


As can be gathered, especially from The Pulp Mindset, is that I have been thinking about this subject for quite awhile.What is it that makes a work have that flavor the pulps had? It's more than mindless action, because the pulps were about more than mindless action. There is always that higher sense of morality and wonder to consider.

And that is a big part of their differences.

Escape from New York actually does check a lot of the boxes to what makes pulp what it is. It is action focused, it wants to wow the audience and take them to another world, and the main character drives the plot forward in his attempt solve the problem. It has a lot of the right pieces in the right places. But it definitely does fall short in the pulp category in two ways, as Mr. Davis mentioned in his twitter thread above. 

The setting, even though it is the future and fictionalized, is limited in the fact that it is based heavily on a real world location and can only have so much done to it. New York City exists in real life and we know its boundaries and what it's like, if even tangentially, and that is part of what gives the movies its identity. In a story built around discovery and horror in an unknown place, this does kind of dilute the possibilities as to where this particular story is allowed to go. This does hurt Escape from New York's scope, at least a little.

It isn't that you can't make a pulp story set in a real location, but when the story's main appeal is that the location is fashioned around uneasiness and the danger of the unknown, using a real place is counterproductive. It does take away same of the wonder and excitement.

On the other hand, Streets of Fire can take place anywhere at anytime. It doesn't really matter where the setting is, and the fact that it doesn't have a concrete location succeeds in making the city more foreboding and mysterious when we are lost in it later on in the story. We literally have no idea about this place, what awaits in the shadows, or why the world even is like this. It's a fable, and that means wonder comes before anything else. All we have to tie this wild setting down is our relationship to the main character, another thing that both unites and separates the two movies.

While they are both actin stories, one contains more wonder than the other does.




Yes, the setting is one thing, but how about the main character? As I go through much fiction of the past forty or so years in western culture I can only come to the same conclusion that Mr. Davis does above. The main character is what truly solidifies a work of having a pulp heart or not.

As mentioned earlier, Escape from New York has a lot of the hallmarks of pulp, but it still ends up coming across more pulp-inspired than pulp, at the end of the day. Meanwhile, Streets of Fire seems to easily achieve its place as a pulp tale without question. Why is that?

It is because of basic storytelling. You see, the main character is the audience's view window into the world. It is through them that the audience is given a guided tour of what the writer has to offer and it is also through the protagonist the writer filters what wonders the audience is allowed to experience. In other words, the protagonist is the moral anchor of the ship that is the story. We are entering this story through their eyes, after all. 

It is very simple: Tom Cody represents the romanticism and awe of the world we have inside of us, even when he is bitten by cynicism. He overcomes his obstacles and becomes a real man, a hero, by the end of Streets of Fire. His adventure makes him a more complete human being.

Snake Plissken never really becomes proper a hero throughout Escape from New York. He helps people but it's mostly for personal reasons, and the whole plot kick-starts because he has to be forced to participate in it. Snake was a member of society who was screwed over and put in chains for it, is nihilistic and uncaring, and no longer has any love for the world he lives in. He might very well be justified in his feelings, but if the world ended tomorrow Snake would just shrug his shoulders and accept Armageddon with open arms. He only overcomes problems in the story because they get in his way. There are no moral stakes around him succeeding or failing in his quest aside from death. There is no spiritual dimension.

This is because Escape from New York is a very modern and cynical movie, one that could only exist in the pit of despair known as the 20th century, and in the 1970s in particular. Because of its lineage as a 1970s action movie there is a cloud of despair ad hopelessness that hangs over the proceedings. o matter what you do, it simply does not matter.

In a story, there are frequently two motivations for characters to do anything, a material and a spiritual incentive. The first are the tangible goals stated in the plot: "Get the President" in Escape from New York, and "Get the girl" in Streets of Fire. Where the spiritual incentive comes in is the secondary reason they are going on the quest. Snake doesn't have one; it's either get the president or die. Cody's is initially just as simplistic (get the girl and get paid) but as the story goes on we learn that his motivations go a little further than that and become something higher by the end. Snake does find those to help him in his journey, but in typical '70s fashion they all die and mean nothing to the quest and Snake ends the story just as down as he began it. His "reward" is empty. 

Now, I don't want it to sound like I think Escape from New York is a bad movie. It's very much not, and compared to most '70s action movies it is nowhere near as hopeless in outlook. There are also a few things that allow some light into the tale. Snake actually is a good guy--he tries to help every innocent he comes across without expecting anything in return, he takes out villains because they are villains, and he clearly has a moral code he will not break.

The issue is that the 1970s universe it was made in refuses to reward any of that goodness and it ends up meaning nothing by the end. What you're left with is a story of a broken hero in a broken world which won't let him have even the smallest of victories. In fact, Snake's one gain by the end of the movie, his freedom, is punctuated by an act of petty (but deserved) revenge. It's a satisfying ending, as far as the story goes, but it doesn't offer anything beyond that tiny victory. At the very least it's not as empty and meaningless as Taxi Driver given that it doesn't end with the cinematic equivalent of a wet fart and a shrug.

Streets of Fire has Cody punished for his mistakes to which he works to correct them and set the world right again. By the end he has overcome his demons and is left in a better spiritual state than when he began. The material gains he made mean little in comparison to his true victory in the end of learning what real love is. He can now go out into the world and do good for both it and himself.

