New Ideas for an Old Franchise: Indiana Jones Edition

There have been many who have realized the corporate culture of movie making has ruined film. The tendency for capitalism to double down on a great success in order to continue to make profits has led the movie industry to continue to produce terrible sequels and reboots (followed by more sequels) of existing series and franchises instead of creating anything new.

This has been well documented by Ethan Anderton from First Showing, and by Andrew Allen from Shortoftheweek who both use the same infographic from Box Office Mojo. The guys at Cracked have also weighed in, like they often do, with 5 reasons. If you type in phrases like "Hollywood unoriginal", or "no new ideas from Hollywood" into google, there is a wealth of similar articles, tweets, blogposts, and commentary about this problem. We've also known about it for quite some time, most of these articles are 5 or more years old.

However, There are some franchises that I think we can all agree should never stop. James Bond is a great example, no matter who plays the characters, or what evil villain Bond is stopping, those movies are super fun, and never a bad time. If Disney were to remake those awful Star Wars prequels (pleeeease, pretty pretty please, make them not suck), I'd be the first in line to buy a ticket.

Also, on this list, is Indiana Jones. Now, I know Harrison Ford is super old, but so is Sean Connery, and that didn't stop the Broccoli's from making 24 films with 6 different actors. Like James Bond, Indiana Jones could potentially be played by anyone. Knowing this, I propose an idea for Disney and LucasFilm.

The mystical and cryptoarchaeological (is that a word?) themes of Indiana Jones is what makes the franchise, I think, so attractive. Aside from Harrison Ford's portrayal of the hero, the quests for macguffins based on legendary artifacts turn the plots of these movies into high stakes scavenger hunts full of far-away, secretive places, borderline illegal hijinx, and sinister competition and doublecross.

I would like to see Indiana Jones tackle the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft. 

Think about this: In my opinion, the most successful Indiana Jones films are Raiders and Last Crusade, both dealing with biblical artifacts. The mythology of apocryphal Abrahamic religions, the power imbued into seemingly worthless artifacts, surrounded in archaic mystery, unlocking ancient powers, but without relying on extraterrestrial origins made these movies special. Why not the Cthulhu mythos?

To my knowledge there hasn't been a successful adaptation of anything Lovecraftian. There sure have been plenty of science fiction/horror stories that are heavily influenced by the Cthulhu mythos, like Hellboy and Batman, Scooby Doo, Supernatural, X-Files, South Park, Rick and Morty, The Ghostbusters, True Detective, Evil Dead, and many others. But not yet have we seen a major motion picture explore the horror suspense created by Lovecraft, culminating in a situation where "top men" had to bury the evidence.

Just put it in a box, between the ark of the covenant and Jimmy Hoffa

Imagine Indiana Jones, searching for some kind of artifact... the Necromonicon perhaps, or eltdown shards, or g'harne fragments. Along the way he visits Arkham, Commoriom, The Nameless City, runs into the Black Brotherhood, the King in Yellow, The Great Race of Yith perhaps, and ultimately stops the awakening of Cthulhu.

I think there is great potential for this mashup. And, well, if Indiana Jones doesn't work out, I'm sure the Tomb Raider camp could take a crack at it.

Someone with Photoshop has the same idea

Purple Hairy Elephants!

Awhile ago, I wrote about Amherst College, and their recently solved dilemma regarding their problematic namesake, Lord Jeffery Amherst. The college had publicly severed ties with the unofficial mascot, and adopted their first official mascot, the mammoth.

On October 20, 2017, they announced their official mascot design/logo. It's pretty cool. I posted it below. This is a follow up to this blog post right here.

Once Upon a Planet Burning

Metallica

Hardwired... To Self Destruct

Blackened, 2016

produced by Greg Fidelman

James Hetfield - rhythm guitars, vocals

Kirk Hammet - lead guitars

Robert Trujillo - bass

Lars Ulrich - drums

I have had a love/hate relationship with Metallica for a very long time. When I was a kid, my friends and I listened to '80s era Metallica, the "Cliff Burton is alive-Hetfield sounds like a girl-they had long hair-thrash" Metallica. And I thought it was awesome, mostly because it was miles different than the classic rock blues and jazz based bands my dad favored. But, soon after the release and tours for the 1991 Black Album, they all cut that crazy metal hair, and started writing unthrashlike pop-metal songs.

They released two albums back to back like a pair of terrible movie sequels. This new direction seemed dull, lazy, eager to capture quick pop success. The songs seemed like throwaway one-timers. It took them 30 years, but they finally produced a record worthy of comparisons to ...And Justice for All, and dare I say it, Master of Puppets! 

