Secure Immaturity

Here are some awesome articles on some awesome websites that I read over the last awesome week. It’s awesome.

The 12 Best Mystery Science Theater 3000 ‘Guest Stars’ from Topless Robot

A review of The Last Exorcism from Planet of Terror

Professor David Huxley’s Laborious, Licentious Spotted-Leopard Labor Day Film Quiz from Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule as recommended by Lazy Thoughts from a Boomer (You can check out Lazy Thoughts. . . version here.)

An excellent interview with James Cameron from CulturePulp

The always excellent episode synopsis from Musings of a Sci-Fi Fanatic

Cult Movie Review: The Warriors from John Kenneth Muir’s Reflection on Film/TV

Nature Bites! A Photo Gallery from Deadly Serious

I’m not sure why there is only a small amount of black superheroes but, sadly, there are very little. Black Panther, Luke Cage, Night Thrasher, Storm, Steel. . .that’s all I can think of off the top of my head. And there are many others, upon further digging, but they either call attention to themselves by having black in the title or they are just ’subbing’ for other superheroes for a short time period (aka, Batman, technically Superman, and the Green Lantern have all been black at some point). It seems that, for the most part, being black and being a superhero isn’t a common thing in comics and, most definitely, in the movies.

Hancock, played by Will Smith, was an ‘original’ black superhero character and, as far as I recall, his ethnicity was never brought up. And the same exists, in a way, with the little remembered The Meteor Man, a 1993 film that basically took the origin stories and personal problems of many of the most recognizable comic book superheroes (Spider-Man, Superman, etc. . .who happen to be white) and made an original ‘black’ superhero who has to deal with black issues. Instead of saving New York City from a madman’s bomb or plot, Meteor Man has to clean up his neighborhood from the local gangs.

This isn’t quite as insulting as it sounds. The Meteor Man, starring director/writer Robert Townsend, isn’t calling out how ‘black’ Meteor Man is or how ‘black’ the problem of gang’s are. . .he’s just making a movie about a man trying to save his community. . .not unlike something Spider-Man or Superman would strive to do in their respective neighborhoods. The difference: since Townsend’s character IS black and lives in Washington DC (a city known for it’s large black population and high crime rate), Meteor Man HAS to save his neighborhood by stopping gangs. Superman can’t stop gangs in his neighborhood because he grew up on a farm in the middle of White-Town, USA which doesn’t have gangs.

Townsend is wise in saying gangs in black neighborhoods ARE a real problem (especially in 1993) and they would be a real problem for a black superhero protecting his neighborhood. So, thankfully, The Meteor Man isn’t preachy. What it is though is mostly stupid; a broad comedy with comic book sensibilities and a superhero that is likable but simply a hybrid copy of other heroes. Robert Townsend’s secret identity, Jefferson Reed, is basically Clark Kent; dorky, intelligent, socially nervous, and low self esteem. The difference being that it isn’t an act, he is that way. When he is struck by a meteor (no explanation given or needed, really), the meteor gets absorbed into his body and he gets superpowers.

His powers include, but are not limited to, X-Ray vision, eye lasers, flight, super strength, super speed, and powerful breath. Sound familiar? Meteor Man also has other powers that are likely categorized as ‘Plot Convenience Powers’. For instance, Meteor Man can touch any book and know all of it’s contents for 30 seconds. A pretty retarded power UNLESS you were using it for comedic effect (more on this later). Meteor Man also has the ability to grow large crops. . .once again, a power that is handy when some filler is needed.

The weaknesses in The Meteor Man are obvious: unoriginal powers given to a mostly unoriginal hero. The positives are in how these common, unoriginal ideas are used in the universe being created. I already mentioned the ‘ghetto’ angle. Meteor Man’s main opponents are a collection of adult/child street gangs who all color their hair gold and cause havoc in the neighborhood, from the mundane (graffiti) to the horrific (murdering men and women in a lot of ways). These gangs are run by a conglomerate of gangs led by Frank Gorshin (yes, Frank Fucking Gorshin) who, naturally, makes an appearance at the end. Meteor Man binds the community together, without preaching, mind you, to stop these dastardly fellows. Not original, you say? I guess. . .but the fact that a superhero is being used in such a limited capacity (local neighborhood, not exactly saving the world) is new and it becomes very personal for the hero and, in the end, the audience.