Of the two, it is clear that Tom Cody gets more out of his quest, and his ending is a far more timeless one not locked to its era.


Hollywood seems set on bringing back the 1970s


A lot of this can help explain the popularity of anime, especially in the modern day west where no one in the mainstream knows what heroism is and write constant Mary Sue protagonists without even a hint of self-awareness.

As an example, in Trigun, Vash the Stampede's battle is not only with his genocidal brother but coming to terms with himself as an alien being and the existence of sin. By the end of the story, both are conquered at the same time. In Cowboy Bebop, Spikes battle with Vicious is also an attempt to put the past to bed, which he does by opening a future to the city Vicious had ruined. In Megalobox, Joe's fight is to prove not only does he have value, but so does mortal life. They all have a moral dimension beyond the one listed in the plot description.

Now, can you say the same for recent Brand X space movies? What higher cause or motivation does anyone have in these other than "good things are good and bad things are bad" doggerel? No one has any ambitions that go beyond stopping bad guys from being bad, and no character beyond juvenile jokes. There is nothing to them under the surface. There is no higher goal. This is something even Snake Plissken at least hinted at wanting to have, even if he didn't achieve it. Here, it's not even acknowledged as something that exists at all. These movies are pure modernism: nothing but thunder and noise, signifying nothing.

Pulp stories were made for a wide audience, meant to instill hope, wonder, and a sense of adventure, to every single person that read them. Sure, they ran in cheap magazines, could be ramshackle and creaky, and might even follow a similar formula to other tales, but they always achieved their goal of entertaining the audience and lifting them up even if for a few minutes. Without the spiritual edge of wider things beyond the scope of our narrow views of life, it just isn't true pulp. Even the simpler tales aimed at something higher than the emptiness of modern life.

So, I would agree with Mr. Davis' assertion that Escape from New York, while pulp-inspired and a great movie, doesn't quite hit the moral qualifications needed to be pulp. Though it does try, and it gets full credits for that, which is more than I can say for similar types of movies being made today. A remake would certainly lack even that.

Unfortunately, the West is trapped in chic-Baby Boomer nihilism of the sort they championed back in the 1970s. We're back to pretending this deep and artful again. They've taken things from eras where this higher motive was and have twisted them to be weapons against those who were touched by them in the first place. The destruction of Brand X space movie is the most clear cut example of this hatred of hope. If you enjoy those movies then you enjoy death and despair over life and hope, which is the opposite of the original's intent. You are praising a lie and an inversion. This isn't depth; it's hypocrisy.

The endless obsession with subversion must go from art before anything changes in the old system, but that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

But you don't need to wait for them.

There are plenty of creators in NewPub, and the independent circuit in other mediums, fashioning brand new stories of hope, excitement, and wonder. The Pulp Revolution has come, and it has changed everything with its straightforward goals. While the mainstream continues to dig its own grave, NewPub only grows and gets stronger. The old system is on the way out, and the new is ready to deliver what you want again. It's about time things are put right again.

With the gates being wide open it might be harder to find something that personally tickles your fancy, but it will also be much easier to get something of equivalent (or higher!) quality than what the decaying mainstream system is putting out today. This is the most exciting time its ever been to be an artist and to be a consumer of art, simply because of the possibilities ahead of us. They really are never-ending.

And, unlike before, that gate won't be shut again by usurpers and subversives. Pandora's box has been jammed open, and it can not be closed again. Welcome to the revolution!

The streets are ablaze with adventure. All you have to do is walk them.




Saturday, August 29, 2020

Ghosts Never Die


Not too long ago I read and reviewed the book Paperbacks from Hell by Grady Hendrix. It was a look at the horror boom in pocket paperbacks from the 1970s through to the early '90s and illustrated just how badly OldPub screwed the pooch on an entire genre that was as wild as it was weird. Inside the book, Mr. Hendrix highlighted some of the more obscure works to come of the era and managed to illustrate, if not fully by intention, just how much a pulp mindset influenced these works and allowed them to do whatever they wanted.

It was a fascinating read and something I am sure to return to in the future. I highly recommended Paperbacks from Hell back then, and I still do now. Should you have any interest in genre fiction them it is a blast.

A funny thing happened not long after the publication of that book. There became a craving for these forgotten novels lost to time and due to poor curation of OldPub's back catalog. Valancourt Books then created a whole line centered around this era, based on Grady Hendrix's work, highlighting the classic covers (and even creating whole new ones in the old style when applicable!) and the shorter, punchier, pulp lengths showed just how different an era this was from today. Currently, the line is at 13 releases, and appears to be very successful as when the second wave came out they claimed it was the most popular thing they ever did. Here's hoping to its continued success.

I even reviewed one of the books in the line, Nightblood by T. Chris Martindale, and thought it was an absolute blast. If you have any love for the horror genre, or of vampires, then you absolutely should seek it out. It is a crime that this was allowed to fall out of print for so long. It also makes me hopeful that the rest of his works will be made available again, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. If nothing else, this line of re-releases should be commended for digging up forgotten gems like Nightblood and allowing those of us who missed it back at its initial release a chance to rectify that mistake, and those who weren't even alive an opportunity to visit a completely different world. And I don't just mean a fictional world.