Hardwired to Self Destruct has built on the successful resurgence of the old school Metallica found on Death Magnetic, and just about completely redeemed them from the abortion that was St. Anger, and the sell out disappointments of the Load and ReLoad era. They refine their signature brand of metal on this record. Metallica finally comes to terms with their thrash metal past while at the same time remaining fresh and new, something that I think they struggled with in the '90s. 

My friend, a known prog-rock, metal enthusiast, posted this new album was the first time in a long time that he could publicly endorse a new Metallica record as being worth the buy. I agree, and would go further to say that, since all of the records made before 1991 were all old news when I started listening, this is the only new Metallica record I've ever been able to fully endorse as worth buying.  

Best Years for Music: Making a Case

Every decade or so there is one pivotal year for music that defines the decade and becomes a watershed of influence. I plan on making the case for the best year in music for each of the last few decades. I'll start with the 60's and work my way up.

1967 - Summer of Love

The 1960s are remembered fondly as the age of psychedelics, and hippies, but the decade was important for all genres of music. In the age of sexual liberation, political rebellion, and the civil rights movement, music had its own period of exploration, which saw folk, blues, soul and r&b, reggae, country and rock develop from earlier forms into what we recognize today as major genres. 1967 was the high point for this incubation period and saw major debuts, and great follow up records from soon to be great artists. Many of the records I will list in this post are considered by many to be among the top records of all time, genre definers, influential pieces, one of the best in that particular artist's discography, or at the very least a debut of one of music's legends.

The Doors (debut)
Miles Davis - Miles Smiles
Jefferson Airplane - Surrealistic Pillow
Byrds - Younger than Yesterday
Dolly Parton - Hello, I'm Dolly (debut)
Mamas and the Papas - Deliver
Velvet Underground and Nico
Donovan - Mellow Yellow
Electric Prunes (debut)
Gordon Lightfoot - The Way I Feel
Tim Hardin - 2
Country Joe and the Fish - Electric Music for the Mind and Body (debut)
Jimi Hendrix Experience - Are You Experienced? (debut)
Mothers of Invention - Absolutely Free
Beatles - Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Willie Nelson - Make Way for Willie Nelson
David Bowie (debut)
Booker T and the MGs - Hip Hug-Her
Moby Grape (debut)
Canned Heat (debut)
Aretha Franklin - Arrives
Pink Floyd - Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Bee Gees - Bee Gees' 1st
Merle Haggard - Branded Man
Albert King - Born Under a Bad Sign
Waylon Jennings - Love of the Common Man
Kinks - Something Else by the Kinks
Doors - Strange Days
Arlo Guthrie - Alice's Restaurant
Gladys Knight and the Pips - Everybody Needs Love (debut)
Vanilla Fudge (debut)
Cream - Disraeli Gears
Moody Blues - Days of Future Past
Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour
Love - Forever Changes
Jimi Hendrix Experience - Axis: Bold as Love
The Who - Sell Out
Miles Davis - Sorcerer

1971- Rock's Greatest Year

To be fair, this idea is not new. There are plenty of music nerds out there who have played this same game. David Hepworth wrote about 1971 as being special in Never a Dull Moment: 1971 The Year that Rock Exploded (2016). So close to the close of the '60s, 1971 piggybacks on 1967, sharing common themes. Due to a variety of circumstances, 1971 saw a massive output of talent, older bands coming out with some of their best material, new groups putting together fresh sounds, an overarching idea that creativity wont last forever and there is no point in overworking something when usually the first ideas are the best.

In addition to the albums released in 1971, The Eagles, New York Dolls, Foghat, Earth Wind and Fire, Manfred Man, and Wings were all founded this year.

Some of the 1971 releases are below for your consideration:

Carol King - Tapestry
Jethro Tull - Aqualung
James Taylor - Mudslide Slim and the Blue Horizon
Carly Simon (debut)
The Doors - LA Woman
Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers
Paul and Linda McCartney - Ram
The Carpenters
Marvin Gaye - What's Goin On
Rod Stewart - Every Picture Tells a Story
Emerson Lake and Palmer - Tarkus
Joni Mitchell - Blue
Hot Tuna - First Pull Up, then Pull Down
Funkadelic - Maggot Brain
Black Sabbath - Master of Reality
Moody Blues - Every Good Boy Deserves Favor
The Who - Who's Next
Al Green Gets Next to You
John Lennon - Imagine
Santana III
Bee Gees - Trafalgar
Cat Stevens - Teaser and the Firecat
Frank Zappa - 200 Motels
Don McLean - American Pie (debut)
The Who - Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy
Van Morrison - Tupelo Honey
Curtis Mayfield - Roots
Led Zeppelin IV
Elton John - Madman Across the Water
Genesis - Nursery Cryme
Alice Cooper - Killer
Sly and the Family Stone - There's a Riot Goin On
David Bowie - Hunky Dory
Badfinger - Straight Up
John Prine (debut)

1987- Goddammit I hate the '80s!