More original, perhaps, is Meteor Man’s reactions to his own powers. Reed is terrified of heights so when he courageous flies around looking for bad guys, he flies at car level down the street. This was pleasantly hilarious. His X-Ray vision, which he can’t turn on or off at will, makes his conversations with his mother very uncomfortable (I don’t need to elaborate). And I mentioned the goofy 30-second book power: at one point, Meteor Man grabs various books and uses them in his final climatic battle to IMMENSE comedic effect. Watch the below video: for a movie light on laughs, I do have to say the below scene had me laughing off my couch (the best part starts at about 2:15).

Now when I say that The Meteor Man wasn’t preachy, that isn’t to say it’s without it’s moments of social commentary. It’s not exactly DEEP social commentary but a black superhero addressing black problems must go about things a certain way. At one point, Bloods and cops are shooting at each other. Meteor Man, in the most MacGuyver of ways, forces the two groups to sit down and talk (I’m not joking). And in one very short scene, Reed, not dressed as Meteor Man, condemns his local community for not only blaming Meteor Man for the increased gang violence (they all want to kill Meteor Man) but for sitting by and expecting the problems to work themselves out. This, thankfully, wasn’t intrusive but just as symbolic of any other superhero movie that just happens to have a white guy in it. Anyone who saw the end of the first Spider-Man knows that New York rises up together to stop ALL terror (i.e. The Green Goblin). As I said before, The Meteor Man doesn’t address it’s blackness, just problems that HAPPEN to involve black people. This is nice.

The acting on display is great: Townsend is likable while his buddy, Eddie Griffin, steals every scene. James Earl Jones is uncharacteristic in this film. . .at one point rapping with a boom box and sporting an over exaggerated flat top (think Kenny Walker). Sinbad makes a hilarious cameo while Robert Guillaume and Marla Gibbs play Reed’s parents to perfection. Roy Fegan is the main baddy while his right hand man, played by Don Cheadle, is menacing despite the goofy clothes and comedic atmosphere of the picture. Tiny Lister also shows up. . .playing pure schtick and walking around with a Tiger (this was YEARS before The Hangover!).

I enjoyed watching The Meteor Man though it was immensely flawed. I remember, as a young one, The Meteor Man being advertised in comics everywhere but, while rated PG, the film isn’t really for kids. The humor isn’t exactly adult but it isn’t child’s fare while the violence could be a bit much for kids. The film didn’t do well despite the massive advertising (at least in comics) and only made about $8 million (on, I’d imagine, a large budget) and while I’m not saying rush out and find this thing, it is worth a view. Black superheroes are rare and The Meteor Man is a likable and sometimes fun one.

Here are some awesome articles on some awesome websites that I read over the last awesome week. It’s awesome.

Cult TV Flashback #116: Planet of the Apes (1974) ‘The Trap’ from John Kenneth Muir’s Reflections on Film/TV

Star Trek Original Series Episode Review: The Enemy Within from Musings of a Sci-Fi Fanatic

A review of the cult hit The Relic from Radiator Heaven

Cool Movie Weapons You Wish You Could Get Your Hands On (except no Klingon weapons. . .don’t worry fellow nerds, I told him) from The Film Connoisseur

Top 10 Worst Films Reviewed at The Lair from The Lightning Bug’s Lair

A delightfully nasty review of Eat, Pray, Love from Acidemic-Film

A cool review of Wall Street from Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies

Summer Shocks 1995: Tales from the Hood from Dinner with Max Jenke

Jen’s great review of Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet from Film Intuition

Top 50 Stephen King movies from Dead End Drive In

I recently went to my local used book store and felt. . .nostalgic. I decided to skip the sections I normally frequent and go straight to the science-fiction media tie-in section which, for the uninitiated, contains books that have commercial properties attached to them better known in other mediums (the largest example being, perhaps, Star Wars and Star Trek). I’m not a Star Wars fan really and I don’t feel like reading 687 books of the labyrinthine story arc so I went to the comfort food of all media tie-ins, Star Trek.