But Valancourt Books can't release everything from back then, nor should they be expected to. That is simply an impossible task, not to mention that some of those works can actually still be found for a good price in used shops and online. Unlike the pulp works from before the 1960s, these are relatively newer and can still be acquired in decent shape and in plentiful number. I myself have found a few and I didn't have to go nearly as far out of my way as I had to do to find certain pulp works. So at least they have an ease of availability to them.

Today, I wanted to talk about one book in particular that struck my fancy that contains some of the strengths and weaknesses of the horror genre from that time period. I wanted to do this to highlight the difference, not only from the pulp era that preceded it but also from where the genre would eventually end up to where it today. There is quite a gap, and we can bridge it right here. So without further ado, let us jump into this mass market paperback from hell.

Back in 1985, author Stephen Laws wrote his very first novel, Ghost Train which came out during peak popularity of the genre. I chose to read this one after I found a description of it in Paperbacks in Hell, and the cover looked so striking that I just had to give it a chance. There isn't much information about this book online, for whatever reason, so I was more or less going in blind. In other words, it was very much like finding the book on a spinner rack back in the day and picking it up with little more than a recommendation and being intrigued by the description. This made it a pretty good sample of what it would be like to read it back then.

So what is Ghost Train like? Let us finally get to it.


The original cover

The description is as follows:


Something monstrous is riding on the King's Cross train.

Something is stalking the corridors, preying on the passengers. And very soon, when it has fed on enough souls, it will embark... on the world.

Mark Davies knows that horror. It attacked and threw him from the train. Ex-policeman Les Chadderton is obsessed with the murders and suicides on the East Coast mainline. His wife had been among the victims.

Together they must board the Ghost Train and face their own fears made real, travelling on a one-way ticket on the Nightmare Express...


The book is around 375 pages and is divided into three parts with the middle one being the longest, and the last containing the final climax. It's very tightly structured for what it wants to get across, which makes sense because the story is straightforward. It was Laws' first book in a career that spanned many more well known works to come such as Spectre, The Wyrm, and The Frighteners. He would go on to be quite the successful horror author not long after his debut during the peak popularity of the horror boom. However, I haven't read those ones, and this is my first experience with the author, so let us continue with Ghost Train.

First, the strengths. Ghost Train's horrors are suitably spooky and disturbing, and when there is action it is very fast-paced, clear, and sharp. Laws, even for his first book, already knew what people were here for: they wanted good people to overcome evil threats and they wanted the tale to be told as clear cut as possible. There is much of that pulp flair in this book, with each part escalating in threats until the final face-off on the titular train which ends in a supernatural battle of wills on the living demon train. That isn't a spoiler since it's basically in the title of the book. This is what you're signing up for when you open it up. Nonetheless, the setup is simple and obvious, but the execution is what makes it work. It's a testament to Laws' budding skills at the time that it kept me returning to the book to see just where this would all end up.

For a horror novel from the 1980s it is not quite in the Stephen King mold of "well-detailed and described evil against flat, doomed protagonist" that the era was known for, even if it is undeserved. There were plenty of works that didn't fall into that niche. Instead this is a tale of good against evil where good deserves to win, and evil deserves to lose. It's straightforward, but it works as it should. And it succeeds. Mostly.

What Laws has that King doesn't, at least in this book, is a clear moral vision. The heroes are normal people attempting to battle their own demons as well as the one before them, but they are not despicable bastards you want to see die, or couldn't care less if they did. You don't hate them, in fact you want them to succeed. This is the way it should be.

The evil in Ghost Train is presented as primal, a force brought about by pre-Christian ignorance of spirits brought to today and doing battle with a post-modern ignorance of Christianity. The evil could easily be defeated if anyone really believed it existed, and used the tools they were given to fight it, but we'd gotten too lazy to really even understand that evil exists. This is the crux of the book--that evil is allowed to flourish due to the slothful nature of modern man. It's only by getting past that barricade can we even hope to stand a chance. 

There is a typical modernist Anglican priest in the book that represents this idea quite well, much better than the one King used in 'Salem's Lot, because his faith is irrelevant to the problem at hand. Good isn't a faucet that can be turned off in the face of evil, it's still there and it still works whether you understand it or not. As it should be. It's something I wish more horror books still did, especially from that time period where concepts were so wild and weird. The greater the horror in your story, the great the good should be to combat it, thereby raising the stakes and the entire story in the process. It's just a win/win for everyone involved.

Laws gets a lot right for his first book, which makes it doubly annoying when he gets something wrong. And there are some notable flaws that I just can't overlook.

As mentioned before, there are three parts to the book, each escalating in threat to the finale. This promises good pacing, and there is good pacing . . . at times. The fact of the matter is that for a 375 page book there are around 100 pages that could be excised entirely to make this a better, almost all of which are contained in the first two parts. Were it trimmed to 275 pages and closer to a pulp length work it would jump up an entire level. The book, unfortunately, dilutes itself because of a length it just shouldn't have and can't sustain.

Even worse, the most egregious examples of fluff all take place very early in the book which can turn off a lot of readers. There was far too much that should have been culled in the editing process. I know I was getting tired of slogging through repetitive and slow material and, if it wasn't for the general concept and choppy build up, might have put the book away. Considering what it takes to make me shelve a book that's saying something.