Even though the 1980s is probably the worst decade for music (although 2000-2010 is pretty terrible too), it still had a bright spot, and 1987 seems to be the year, even though Bruce Willis released the Return of Bruno. Things start to get interesting in 1987, just as electronic sounds and drum machines appear to have taken over pop music, hip hop is gearing up to be taken more seriously, and punk/grunge/garage rock is poised to destroy glam metal once and for all. Below is a little look into some of those releases, and once again, if the record isn't considered a top 100 record, it is still probably considered to be a huge influence on one or more genres in the future. The Smiths and Pixies records are good examples. In addition, Alice in Chains, Danzig, Fugazi, Gin Blossoms, Kid N Play, Nirvana, and Operation Ivy were all founded.

The Smiths - The World Wont Listen (debut)
The Smiths - Louder than Bombs
DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince - Rock the House (debut)
Anthrax - Among the Living
Butthole Surfers - Locust Abortion Technician (debut)
U2 - Joshua Tree
Prince - Sign O the Times
the Cult - Electric
Public Enemy - Yo, Bum Rush the Show (debut)
Whitney Houston- Whitney (debut)
the Cure - Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me
LL Cool J - B.A.D (debut)
Heart - Bad Animals
Sonic Youth - Sister
the Replacements - Pleased to Meet Me (debut)
Boy George - Sold
Echo and the Bunnymen (debut)
Grateful Dead - In the Dark
Eric B and Rakim - Paid in Full (debut)
Guns N Roses - Appetite for Destruction (debut)
Tom Waits - Frank's Wild Years
Michael Jackson - Bad
George Michael - Faith (debut)
Pixies - Come on Pilgrim
Ice T - Rhyme Pays (debut)

1994 - The Beginning of the End

The 1990s has been revered by many now between their 30s and 40s, mostly due to nostalgia. Children's programming on television was bonkers. Everything got pierced or tattooed. The internet, laptops and cell phones were very new things. Music hit a turning point from the innovations made in the late 80s to the industry-led, cookie cutter, pop factory made sounds that ultimately killed rock and roll and country and drove hip hop back underground. Everything became digitized, recording studios became smaller, more efficient, cleaner.

1994 was the pivot year. Kurt Cobain died, Green Day exploded, and the grunge/alternative revelation of the past few years crumbled and gave way to a wave of pop-surfer-emo punk rock that would hang around in mediocrity for the next 10 years. Nas happened, Biggie and Tupac happened, The Wu-Tang Clan was huge, which spurred another golden age for hip hop. The next generation of the British Invasion kicked off too this year. Jam bands, a second generation of 60's inspired rock groups, took off in a major way. 1994 was also the year of Girl Power, the careers of Liz Phair, Tori Amos, Veruca Salt, and Hole all took off. There are a few strong debuts from groups who would make large footprints in the next decade and a half, including one of the best albums of all time, Jeff Buckley's Grace.