Thanks to The Gamma Quadrant podcast, I’ve been re watching Deep Space Nine so I looked at the small collection of DS9 books to see if anything was worth picking up. . .ya know, for old times sake. First, an aside. I remember a lot of geeky podcasts and newsites going ape shit earlier this year or last when a Star Wars book, titled Death Troopers, came out and featured zombie stormtroopers. As interesting as the idea is, or comical, it still didn’t exactly pique my interest in Star Wars books again (I’ve read my fair share, mind you) and, as I would discover upon visiting the used Trek section of the bookstore, the idea was used in 1995 by Diane Carey in a book called Station Rage, in which a group of zombie Cardassians take over the station.

So, yes, I did buy the book and I am reading it. Is it terrible. . .well, yes. But it’s also good. Media tie-in books, in my experience, are the ultimate double-edged sword of reading entertainment. They don’t have any real artistic value or originality but they also show a strong craftsmanship and acknowledgment of the material it is mimicking in book form. Let’s start with Station Rage. It’s about zombie Cardassians. That’s all I really have to say about the plot. As for the characters, well, we saw them on TV for seven years: no explanations are really necessary and, since Star Trek is a tightly controlled property with limits on continuity and ‘canon’ (trust me, and often argued about situation with hard core Trek nerds, myself included), there is virtually no character development that can be had since, especially when the novel was released, a serious event might influence that week’s episode.

So while I’m not really getting anything intense or dramatic (you know that by book’s end everyone and everything will be back to normal) I am also getting what essentially is the novelization of a television episode that doesn’t exist! Is it a good episode? I’m sure it’s up for debate (in the case of Station Rage, I’m sure the opinions shoot towards the negative) but what can be assuredly agreed upon is that the writing, in regards to HOW the characters respond and are understood, is exceptional. When Diane Carey writes about Sisko, she isn’t just writing dialogue: she’s writing his mannerisms, facial tics, and eye movements to the ‘T’. Carey knows when to make Kira shrug or sigh and she knows when to make Dax smile. It’s uncanny. There is no doubt when reading Station Rage, or any other Trek book, that Carey has studied, for hours and hours, every single characteristic of a television character we see week in and week out.

Does this make for entertainment? No and yes. Once again, a perplexing argument. Star Trek is probably the most confusing of the media tie-in novels. It has strict rules that both complicate and hinder enjoyment. But they also have a sort of ’secret, hidden episode’ quality that makes them feel like you are seeing something you weren’t supposed to see. And while Diane Carey is one of the better Star Trek writers (other notables are John Vornholt, Michael Jan Friedman, J.M. Dillard, and Keith R.A. DeCandido to name a few who have cornered the Star Trek book market), the writing certainly does vary. One writer can make a Star Trek book ALMOST legitimately literature (Peter David is probably the only writer to successfully do this) while others can make it professional fan fic.

When I was a kid, Star Trek books were my thing. I had read over 100 Star Trek books from the age of six to the age of 19. Since then, when I entered college, I’ve read, maybe, three. Part of this is because I was pursuing a degree in Literature and saw the real world of literature around me but, because, well, I had outgrown them. Most media tie-ins have a shelf life for the average person. And I’m sure there are loads of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s and up who read Trek books and I don’t mock them. . .just, for me, the media tie in, especially Star Trek, is beyond me.

Reading them is a pretty miserable experience. It both defies the conventions of writing and character development but also upholds them completely. And while Star Trek books have left my nightstand on a consistent basis for almost a decade (I read them from time to time, like Station Rage, for the comfort food-nostalgia angle) I’ve dabbled in other media tie-ins to see if they have any merit. I’ve read really, surprisingly good ones and I’ve read some god awful ones. And I’ve come to the realizations that the media tie-ins are all the same. . .it’s the quality that changes (basically the writer or, less so, the plot).