The first part is titled Mark and is mainly about the first protagonist. We start with our reveal of Mark Davies as he awakens from bad dreams that have come to him ever since he was thrown from a train not so long ago. The story starts by telling us everything about him as he is recovering and seeing his therapist. At the same time the plot is interspersed with small stories of bizarre happenings around the same train where people are both attacked by odd shadows or suffering from bouts of unexplained insanity. The very beginning actually isn't a bad start, and it gets to the action quick while setting up stakes before you've barely begun to breathe.

But then it keeps going and repeating itself.

After the opening there are long, interminable stretches of the same thing happening over and over. For 100+ pages. Mark has a bad dream, sees his therapist, sulks with his wife and daughter, some random person might be killed by the train, and repeat. The only real important diversion in this slog being a small story as a child when he was with his friend Robbie and they discovered an evil person. This event comes into play at different points later on. If you take that tiny story, make it the prologue, and cut most of the repetition that came after the beginning, it would go a long way to making the story more powerful and less choppy.

This problem is highlighted further with the second part entitled Chadderton, named after the second protagonist just introduced. His backstory is revealed instantly and quickly and is only ever touched on afterwards when necessary to the plot later on. Compared to Mark it is a drop in the bucket, and yet somehow he still attains the same level of depth as the man we were with for over 100 pages. It almost makes you wonder why the second part is even called Chadderton since he barely has, or needs, the focus that Mark had in the first section.

This just makes what happens in the first part seem even more pointless since so much of it just wasn't necessary, especially when only Mark and Chadderton are integral to the second and third parts and no one else that was introduced earlier aside from some villains. If Chadderton can get by with a quick backstory, and he does, there is no reason Mark needed so much space for himself along with so many characters that just simply didn't matter. Aside from the first victims that establish the tone and the threat, the rest were just needless filler. And that's the biggest problem with Ghost Train--it needed a harder edit and a pulpier focus to match its stronger parts.

The second section's problem is more cosmetic compared to the first. Those earlier chapters with random one-off characters killed by the train? They still keep happening, even long after we've already established the threat. Not to mention they come after long stretches in part one where we randomly stopped seeing them, thereby making it feel like padding to make the book longer. There are several unnecessary cutaways to one-off characters that feel superfluous in the second part that dilute from the urgency of the main characters' discovering this unfolding threat and learning to trust each other. It's a shame because when the story focuses on the two of them it is some of the strongest material in the book. We already know the threat is bad, we do not need to be shown it every second chapter, especially when there are a group of villains already demonstrating it.

The third part is practically flawless in how it allows everything to come to a head, though the characters that aren't Mark and Chadderton have a problem of not feeling necessary to the plot. Some are unceremoniously killed almost as if it didn't matter that they were even there in the first place. If you have a character in the story they should exist for a reason. There are at least two that might as well not even have been there since they add nothing to the plot.

The only other fault I can offer is that the story doesn't end so much as it stops. The climax of the plot is riveting and intense, but then the story keeps going a bit longer before a realization is made before an unnecessary hint is given that perhaps everything isn't settled, even though there's no reason it shouldn't be. It's an attempt at an "Is it really over?" ending that has no purpose being there when it should instead be about the character making up for a past mistake and winning in the end. We don't learn about what happens to a couple of characters that weren't on the train, nor the fate of a ghostly being that pops up briefly for a few scenes, or just what ends up happening to the train itself after the chaos subsides. The story just stops in an unsatisfying manner as if the editor decided it was finally long enough to let the writer end it.

Again, however, it is difficult to be too hard on a first novel when you know the author went on to do much more that people loved afterwards. I'm also not sure how much of this was simply not caught by an editor because they wanted fat books to sell for higher prices instead of letting pulpy works be what they are meant to be. It's a mystery.

I say this because when Ghost Train works it works very well. With a more ruthless editor the book would have been slimmer, punchier, tougher, and a lot more memorable and possibly more popular. But as we all know, pulp was a bad word in OldPub at the time and continues to be one up to the modern day. And now they are feeling the result of abandoning an entire style of writing. Stories should just be what they are, pulp or not.

As a result, Ghost Train is just good, but could have been more. It has a clear moral vision, accurately depicts horror, and knows that action is important. That is more than you can say for NewPub books released these days. When it works, it works very well.

You just have to know what you're getting into.


The most recent cover

Despite the downs in my experience reading Ghost Train, the ups were enough to make me want to read more from Stephen Laws, especially since I know he will improve as an author. But warts or not, I still had a good time with the book and would like to read more. That is the mark of a good story, even when flawed.

I also am interested in continuing my journey through the paperback fountain that is 1970s/80s horror, since both this and Nightblood have raised the bar from what I had been constantly told the genre was at during the time period. The experience is very much in line with the lies I had been told about the pulps, and so far they seem to be maliciously libeled and unfairly slandered, just as the greats were. The only question is in how many more times am I going to have to make this discovery of overlooked gems? It's getting a bit old learning that all the past things you were taught were garbage turn out to be better than the modern slop you are told is good.

Thankfully, these books are a lot easier to find than most of the pulps were, and I've already found a few for myself to read in the future. There is more than enough to go around. Now I just need to find myself an old fashioned spinner rack to put them on in order to make the entire strange experience complete!