Alice in Chains - Jar of Flies
Tori Amos - Under the Pink
Green Day - Dookie
Ben Harper - Welcome to the Cruel World (debut)
Cake - Motorcade of Generosity (debut)
Pavement - Crooked Rain Crooked Rain
Beck - Mellow Gold
Elvis Costello - Brutal Youth
Nine Inch Nails - Downward Spiral
Soundgarden - SuperUnknown
Phish - Hoist
Pink Floyd - The Division Bell
Offspring - Smash
Hole - Live Through This
Nas - Illmatic (debut)
Blur - Parklife
Johnny Cash - American Recordings
Outkast - southernplayalisticadillacmuzik (debut)
Sonic Youth - Experimental Jet Set, Trash, and No Star
Weezer (debut)
Beastie Boys - Ill Communication
Seal II
Purple - Stone Temple Pilots
Warren G - Regulate: G Funk Era (debut)
Aaliyah - Age Aint Nothin but a Number (debut)
Da Brat - Funkdafied (debut)
Hootie and the Blowfish - Cracked Rear View (debut)
Live - Throwing Copper
Coolio - It Takes a Thief (debut)
Marilyn Manson - Portrait of an American Family (debut)
NoFX - Punk in Drublic
Jeff Buckley - Grace (debut)
Rusted Root - When I Woke
Oasis - Definitely Maybe (debut)
Boys II Men - II
Usher (debut)
Bad Religion - Stranger than Fiction
Eric Clapton - From the Cradle
Notorious BIG - Ready to Die (debut)
Blues Traveler - 4
Liz Phair - Whip Smart
2 Pac - Thug Life: Volume 1
Veruca Salt - American Thighs (debut)
REM - Monster
Dave Matthews Band - Under the Table and Dreaming (debut)
The Cranberries - No Need to Argue
Korn (debut)
Jamiroquai - Return of the Space Cowboy
Black Crowes - Amorica
Nirvana - MTV Unplugged in New York
Tom Petty - Wildflowers
Guster - Parachute (debut)
TLC - CrazySexyCool
Mary J Blige - My Life
Pearl Jam - Vitalogy
Bush - Sixteen Stone (debut)

2007 - We Wont Go Quietly

Sometime between now and the close of the 90's, the corporate music model sucked the soul out of rock and roll. Music enthusiasts starting looking elsewhere for good music, and the rise of internet sharing gave us a marketplace. The first decade of the new millennium may be seen as a musical void, but 2007 is a bright spot. Indie music finally hit its stride, flourishing in the void. Our collective love of nostalgia created an opening for older acts to resurface for reunions. And occasionally, in the midst of formulaic genres like pop-punk, and whatever genre Nickelback created, there could still be some surprisingly good bands. There are always islands of good music, even in the face of an innovative decline.

The Smithereens - Meet the Smithereens!
Radiohead - Rainbows
Avett Brothers - Emotionalism
Kanye West - Graduation
Timbaland - Shock Value
Feist - the Reminder
Jay Z - American Gangster
Kittie - Funeral for Yesterday
Modest Mouse - We were Dead even Before the Ship Sank
Norah Jones - Not Too Late
Wilco - Sky Blue Sky
Bjork - Volta
Kings of Leon - Because of the Times
the National - the Boxer
Paramore - Riot
Arcade Fire - Neon Bible
Bright Eyes - Cassadaga
White Stripes - Icky Thump
MIA - Kala
Metric - Grow Up and Blow Away
Rihanna - Good Girl Gone Bad
Spoon - GaGaGaGaGaGa
Talib Kweli - Eardrum
Teagan and Sara - the Con
St. Vincent - Marry Me
Linkin Park - Minutes to Midnight
Andrew Bird - Armchair Apocrypha
Bright Eyes - Cassadaga
the Weakerthans - Reunion Tour
Rilo Kiley - Under the Blacklight


I think, after all has been considered, 1994 would be my choice as best year in music, all time. This is not to say that there haven't been major influential albums produced in other years, or artists from other decades who didn't leave very important footprints. But I do think 1994 was the last (so far) watershed year for several genres and subgenres, rock in particular, but also country music, and hip hop. Since then there has been very little innovation within genres. Corporate music making has killed country and rock as genres. And hip hop, while it continues to redefine itself, had an explosive year in 1994.

Please leave comments (no one reads anyway) challenging my opinion, I welcome the discussion. But please, be cordial, and come with some good arguments for why I'm wrong and your choice is better.

RIP: Ray Beez

Warzone

Fight for Justice

1997, Victory

produced by Tony Brummel

Raymond "Ray Beez" Barbieri - vocals

Jason "J-Sin" Lehrhoff - guitars
"Vinnie Value" Verga - drums
Todd "the Kidd" Hamilton - bass

Warzone started in New York in the early '80s, and along with Agnostic Front, brought the hardcore scenes of Washington and LA to the Big Apple. Not only was Ray Beez and Warzone at the forefront of the scene, but they helped to mentor younger bands well into the '90s. Tragically, this record was their last, as Ray Beez passed away from pneumonia at age 35.

Ray Beez is remembered for being a leader in the scene, a mentor to younger talent, a US Navy veteran, an advocate for at-risk youth, and an opponent of racism, classism, and misogyny. 

Political Science for Beginners as Taught by a Beginner

The political/social climate in the United States has taken a turn in the last 20 years to a very strange and dangerous place. I have come to a few conclusions about this whole mess, and have posted about a few things awhile ago that I realize, looking back at it now, foreshadowed what was to happen in our 2016 election. 