Some series benefit from a more ‘open’ environment that inspires grander stories. In my experience, books based on video games have been the most enjoyable and the most dramatic. But even as I say that, I can think of an example both in the excellent category and the terrible category. Earlier this year I read one complete Halo book and abandoned another. The first was a ‘prequel’ called Contact Harvest. So oppressively connected was it to the game’s continuity that NOTHING could save it. I finished it, against my brain’s wishes, but it was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had with a media tie-in. I had to abandon another ‘prequel’ called Ghost of Onyx because it was just too bogged down by the rules I explained earlier with the Trek books.

But the exact opposite of the Halo books was the Mass Effect books. For one, there are only two and they both vary in plot and environment so as to be enjoyable. The best one was Revelation, written by one of the video game’s writers. The best part was that it utilized environments you, as a person, have technically visited yourself. But it also decided to simply expand some of the video game’s NPCs and help you like them more. It didn’t demand of it’s plot that certain events happen to fit the character’s backstory. The book was almost entirely independent of the game. This worked. . .and this provided drama and freedom. The second book, by the same writer, called Ascension, ended up being a set-up book for the second video game though you didn’t know it until you played the actual game. Therefore it wasn’t intrusive. . .it was simply aiding a strong story yet to come.

I’ve read some movie tie-ins as well. . .and they are all good if you are excited to see the movie (as I did when I read Serenity’s novelization BEFORE I saw the movie) or they are all completely boring and pointless if you’ve already seen the movie (or, in some cases, episode). I’ve read media-tie ins that seek to EXPAND the universe (Aliens, Star Wars), some that exist almost as a sub-tie (books that exist as fictional within a fictional universe, such as Castle’s Heat Wave and Californication’s God Hates Us All), and some that exist almost simply because the industry demands it (The X-Files and Babylon 5; B5 has a series of books that are utterly pointless, both #’d books that are very episodic, unlike the series, and novelizations of movies/episodes that, by existing, are pointless. The only saving grace was a three book series by Peter David that explained how the series would have ended if it kept going).

So I guess the lesson to be learned is to NOT read media tie-ins unless absolutely necessary (not likely), assigned in class (extremely unlikely), or a gun is held to you head (I can see this happening at Wonder Con or something) because, in the end, there is more bad than good. And even when you come across something cheeky, like Station Rage, it’s purely for nostalgic or comfort food purposes which, unfortunately, is not a long lasting or consistent reason to read something.

You pray that art doesn’t imitate life a lot of the time but I was recently going through a mental list of my favorite television characters and I found some major characteristic in most of them that applies to me (and it’s not just weight gain). So while I definitely have my Hall of Fame, of sorts, worked out in my head, I decided to put these thoughts on paper (or web page or whatever) for the viewing public. So, without further ado, in reverse order, are my top five favorite television characters:

Honorable Mention(s): Cliff Clavin from Cheers, Scorpius from Farscape, Dr. Ross from ER, Commander William T. Riker from Star Trek: The Next Generation and Gul Dukat from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

#5 Detective Robert Goren

Series: Law and Order Criminal Intent (Seasons 1-9)

Played by: Vincent D’Onofrio

Occupation: Major Case Squad Detective

Character Strengths: Intelligence, Perception, Reasoning, Deduction, Problem-Solving, Strong Physical Senses.

Character Weaknesses: Sensitive, Bothered by Family Past, Anti-Social, Independent

Analysis: Vincent D’Onofrio literally made the good but very procedural Law and Order franchise better by giving breath to Bobby Goren, the very strange but ultimately good detective of the Major Case Squad. His partner, Eames, and his superiors are kind of outsiders watching Goren work inside a closed off room and his mannerisms and techniques can sometimes come out of nowhere and throw everyone off (criminals and good guys alike). But, usually, the results are there. When they aren’t, he takes the blame.

He was kind of a House before there was a House but instead of being a pompous dick, Goren’s eccentricities only add to his lovable qualities. Goren is a big softy with a good heart and if he ever gets enraged it’s because his feelings are hurt or you touched a sensitive subject. He’s extremely attentive to human behavior and can manipulate almost anyone (thankfully he leaves that simply to the criminals) but occasionally he is given a rival/nemesis, in CI’s case, Nicole Wallace, who, in five episodes, manages to throw Goren’s life into chaos.