Ghost Train is a good read, but not a great one. Nonetheless, I still recommend finding these types of '70s/'80s horror books when the opportunity arrives, especially if you are an avid writer or reader of pulp style fiction. They have a lot more to offer than you've been told they have, and they contain much the genre does not offer now, especially in the mainstream where they have been diluted to little more than thrillers with a ghost killing morally grey people instead of the human stabbing morally grey people mainstream thriller material offers. The old works are an entirely different universe from what you get today.

You'd be surprised at what these paperbacks from hell offer, and it is more than you'd been told. My recommendation is to give them a shot when you can. You never know what gem you might find hidden out in the minefield of old horror. It's a treasure trove.

But that's part of the fun, isn't it? It's a wonderful and weird world out there with surprises at every turn. Maybe what is out there going bump in the night isn't a monster at all, but something far more? Who knows? It's possible.

There's only one way to find out.



Thursday, August 27, 2020

Wretched Sons and Exploding Stars!

*NOTE* The usual Thursday post will be out on Saturday!
Find it Here!


Welcome back! As mentioned above, the usual big post has been moved to Saturday this week. Don't worry, I still have a treat for you in this not quite so big one.

Today I wanted to do a highlight for a book that just came out! The subject in question would be the new book by action adventure author Jon Mollison entitled Wretched Son.

Jon has been a big supporter and contributor in the new wave of pulp-inspired writers for the last few years, and every story he puts out is full of energy. This new one is no different! Check it out for yourself and see.

The description is below:

THE HUM OF RUBBER TIRES ON HOT AND DANGEROUS ROADS
THE WHITE DOTTED LINE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH
A YOUNG BOY'S FIGHT TO CHART A ROUTE TO MANHOOD

Take a ride through a different sort of apocalypse. A world on the verge of forging a better tomorrow, or repeating all the same old mistakes. And the fate of the world to come rests on the shoulders of a young boy as uncertain of his future as the world in which he fights to survive.

 Jump in today for another good time. Once again, you can find it Here!


But that's not all for today! Here's a bonus.


Find it Here!

Tangentially related, author Jon Del Arroz recently put out a space opera book of his own! I told you before: pulp never sleeps.

The description is here:


A deep conspiracy upends a civilization…

…which could cost the lives of billions.


The war rages on between Earth and Arysha, even after the death of a prominent Aryshan leader.

Sean Barrows is sent into Aryshan space a second time to gain details on their fleet movements and objectives, but he has a greater goal in mind: find the love of his life. But a major threat looms for everyone: a new fleet of Aryshan ships which can go unseen and launch deadly stealth attacks. Can two civilizations survive?

Fans of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Earthrise by Daniel Arenson will love The Stars Asunder!

You can find The Stars Asunder by Jon Del Arroz Here!


The usual longer post might have been delayed until Saturday, but I do hope you enjoy these new release until then. Unless we support smaller and upcoming creators, the landscape will never change. But the revolution is here, we've just got to give it space to run wild. NewPub can't be stopped!

So, I hope I have gotten across that there is plenty of good stuff out there, and still on the way! This might be the longest summer ever, but it doesn't have to be the worst. There are creators dedicated to making it better, and they're not planning to quit anytime soon.

So check them out!

 

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Signal Boost ~ Misha Burnett's "Endless Summer" Kickstarter!

Find it Here!


The summer isn't over yet, and plenty of creators still have new projects out and about for you to take a gander at! It's been a busy year, and it's only looking to get busier.

Today we're looking at a joint release between the good folks at Cirsova Publishing and Nu Wave author Misha Burnett: a short story collection currently being crowdfunded as we speak. For anyone plugged into the pulp world you know why this is a big deal! Misha Burnett is a pulp author with tons of great stories under his belt, and Cirsova has been on a publishing storm these past few years cranking out excellent collections and the always appreciated magazine swimming in the newest writers of adventure and wonder.

That's a long way to see that you're in for a good time when either are involved in a project.

The description:

"Misha Burnett is a master of the macabre and champion of the New Wave. His talent for tales runs the gamut of weird fiction from contemporary Urban Fantasy to Sword & Sorcery to Science Fiction, all with his unique (and slightly twisted) take!

"Misha Burnett's Endless Summer is a collection of strange and chilling tales of Mankind's future, near and distant, from tomorrow until beyond the mark of history, through Civilization's zenith, decline, destruction, and ultimately, Mankind's rebirth! 

"Cirsova Publishing invites you to embark on an incredible and breathtaking journey across the ages, beginning with the time-travel thriller from the pages of Cirsova magazine, The Bullet from Tomorrow, and running through eleven original stories that hold up a mirror to the worst and, more importantly, the best that humanity has to offer! Plus, a foreword by rising pulp star Schuyler Hernstrom (Thune's Vision, Eye of Sounnu)!"

Once more, you can find it here!

There is available as an ebook, trade paperback, and hardcover version as well as many different extras in different tiers to select from. Be sure to choose what interests you the most before supplies run out. They tend to in these sorts of crowdfunds.

That's all for today! The summer's not over yet, so who knows what else is on the way. Pulp never sleeps, after all! It only gets stronger and stronger by the day.