I find myself having discussions with people in bars, or on the Facebook (I can't help it) and have come to the conclusion that Trump supporters either A: have attempted to place Trump into a political box where he doesn't fit, or B: behave like politics is a sport like football. 

I understand Republicans who voted with the party and expected Trump to align with party platforms and agendas and at least attempt to be a competent administrator. After all, he ran a campaign based on the incompetency of government while holding up a record of business success as proof he could do better than everyone else. However, based on what I have seen from this guy, his public appearances, speeches, tweets, I see no evidence that he knows or understands his job requirements. Attempting to pin any sort of political strategy to this guy seems like a folly. As Occum's Razor states, the simplest explanation is probably the truth, and based on everything we've seen since Trump started campaigning should lead us to believe he, in fact, is not some kind of political mastermind with any sort of plan, strategy, or anything resembling competence.

There are some very smart conservative economics, political science, and business people out there who have attempted to explain their support for the guy, but it all sounds like they're talking about a different guy. This isn't Nixon, or Reagan, or even Barry Goldwater, he is singularly unique, and we should probably frame him as such, instead of trying to box him up in any sort of political/economic/social platform. 

Recently, I, like many people, have attempted to understand rabid Trump supporters who refuse to take in all of what has happened since the election campaigns began, and form the seemingly obvious opinion that this dude was not fit for office. I think I have some kind of grasp on it, and it comes down to two things: 

1: Not having a clear understanding of what government does and how it operates. Government, contrary to what Fox News says, does not and should not operate like a business. But I hear many people make comments about how the private sector runs similar government ventures far more smoothly. Trying to run a government like a business, however, becomes a problem when tax money is seen as available profit to be reaped by private contractors, instead of money to be used to budget for what the taxpayers need. As an example, read all about private prisons. 

2: Treating politics like a competition. I figured out, while trying and failing to use reason with Trump supporters, that they are not interested at all in eventual outcomes due to Trump-led policies. Actually, they don't seem interested in politics. This is partly due to a disillusionment with modern politics, but also a short-term historic memory, ignorance of political history, and probably just an inability to understand politics in general. But they understand winning a competition, and an election sure looks like a competition. It appears that winning an election is more important than the consequences of that win.

I think, because of an inability to grasp what politics is, how government works, and what the political parties stand for has led these people to just pick a side. The liberal Left has been seen as this elitist, out of touch group of know-it-all arrogant rich kids, who all seem to be Democrats. If one feels like they have to pick a side, and the Democrats are all snobs, perhaps picking the party which appears to be all about the hard working, no nonsense, proud patriot bible carrying Americans is a good choice. And so, instead of a Trump victory signifying more of the same graft and corruption with a lean towards Facism, it signifies to these people as a win over the arrogant Left.

This attitude of glorifying success and reveling in the other side's demise reminds me so very much of athletic competition. Trump supporters talk about the election in the same way American hockey fans talk about the 1980 Olympics, or Red Sox fans talk about the 2004 ALCS and World Series. It isn't about the policies and legislation Trump will bring to American politics, but more about defeating the Evil Empire of Obama/Hillary Democrats. 

That all aside, I think this country needs to revisit civics. Professor Murdaco posted a very lengthy lecture on The American Political System. It's very well done.

I do think it is very interesting how people perceive our system, and how very easily the terms Left and Right get interchanged with Democrat and Republican. Above is a graphic that illuminates the political spectrum, and has laid American political groups along that line.

According to Marx, the spectrum goes from the Radical Left, to the Reactionary Right, those being the two extremes. Lately the term Reactionary has fallen out of favor and Radical is used to describe both extremes. Ideally, the middle of the spectrum is where the Independents lie. I find this to be disingenuous. Technically, an Independent voter doesn't subscribe to either major political party, but is more often than not allied politically along the spectrum, not truly balanced in the middle. For example, I am registered as an Independent, but politically I lean to the Left. I know others that are also Independent voters but are far more conservative.

The terms Liberal and Conservative come to mean a few things. Liberal can mean using resources generously. It also can mean a progressive view open to new ideas, behaviors, and changes. Liberal, then, in a nutshell, is the idea that we have new information that can show us how to change to be better.

In contrast, conservative can mean preserving, saving, and protecting resources, cautiously using them over time in planned, deliberate ways. It can also mean preserving traditional values, and the status quo. Conservative, then, in a nutshell, is the idea that we already know how to do things, it's all been working well, why change?