He’s #5 on the list mainly because Goren was best utilized when you DIDN’T know a lot about him. Because we knew so little of where he came from, his small revelations throughout the first five or six years were a gift. Then we met his drug addicted brother (who was later murdered), his serial killer father, his looney tunes mother, and his own questionable psychosis and. . .well. . .the mystique was gone. But no matter, he is still one of my all-time favorite characters.

Continue Reading »

I once uttered the words ‘my favorite Star Trek movie is Star Trek: Insurrection’. The most generous response (and I’m being generous also in saying the response was, indeed, generous) was ‘yeah. . .it’s. . .okay’. Star Trek: Insurrection is met with a lot of hate by old Trek fans like me (remember, the new Star Trek was not your father’s Star Trek and that does apply to me) and new Trek fans alike. And I’m not totally sure why. The producers of the franchise tried, hard as they may, warts and all, to produce something outside the formula of what Star Trek had become (this was 1998 people. . .three, count it, THREE, Star Trek series were either on the television airwaves or soon to be released and even TNG, the second of ultimately five television series, which had long been cancelled, was not done in the movie world). Star Trek was stale and Insurrection did something about it. Oddly, the fashion in which they pursued their goal, but they still did, indeed, try.

So though I am not as foolish to publicly call Insurrection my FAVORITE Trek film (I was being a little hyperbolic. Everyone knows that II, IV, VI, and even, possibly, VIII are far superior) I do think it is a fantastic film that, for moments, breathed life into the franchise. With Deep Space Nine entering it’s last year of television, Voyager lacking any presence or importance or excitement, and Enterprise being produced in the wings, Star Trek was mired in its own continuity (one of the drawbacks for non-Trek fans in watching Insurrection is it’s continual references to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s serial plot lines, like the existence of Worf, the Dominion War, the Cardassians, even ketracel white!). And since DS9 was ending, the originality and breakthrough writing was on it’s way out too. Trek had nothing to look forward to but a terrible prequel series (which was a bad idea from the start), more and more years of TNG-lite (Voyager), and maybe another movie or two.

Oh and let’s not forget the dreariness. As wonderful a show as DS9 was, it’s final seasons were just downright depressing in tone, with the War and all. You could literally see the sparks in Ronald D Moore’s head going off and the ideas for his Battlestar Galactica reboot being formed by the absolute torture most of the characters went through in that series. Add to it Voyager’s malaise and you had a very dreary Star Trek landscape. Insurrection was kind of tapping Trek fans on the shoulder and saying ‘hey, we can still be fun’. Granted, being ‘fun’ is pretty damn relative, and there are times when Insurrection gets downright goofy, but at least there is not a never-ending menace or brooding that pervades the picture (the two previous TNG films, Generations and First Contact, were equally dreary and dark, much like the series that were currently on the air).

And let’s not forget, while not a box-office juggernaut like Star Wars, Star Trek was always a decent to solid/good money maker and Insurrection, on a budget of $58 million, grossed $70.1 in the States and $112 worldwide. Not Trek’s greatest showing (especially compared to it’s previous film, First Contact, which grossed $92 million in the states and $146 million worldwide) but, I would imagine, this has more to do with the over saturation of the Trek brand then the plot and theme.

Continue Reading »

How do you approach a book that you’ve never read that is the inspiration for one of your all-time favorite movies? Well, you pick up the book and turn the pages and find yourself in a world that feels familiar but entirely different and that just rocks. That’s how DADOES worked for me. I did my best to push away all images of Blade Runner from my head while reading Philip K. Dick’s oft-praised novel and in didn’t take long for me to see Dick’s world in my own way without a Harrison Ford or spinner or Eddie James Olmos or odd-guy-who-makes-eyeballs-for-replicants running around.

I’ve read a lot of reviews on amazon.com after finishing the book (amazon being the more hippie version of imdb.com’s message boards/reviews. IMDB.COM tends to have raving lunactics. . .AMAZON.COM reviewers tend to be raving lunatics with taste) and I was glad to see such wide ranges of praise/hatred for the book. I have a little bit of experience reading Dick and in those experiences, I’ve noticed I’m finding myself both marvelling at Dick’s worlds while simultaneously wanting to dig up Dick’s corpse and punch his decayed face (though I’ll settle with that robot version some nerds built once).