Thursday, August 20, 2020

When the Vultures Came

 



Nostalgia for the past in this pit we call the present has more or less reached a ridiculous place that it should never have reached. It's gotten to such cartoonish levels our ancestors could never have predicted. We will pine for anything. One glance at the above image should tell you exactly what I'm referring to. We spout our undying love for institutions that helped destroy the things we love, seemingly oblivious to the truth of it.

Anyone with any fond memories of pre-90s pop culture knows that Blockbuster deserves no sympathy or love, never mind nostalgic remembrance. However, everything created before 2001 is given extensive attention due to the role (no matter how small) they had in better days than the ones we are currently living in. It is understandable, even if it has become a crutch for many.

However, there are things that don't quite deserve your pleasant memories or warm feelings, or at least the product or establishment itself doesn't. Nostalgia for events around those things will always be genuine, but that doesn't change the fact that the source of all those pleasant memories might be corrupt. In the case of Blockbuster, it was a tool used by Hollywood to more or less destroy an industry of competition and created the climate we live in.

Blockbuster was supported by the major movie studios to forcibly wrestle the home video format from the hands of mom and pop stores and make sure that only their product was left on the shelves. Essentially, Blockbuster killed independent filmmaking as a career aspiration by leaving filmmakers with no distribution while at the same time only offering customers a bland, corporate, safe McDonalds image of the rental industry to wash away the fact that they were made to control your tastes and funnel your interests. It's a lot like OldPub, AAA gaming, and the dead modern music industry. And just like their eventual deaths, Blockbuster's death a decade ago was a good thing--too bad it was just to put Netflix in its place and deal critical blows to physical media and customer ownership rights. Make no mistake--this is where they wanted the industry to go.

Blockbuster might be dead but Netflix is the new weapon for Hollywood to corral tastes into one place, even though it is nowhere near as prominent as it once was, and after it dies something else will come up. That's just the nature of the beast. None of that means Blockbuster wasn't complicit in an industry's destruction, however.

However, even now if you look up the history of video stores online you will find endless articles and videos talking solely about Blockbuster, the soothing memories surrounding it, and how it ruled the roost, but nothing about what it was like before they came around. Perhaps you are too young to remember, but there was a whole better world around before they charged in to wreck the house and burn it down. The rental industry was a much different beast before Blockbuster, and it was much more interesting on top of it.

The fact is that the video rental store wasn't around for very long in the grand scheme of things, but the brief window when it was allowed to live was quite the time. This is why it is a shame that is being wallpapered over with corporate-endorsed nostalgia instead.

I recently watched a documentary named VHS Massacre which aimed to talk about the death of physical media in relation to the death of video stores. The documentary makers interviewed a bunch of people involved in the independent scene from the time, as well as newer creators today (or at the time of the documentary) to discuss the changes. They talk about the bigger studios and what exactly changed in the industry since the 1980s when VHS and the possibility of owning physical copies of movies became a reality for the first time ever.

There were already a few similar documentaries about that era, but none that really tried to focus on the stores themselves or their impact on independents and the big studios, never mind on physical media and ownership. Most were more interested on quirky personalities and niches, and not so much the bigger picture. This documentary has a few faults of its own, but the more ambitious scope tends to make it more interesting than the others, and less self-involved.

As long as a version of home video products existed there have been rental shops to stock them, but they only began to pop up the late 1970s in North America. Even then they weren't that affordable. Studios would license their films out in order to let stores rent them out to patrons, and the industry ballooned out from there. Considering the cost of tapes in that time period (they only really became affordable to outright buy in the 1990s), rental stores were the best ways to watch movies in the comfort of your own home and not have to break the bank.

Because cable was still not a factor in the television landscape, and wouldn't be for years (Now that I think about it: cable's influence didn't last very long either, did it?) movies were the go-to form of disposable entertainment of the 1980s. It's hard to deny it when you see just what the b-movie landscape was at the time even compared to big budget movies. If you wanted cheap and quick entertainment the best place to be was a rental store. Friday nights at the video store was just as busy as the cinema. Soon enough, with the emergence of Nintendo and Sega into the video game console market, video games followed by the late '80s to give the stores even more product to rent out. These companies made deals with the mom and pop stores in order to supply the shelves, and with all the content, there were no shortage of options.

However, this also meant that since every store was its own entity that meant they could also carry their own library of products. Every single rental store had its own lineup of moves and games based on whatever the owner chose to stock. This meant that if you had more than one rental store in your town (and by the mid-90s, even before Blockbuster's explosion over the entire world, everyone had more than one) you could theoretically find vastly different products by going to the different stores around town. Some kids even made a game of it by riding their bikes all over town and looking for that copy of Mortal Kombat on the Genesis that hadn't been rented out yet. Limited copies also meant that grabbing the last copy left and inviting the guys over was a common occurrence.

In other words, the rental shop was a community thing. The above documentary taps into this aspect a bit, though not as much as it should. When it comes to most video store or VHS aficionados, the focus always tends to be more on the nostalgia and certain obscure cliques--not so much on how it affected the local populace and their community.


The Documentary's Cover


This is my biggest issue with most Gen Y nostalgia pieces. They tend to focus more on how it affected them personally as opposed to how much of an impact it had on the wider world and their community. It's always shallow self-love. Life is about more than you, and it's nice to be reminded of that.