In addition, our political party system is not mutually exclusive to the political spectrum. The Democratic Party has not always been on the Left of center. Dixiecrats, a southern sect of the Democratic Party, are responsible for seceding from the Union, Jim Crow, the Klan, and a host of other racially charged legislation. Republicans also have not always been where they lie now on the political spectrum. Lincoln was a Republican, and a Progressive.

It becomes apparent, from this last election, and going forward, the people all want change, and the status quo just is not working for anyone except large GOP donors. The Democrats tried to run a conventional campaign in a country that is fed up with convention. The GOP was unprepared for Trump hijacking their primary and running on Nationalism wrapped up in a false promise of political change.

Perhaps, if we all start to educate each other on what this all means, as Americans, and stop trying to pick sides, we'll be able to all get the change we want.

Crossmarketing for Pictures

I realized today that I used to do blogposts here about stuff I would see and take pictures of while working. I don't really do that anymore, mostly because I started using the 'gram. So, I'll link that shit here, and you can follow me there, for all my nature, food, nature food, and stupid selfie pics.

Symbols Mean Things

As human beings, I think personal identity is an important thing. It is why religion is so important and why we create exclusive clubs, and put so much importance in professional sports and local high school athletics. In the United States, this idea of personal identity, answering the question "who am I?" is wound up in the dual question of "what is America?"

We tend to answer these questions with a variety of easily accessible categories with easily displayable symbols and themes. For example, an Irish Catholic American hockey fan from Boston may display shamrocks, rosaries and crosses, Boston Bruins logos, and American flags to show pride in his identity. The definition of a person, therefore, can be displayed in a series of recognizable logos, designs, colors, and symbols.

The one problem with summing up personal identity through symbols is when anti-intellectualism begins to blur the lines between what the signifier wants to say about himself, and what the symbols are actually signifying. A very good example is the redneck culture clinging to the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of freedom, good ole boy country living, and Southern Pride, when in fact it is a symbol of armed treason against the United States in response to northern states pushing for an end to slavery.

In response to this, I often find myself saying things like "that doesn't mean what you think it means", mostly to myself when I see stupid memes, or bumper stickers and flags hung from houses (or the backs of pick-ups). Here are some other examples...

Before I start, and before I get a large amount of hate mail from keyboard cowboys, I do understand how difficult being a police officer can be, or any public authority figure, for that matter. Most police officers are good people, I'm sure. Realistically, not every cop out there is a terrible person. Generalizations are indefensible. This isn't a police-bashing post.

This particular flag is used, presumably, to show support for law enforcement. Lately, it has been popping up probably in response to the Black Lives Matter movement. I personally do not see why it would be necessary unless you feel the need to show how much you don't support Black Lives Matter. But, let's just assume the person flying this flag really does support the police with no other agenda or desire to signify something else entirely.

The symbol, as shown above, is a combination of the flag of the United States of America, and the Thin Blue Line. The Blue Line is an analogy coined in the UK. Specifically, the police are the thin blue line separating civilization from anarchy.

On the surface, combining the two symbols together appears to be an homage to American law enforcement. However, I would argue it is a symbol advocating for martial law, one nation under the thin blue line. The American flag is a symbol of the Republic. and the Thin Blue Line is a symbol of Law and Order. Put them together and you have a symbol for a Law and Order Republic.

The emergence of the popularity of this symbol in conjunction with the Black Lives Matter movement aimed at police reform, ending racial profiling, and holding the police accountable seems more than mere coincidence. If the response to the goals of Black Lives Matter is to throw blind support behind law enforcement, the only conclusion that can be made is they support an untethered, self regulating law and order establishment, in short, an America ruled by an overbearing authority.

It's either that, or just plain old American racism.

I hate this symbol. I have a problem with any home made sign or bumper sticker telling me what to do. But this one I find extremely problematic. Perhaps it is just a cute way for parents to show everyone else driving behind them that they just had a baby, and they're super proud of it. I suppose that is a weird way to show narcissism. 

What I see, though, is a yellow street sign. Diamond shaped yellow traffic signs designate caution. They are posted to give warning to drivers with the expectation of slower, more cautious driving. So, this placard then would mean "there is a baby in my backseat, you all need to drive more careful". 

I call bullshit. First of all, don't tell me what to do, you aren't the traffic commision. Second of all, I didn't decide to have a kid, you did. it's your responsibility to keep it safe, not everyone else's. No one should be expected to modify their lives because you wanted a family. Third, your choice to procreate is a terrible reason for me to want to drive safe. I already figured out while driving I can only control my own driving, and no one else's. I have my own reasons to not drive like an idiot, I don't need your reasons also. 