It’s not that any part of DADOES is bad. . .it is all written well (simple, but well). . .it’s just that Dick was one of those odd geniuses that existed in his own mind and let us plebeians read his thoughts from time to time. And so confusing and so polarizing (genius or madness) is the text that you can’t help but be both blessed and cursed to have read it. No matter your stance on the quality, Dick WILL live you thinking, no doubt. He is definitely a thematic writer and DADOES is no different and, days later, I find myself thinking about the topics Dick brings up and going through them in my head, trying to find solutions to the unanswerable.

I’m not going to sit here and say Blade Runner is better then DADOES or vice versa: the two examples are far too different to really be compared. They share similar themes but go in different directions to make those themes important. Blade Runner existed to discuss what it is to be human but the question was mostly answered by the film focusing on two characters: Deckard (Harrison Ford), a possible replicant, and Roy (Rutger Hauer), a replicant searching for new life. The book focuses on the same issue but decides to look at it from a global perspective. We have main characters, sure, but they exist as our hosts to guide us through the world.

Plus, DADOES focuses on a piece of plot that Blade Runner almost completely ignored: animals. Animals play such a key role in DADOES, be it sheep, horses, goats, spiders, what have you, that any plot point or philosophical issue/morality question comes down to the humans/replicants relationship with humans. Most telling, without spoiling anything, is how similar we, as humans, relate to androids without knowing it. Sometimes the humans are the androids, like Deckard’s wife, Iran, for instance, and the androids are more human. And sometimes even mechanical animals attach to us like a real one would. These all sound like very simple ideas barely cracking the surface, but my summaries can’t do what Dick’s words do: move you.

I highly recommend the book, especially if you are a fan of Blade Runner. It’s like reading a first draft of a movie script at it’s worse or reading a masterpiece later changed to be a different kind of masterpiece on celluloid. Either way I think you’ll enjoy it. Hell, you might even end up preferring one version over the other.

*note: spell-check doesn’t recognize replicant. I may need to upgrade to the Voight-Kampff update.

Neil Gaiman is a strange creature. I feel like I should LOVE the guy since he just kind of embodies the ‘geek’ aesthetic BUT he I find him more polarizing then anything else. I’ve read two Neil Gaiman books in the last month and a half and they literally took that long to read: about a month and a half. I respect his writing talents, like his seemingly effortless talents, and appreciate his tendency to be charmingly strange but I am also unnerved by his overlong plots, odd pacing, and obnoxious attention deficit disorder. Reading one of his books is a test in both joy and madness and, in the end, I think Gaiman himself would get a kick out of that.

As I said in my very short review of Good Omens (which he co-wrote with Terry Pratchett), I mentioned that Gaiman’s ideas are glorious for short stories and American Gods, one of his most critically awarded books, is exactly the same. American Gods is an epic. Sure, it isn’t approaching the 1,000 page region but it’s near-600 page length is made to feel like double that. And the way I got through it was pretending I was watching a TV show. Is that considered a success for a book? I dunno. But American Gods, if treated like roughly two seasons worth of 45 minute episodes, is a masterpiece of television. The problem is this is a book and it’s all one story that seems to drag on and on.

It doesn’t mean I don’t like it. American Gods has moments of absolute brilliance and during some stretches I was absolutely hooked. But then ADD Gaiman would step in and interrupt the story with a 30 page treatment on characters we’d never see again. Very frustrating. But it is what it is. American Gods is about a man named Shadow who, upon being released from prison, learns his wife has died whilst cheating on him. Along the way to her funeral he meets a man named Wednesday who hires him to be a helper. Shadow, with really nothing to lose in his life, joins Wednesday on a journey all throughout America where they commit bank heists, meet old friends, and prepare for war. The war, you ask? Well, it appears Wednesday and his group of friends are old world gods who have fallen out of favor in the young country of the United States and the newer gods, who come and go like fads, are stealing all the power.