As an example, I'm reminded of a documentary on the life of John Hughes made over a decade ago. This was made before he died. This documentary focused more on how the four young filmmakers were influenced by The Breakfast Club and teen movies. The main "plot" centered on them driving around trying to find John Hughes and . . . offer him a slice of pizza. There was nothing in this picture about his friendship with John Candy, any interviews with people close to him, his un-produced screenplays, or the influences that led him to both come into filmmaking and what caused him to retire from the industry when he did. Instead, it was mostly about how the hosts related to the movies and how it shaped who they were.

There is a reason I have forgotten its title and why no one ever speaks of it.

Thankfully, VHS Massacre doesn't really do that (As mentioned earlier, it was the reason I chose to watch this one over several other similar documentaries), though it does touch more on the format of VHS itself other others. This isn't a bad thing. The VHS format played a much bigger part in pop culture than you might think. More than just creating a form to be nostalgic for, the cheap medium allowed quicker distribution, more content on the tape, and bigger and striking boxart, to deliver a product for the widest variety of customers possible. In essence, this is why VHS outlasted both Beta and Laserdisc despite both formats offering more on a quality level. It seized control of the format wars by offering more with less.

We've already discussed through The Pulp Mindset and the growth of digital distribution that the garden variety customer cares more about the art itself than they care about the delivery mechanism or bells and whistles surrounding it. They just want the art for the best available price. DVDs eventually replaced VHS because the form trumped the old one in every way AND offered a cheap price. In music, Cassettes to CDs was the same sort of transition. It's also why it has taken Blu-Ray so long to catch up to DVD and overtake. There just isn't that much of a jump a there was from VHS, and customers don't see much of a reason to make the leap. They aren't wrong, either.

A big subject of the documentary is the supposed death of physical media and the rise of digital. Since this was filmed around 2012-14 there are a few things that have aged poorly in the subject (physical sales of DVD and Blu-Rays are still about the same, streaming is king despite Netflix's downward spiral from the top of the mountain, and customers have been proven to buy when the product is worth the cost and pirate when they do not) however the bigger point is that there will always be some way for the customer to receive the art they want, even when conglomerates tied to big Hollywood studios interfere to devalue the product and experience for everyone else. Art finds a way, in other words.

The bonus to having local rental stores run and stocked by those in the community was that they could carry anything they wanted and interact with those around them. When Blockbuster came in, they were boosted by Hollywood and didn't have to pay as much for their supply, which meant they could order more than the locals at no additional cost. However, this meant they only carried what the studios wanted them to carry. This quarantined smaller studios and independent filmmakers to the shelves of local shops, and when they were run out of business so to did their shelf space vanish. Blockbuster essentially usurped an entire industry and pushed out the little guys for Hollywood's sake. No longer was renting a community experience both for patrons and local artists, it was now the equivalent of walking into McDonalds instead of the local burger joint. You're basically paying money to corporations to lose local industry for lesser product.

This is why I get puzzled at the nostalgia Blockbuster gives certain folks. Everything they offered was a sterile, corporate imitation of what your local shops were offering for years before they were killed off by this monster. They were never the good guys, and in fact harmed the very industry they worked in. There's nothing worthy of being nostalgic over.

If you think the constant comparison between Blockbuster and McDonalds is too much then you might want to see what drove Blockbuster's growth. 

From wikipedia:


"In 1987, the company won a court case against Nintendo, which paved the way for video game rental. Also that year, Waste Management co-founder Wayne Huizenga, who originally had reservations about entering the video rental industry, agreed to acquire several Blockbuster stores. At that point the number of stores counted 19, and attracted Huizenga's associate John Melk's attention due to its efficiency, family-friendly image and business model, and convinced Huizenga to have a look at it. Huizenga and Melk utilized techniques from their waste business and Ray Kroc's model of expansion to rapidly expand Blockbuster, and soon they were opening a new store every 24 hours. They took over many of the existing Blockbuster franchise stores as well, and Huizenga even spent much of the late 1980s acquiring several of Blockbuster's rivals, including Major Video.
"In 1990, Blockbuster bought mid-Atlantic rival Erol's which had more than 250 stores. In 1992, Blockbuster acquired the Sound Warehouse and Music Plus music retail chains and created Blockbuster Music. In October 1993, Blockbuster took a controlling interest in Spelling Entertainment Group, a media company run by television producer Aaron Spelling. Blockbuster purchased Super Club Retail Entertainment Corp. on November 22, 1993 from Philips Electronics, N.V. for 5.2 million shares of Blockbuster stock. This brought approximately 270 Record Bar, Tracks, Turtles and Rhythm and Views music stores and approximately 160 video retail superstores into the corporation. It also owned 35% of Republic Pictures; that company merged with Spelling in April 1994."


Very quickly Blockbuster destroyed the competition and became a monopoly, almost overnight. By the end of the 1990s they were the only game in town. Throughout the back half of the 1990s until its closure in 2010, for a bit over a decade, Blockbuster controlled the entire rental industry, and not because they offered the best service or product, but because they forced their way in and made sure no one else could compete with them.