Just as an aside, I also hate those "drive like your kids live here" signs, or those neon plastic children that look like they're about to jump into traffic. I am driving like your kids live there, like a normal driver not worrying about stupid little people running into traffic. Be a parent, keep them out of the street. Also, those plastic children are a distraction. 

This is a pile of poo. Let's get that out of the way real quick. It's not whipped chocolate frosting, or soft serve ice cream. This emoji is the shit. Literally. Like all things seized by pop culture, this thing has been put on all sorts of merchandise, including plush hats. I don't just mean the emoji is embroidered or reproduced on a hat. The hat is a giant poop that you can put on your head. I've seen kids wearing them. This means they probably got them from their parents, who either don't know what it is (plausible), or are okay with their kids walking around as literal shit-heads (actually, that is pretty hilarious). 

As a recap, conclusion, closing, or whatever, I'd like to see more people take time to understand the things they are trying to say, or advertising with the symbols they choose to promote, as unambiguously as possible. It's probably too much to ask at this point, but a little time and research into things could save a few dirty looks from the public. We don't all have to be Professor Langdon to understand symbolism, just take a few minutes to Google some things. 

Another Win for American Indians and Prehistoric Mammals!

The other day Amherst College announced a change to their school mascot. Previously, the college apparently had no official mascot, but Lord Jeffrey Amherst was considered an unofficial mascot. Amherst College claims to have the oldest collegiate athletics department in the United States, and competes in the NCAA division III as part of the Little Three in the New England Small College College Athletic Conference.

The college, founded in 1821 in Amherst, Massachusetts, was technically named after the town. However, the town was named for Lord Jeffrey Amherst, First Baron Amherst, hero of the Seven Years War, known in the United States as the French and Indian War. Afterward, he was appointed Governor-General of British North America.

As Governor-General, Lord Jeff oversaw the defense against Pontiac's Rebellion. The controversy stems from his suggestion in 1763 to use smallpox as a biological weapon against Pontiac's allies. This has been historically preserved through a letter chain between him and his subordinate Colonel Henry Bouquet. The letters express not just a desire to eliminate combatants, but to "extirpate this execrable race".

The town of Amherst has also wrestled with its namesake, and there have been petitions to change the town's name as well. Even though Lord Jeff had put his stamp on the region (Amherst, MA is not the only place to bear his name in the Northeast), his legacy as a war hero is tarnished by his participation in passive genocide.

Amherst College, however, has indeed decided to take steps to distance themselves from Lord Jeff and his history with Indian extermination. There is a hotel on campus that bore Lord Jeff's name, and that too will be renamed, according to Cullen Murphy of the Amherst board.

As before there appears to not have been an official Amherst College mascot, now the school has adopted one. The Beneski Museum of Natural History on campus has a complete mammoth skeleton, unearthed by Amherst professor Fredrick Loomis in 1913. And so, Amherst begins a new chapter, with a new official mascot, the Amherst Mammoth. Congratulations!

A quick google search for "mammoth mascot logos" proves mammoths could be potentially terrifying. There are a few mammoth mascots already. The Colorado club from the National Lacrosse League and HC Ugra from the KHL both use the Mammoth, and also the Omaha franchise from the now defunct FXFL were the Mammoths. Both Tufts and Alabama have elephant mascots, which are almost the same thing. All of these examples lead me to believe the newly chosen mascot has potential. I look forward to seeing Amherst College's new identity unfold in the coming months.

Battle of Man and Machine

Recently, there has been a focus on an American labor force that has been displaced. The Conservative Right has successfully blamed migrant workers and overseas outsourcing. But realistically, the jobs do not exist anymore for manual laborers, they have been steadily replaced by automation. Technology has replaced good old fashioned man power.

Folklore sometimes uses fables to illustrate actual struggles within society. The story of John Henry has been used for decades by labor and civil rights movements, but it best highlights the changes presented during the Industrial Revolution and the losing battle against technological innovation. Industrial and technological advances have drastically changed economies, and this particular song echoes themes and issues still at the heart of our society.

Not only is the story of John Henry a fable for displacement of labor at the hands of technological advancement, but it is also a story of equality. Of all the American folk stories of the last 200 years, John Henry is one of a few that feature a hero of color, and probably the only one easily recognized by most of the public. John Henry is a black man. Not only is he a black man, but presumably a free black man, and a symbol of a hard working man in pre civil rights America.