What Gaiman deserves credit for instantly is being entirely original. There is a lack of cliches. Shadow isn’t given much of a past (it comes in pieces) but he is so intricately written that he is fully three dimensional within the first few pages. The characters he meets that he is unsure of are kept perfectly mysterious. There are no real big reveals in the plot to explain how everything ticks and while this can be somewhat maddening for those who NEED things explained (me, sometimes), it is unique and compelling for those looking for a world that feels both fantastical/mysterious yet real.

Until the very end, Gaiman manages to base the plot in some sort of reality. Any type of magic or ‘godness’ is subtle. You always suspect Wednesday and his friends are more then they seem but you are often waiting for the catch or for something to break. It doesn’t and I have to give Gaiman all the credit in the world for that. But, like mentioned earlier, Gaiman has excellent ideas that sometimes can’t handle being stretched over 600 pages and, maybe noticing this, Gaiman shifts gears heavily throughout the book. Shadow will be in one place for awhile and then go somewhere else and almost live out an entire book’s existence in that place. Then he moves again. This is, of course, when he isn’t interrupted by tales of Gods that span all types of different time periods.

The ‘interludes’ as they are often called, in which Gaiman describes a god who was once prevalent but faded once on America’s shores, are actually the best written stuff. . .and if they were isolated short stories then great. But they interrupt the other story he’s got going on and while the stories sort of have their place, they are beautiful distractions that, in the end, do not aid the other 530 pages you’re reading. I remember at one point reading about 80 straight pages and not wanting to stop but then seeing the ‘interlude’ and getting completely sucked out of the zone I was in. The book would have been finished a lot faster without these distractions.

So, once again, I’m bestowing a middle of the road rating towards a Gaiman book and I think I’m going to retire from his novels. I still would like to read his graphic novels (Sandman) but his novels, while intriguing, end up being more chores then anything else. Being amazed just isn’t worth feeling like I’m working and sweating.

I really shouldn’t be surprised but then again, I always set myself up for these things. Halo: Contact Harvest is less a book but a series/video game bible/layout that, I imagine, was thrown aside when better ideas came along. I don’t want to say the book is written poorly because writer Joseph Staten is actually quite talented. His universe building skills, as shown in the second Halo game, for example, are excellent.

I really shouldn’t be surprised but then again, I always set myself up for these things. Halo: Contact Harvest is less a book but a series/video game bible/layout that, I imagine, was thrown aside when better ideas came along. I don’t want to say the book is written poorly because writer Joseph Staten is actually quite talented. His universe building skills, as shown in the second Halo game, for example, are excellent.

His problem: the universe he’s built is boring and as confusing as shit. I remember really liking Halo 2 at first. I felt the writers really expanded a universe that was mostly a rip off of Aliens in the first place. But then I started getting a bit confused and realized that SHOWING me a universe is one thing but hearing/reading about it is another. Halo 2, while an underrated game story-wise (the Covenant sections are interesting though not compelling), was definitely a mess. They lost track of their hero and focused on aspects that were made so utterly confusing and deep that, well, it wasn’t fun. And let’s not get started on Halo 3, in which they had to a)continue this craziness established in Halo 2 and b)erase all the terrible mistakes from Halo 2 in some exposition-heavy way to make Halo 3 a bit more accessible to newbies of the XBox 360 and to the now critically mixed franchise.

I always ignored the books because I always found myself more frustrated with Halo’s mythology as opposed to drawn to it. Also, I was shocked that despite the Halo franchise being one of my all-time favorites in the video game world, I was very unattached to it emotionally. I liked Master Chief but he is a very thin hero. . .not much depth there. He’s cool but is he lovable. There was Cortana. . .and who knows what the fuck happened to her at the end of Halo 2. I know Halo 3 told me but. . .I still don’t really know. And then there was the tricky Arbiter, who, himself, is a mythological symbol that makes you want to tear your eyeballs out. He was cool and I liked his missions in Halo 2 but. . .yeah. . .not much there either EXCEPT Keith David’s awesome voice.