As a result they ended up changing the makeup of the film industry, and shaping customer attitudes and expectations. It became about the Cult of the New over quality. Big budget blockbusters over solid filmmaking. Flash and sizzle over craft and content. Of course they would want this change--they wanted to make money off their partners' new films. You don't get as much off of classics or independents, do you?

In a way, Blockbuster contributed to the current pop culture obsession of novelty over quality. Constant supply of new blockbusters while shoveling the old ones out for pennies devalued their own medium. They certainly helped foster the Cult of the New that still exists today.

"Blockbuster stores followed a strategy of emphasizing access to the most popular new releases, obtaining early access and stocking many copies of the new-release titles, with a relatively smaller depth of selection than traditional independent video stores. Much of the shelf space in the stores was devoted to popular titles that were placed relatively sparsely on the shelves with the entire front cover visible, so customers could browse casually and quickly, rather than having a more diverse selection with fewer copies of each title. Blockbuster sometimes contracted with studios to obtain earlier access to new titles than other companies could achieve. Examples of such contracts were those in which Blockbuster became the exclusive rental chain for new releases from the World Wrestling Federation (now known as WWE), Paramount, DreamWorks, Universal Studios, The Weinstein Company, Miramax, Lionsgate, Disney, 20th Century Fox, MGM, Sony, Image Entertainment, Warner Bros., New Line Cinema and Allumination FilmWorks. As one commentator complained, "Blockbuster was once an unstoppable giant whose franchises swept across the country putting mom and pop video stores out of business left and right by offering a larger selection of new releases, pricing them at a lower point due to the volume they worked in... Gone were the fragmented, independently owned shops that were often unorganized treasure troves of VHS discoveries. In their place were walls of new releases: hundreds of copies of a small handful of films. Everyone watching the same thing, everyone developing the same limited set of expectations... They put focus entirely on what was new rather than on discovering film history ...""

And now they're dead, where they belong.

So you can tell why nostalgia for this company is strange and completely unwarranted. They damaged a much more healthy industry and medium so they could make a few more bucks. If anything, what they destroyed is what should be what we are talking about instead. Blockbuster deserved the fate that befell it, but what they demolished didn't.


A Whole Different Experience


Netflix coming in to wipe Blockbuster out was a good bit of karmic justice, but as the VHS Massacre documentary mentions through several of the interviewers, Netflix is the Blockbuster of streaming. Bigwigs with Hollywood ties pretending to be for the smaller guys, until they seize control and kick them out, run the whole show. Troma, for instance, only got on Netflix through alternate dealings around the executives at the company. Netflix itself didn't do much of anything to try and court them or get their movies out on the service, and why should they when they get deals from the giant studios? It's all for Hollywood, not the customer.

The one bright spot is that with the rise of alternate forms of streaming and video hosting sites that these smaller creators now have an outlet to entertain audiences again without being blocked. This more decentralized approach allows creators more reach than they ever had even in the mom and pop shops run by the locals. It might not solve the problem of loss of community, which is a bigger issue unto itself, but this is a better solution than allowing those who destroyed an industry get more credit and attention they do not deserve.

Especially now with Hollywood cratering extra hard due to the pandemic, there are less and less customers willing to give the bigger studios the time of day. The best time ever for the independent scene to strike is now while Hollywood is flailing. Without the big dogs to get in the way the field is wide open again and anyone can put out anything again. Times have changed yet again, only this time Hollywood is the one suffering, for once.

So why be nostalgic for things that existed to destroy that sort of experience you crave? It's counter-productive, and it's goofy.

There are many things I don't have nostalgia for that I understand the appeal of, such as VHS. I was there for the format. It was clunky, unreliable, and offered far less than DVD did, but they also contained great box art, had good ease of use, and were rather sturdy. They offer something different than what exists now, even if that something doesn't offer me anything personally. Nostalgia for that sort of thing makes sense.

But Blockbuster is not anything to be mourned. Just like when OldPub finally crashes and burns, it was an institution that harmed the very industry it operated in. You might have good memories attached to those locations or to the packaging used, but the chain itself does not deserve your love or support. It is gone, it is not coming back, and that is a very good thing for everyone involved. (On the other hand, if you want some nostalgia for the more exciting and socially good local mom and pop stores you can find some over here.)

Better things are coming in its place. Independents are still around, audiences are still around, and both still want exciting new stories. The medium might change, but the stories themselves won't. We still desire beauty and truth.

Vultures will always exist, but so will creativity and fresh ideas and approaches to art. Things change, but they also always stay the same.

In the end, I would recommend the VHS Massacre documentary for a watch. It isn't perfect and meanders a bit in its scope, but it does offer enough to give the subject its due and the interviews are all very interesting. This whole VHS era isn't an one that gets enough proper focus so it is good to see it when it happens. The movie is available to rent on youtube, if you are so inclined, which goes to show just where the industry is heading.

Netflix will not be around a decade from now, but movies will. Art goes on regardless of the changes we make to help or hinder it. The suits can't always stand in the way, though they may try.

The medium doesn't matter as much as the message, and the message is clearer than ever before. The audience wants good stories: so start making them! At the end of the day that's all we can really do, and it's enough for us to do what we can. Just don't let nostalgic memories of dead enemies get in the way of future success.

We've got more important things to do: we've got to create!