The main three characters were really devoid of anything other then COOL moments. And the Halo games outside the Master Chief vein were pretty unbearable. A lot of people seemed to like ODST but, frankly, I had no interest in exploring the Halo world any further WITHOUT at least someone COOL since emotion was too hard to ask. I didn’t even finish Halo Wars and I will probably skip Halo: Reach since it is a prequel and prequels, especially loaded with anti-climaxes, dense mythologies, and, once again, none of the original characters, just sounds like crap on a stick.

So I think I just explained why I skipped the Halo books! I don’t want to read about this universe that is confusing and dense and has no emotion behind it. . .especially when I can’t fire weapons that blow shit up! But, somehow, I bought two Halo books. I bought one called The Ghost of Onyx, and this book, Contact Harvest. I initially bought Contact Harvest because it had Sgt. Avery Johnson on the cover. Now this was interesting to me for two reasons. One, I was GOING to name my first child Avery (and my last name is Johnson) so that would have been weird. . .and it had nothing to do with Halo. Second, Johnson seemed to be the only genuinely fun NPC in the whole Halo universe. You cared for him when he was there. . .which wasn’t enough, frankly. And, naturally, they fucking killed him at the end of Halo 3. Figures the first main character, of sorts, to die would be black!

But in the video game, Johnson was an Apone-rip-off who was kind of fun. But as I started to read his story in Contact Harvest, which is a prequel by the way, I instantly regretted it. Some people, who are rip-offs of other caricatures in the first place, can’t be made three dimensional. Johnson is a drill Sgt who says witty things and shoots stuff. . .yet in Contact Harvest he has a tragic past and a way with the laaaadies. It’s all kind of sad really. And now that I’ve read Johnson in all kinds of different situations outside of mindlessly shooting elites. . .I don’t like him anymore. Once again, the creators behind Halo have OVERDONE the mythology. Sgt. Johnson is no longer interesting to me now because he is OVER written now. Ugh.

The rest of the book doesn’t help much considering half of it is about Covenant politics. And the writer fails to let the story flow. . .he insists on writing a sentence and then writing eighteen paragraphs on Covenant society that led to that one sentence. It’s really distracting and annoying. It is not exaggeration when I say this book really could have been 100 pages shorter. But pesky Joseph Staten can’t let us turn the page without knowing how the Elites had a war once or how Sgt. Johnson masturbated once when he was 14!

Plus there is this inane subplot involving an Unggoy (the little creatures for the Covenant) and a flying creature called a Huragok and their friendship even though both, to facilitate the narrative of future games, must die. And then there are the AIs (like Cortana) that kind of Moonlighting/love-hate each other. Really bad. There is no one to root for in this book, nothing physical or emotional to grab on to, and the story, what little there is (something to do with Covenant/UNSC first contact out on the frontier of human space), is underwhelmed by the oppressive back story. I am seriously questioning reading the second Halo book I bought. . .I’d advise to ignore this one if possible.

I want to start by saying that Good Omens is masterfully written: it’s attention to detail, its rich characterization, and it’s unique and never-fail humor is second to none (or, at least, very few). As a writer myself, I was constantly jealous of both Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s skills. DAMN YOU! But also THANK YOU!

That said, I feel that behind this brilliance is an acquired taste. . .and while I appreciate the skill, I’m just not a large fan of the style. Good Omens is a classic, for sure. All my geeky friends think it is a work of art and genius and that is fantastic. I’m glad I read it. . .but, at times, I wished it was a short story (which, I heard, it originally was. . .without an ending). Good Omens, to me, is a book of moderation. I would read 50 or so pages, laugh a lot, but when another free opportunity came up to read it. . .I waited until I was in the mood again. We’re not talking WEEKS or anything but I can’t deny that perhaps one single week would go by without picking this book up because. . .well. . .I’d tire of the style. To each his own. . .I can’t deny Good Omens brilliance. . .I just prefer it in small doses.

In the end, humor comes down to taste and Good Omens isn’t necessarily my type of humor. Granted, I did laugh hysterically often in this book and for that I am grateful. I can see some people reading this in one sitting and endlessly laughing but I felt that if I power-read this I’d end up hating it. . .so it took awhile but Good Omens, for me, in moderation, was worth the long haul.