The story of John Henry has been translated to song many times in a few different ways, but essentially the story is the same, and ends in tragedy. The many musicians to record songs about the American folk hero include Pete Seeger, Ramblin Jack Elliot, Mississippi John Hurt, Harry Belafonte, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Johnny Cash, Van Morrison, and Bruce Springsteen.

The lyrics seem to be pretty standard, although I can't find evidence of a credible writing credit. Songs usually share 3 parts, young John Henry foreshadowing his fate, the race against the machine, and John Henry's wife taking up where his legacy left off. I've included the lyrics to Pete Seeger's version below.

John Henry was about three days old,
sittin' on his papa's knee.
He picked up a hammer and a little piece of steel;
said, "Hammer's gonna be the death of me, Lord, Lord.
Hammer's gonna be the death of me."
The captain said to John Henry
"Gonna bring that steam drill 'round.
Gonna bring that steam drill out on the job.
Gonna whop that steel on down. Down,
Down.
Whop that steel on down."
John Henry told his captain,
"A man ain't nothin' but a man,
But before I let your steam drill beat me
down,
I'd die with a hammer in my hand. Lord,
Lord.
I'd dies with a hammer in my hand."
John Henry said to his shaker,
"Shaker, why don't you sing?
I'm throwin' thirty pounds from my hips on
down.
Just listen to that cold steel ring. Lord, Lord.
Listen to that cold steel ring."
The man that invented the stream drill
Thought he was mighty fine,
But John Henry made fifteen feet;
The steam drill only made nine. Lord, Lord.
The steam drill only made nine.
John Henry hammered in the mountain
His hammer was striking fire.
But he worked so hard, he broke his poor
heart.
He laid down his hammer and he died. Lord,
Lord.
He laid down his hammer and he died.
John Henry had a little woman.
Her name was Polly Ann.
John Henry took sick and went to his bed.
Polly Ann drove steel like a man. Lord,
Lord.
Polly Ann drove steel like a man.
John Henry had a little baby.
You could hold him in the palm of your
hand.
The last words I heard that poor boy say,
"My daddy was steel-driving man. Lord,
Lord.
My daddy was a steel-driving."
Well, every Monday morning
When the bluebirds begin to sing.
You can hear John Henry a mile or more.
You can hear John Henry's hammer ring.
Lord, Lord.
You can hear John Henry's hammer ring.

California Redskins: an Update

Awhile ago, I wrote about Governor Brown from California signing a law to ban the Redskins mascot from all California schools. At the time, there were still four schools left in the state that used the mascot. Go here for that original blurb. It's at the end of this piece on Lancaster, NY. Also, smash that CalSchoolNews banner for this new follow-up article.

As an update, the time is officially up for those four California schools. What did they choose to do?

Gustine High decided to do what many other schools have done in the last few decades, and opt for identifying as a color or colored animal in place of racism. They are now The Reds, and use a stylized letter G as a logo/symbol. Well done!

Calveras High School has preferred to "stick it to the man" by removing their Redskins name and replacing it with nothing. Sort of. They still use their Indian iconography. This does follow the mandate, but exploits a loophole that pretty much undermines the whole point of the mandate to start with.

Speaking of missing the point, the remaining two schools, Cowchilla and Tulare Union changed their mascots also, per the law. They both identify as The Tribe now, and both unsurprisingly have also kept their Indian iconography.

So, really, only Gustine understood the point of this excercise.

No one believes change will come easy, especially with regards to generations old allegiances to mascots important to adolescent athletics. This is still a step in the right direction, and eventually even the iconography will change.

The Chocolate Covered Descent into Hell

I like to waste my time reading articles from sites like Cracked, or The Chive that have headlines like "Top Ten Useless Things from Stupid Crap That You Argue About in Bars with Casual Friends". I like these posts mostly because I like neat convenient lists of things, and also because a lot of that nonsense is stuff that I already think about, and it's nice to see other people's perspectives and then wonder how they can be so wrong about everything.

Recently, I read Fan Theories that will Make These Movies even Freakier on The Chive. The link is on the banner below. The premise of the post was the fan communities for these various films had these radical ideas about what the movies were really about that made them better/scarier/weirder? The poster was absolutely right about most of them being freaky. The Kevin McCallister is Jigsaw theory is my favorite.

But Home Alone/Saw mashups is not what I'm writing about today. Explore that mindfuck on your own time. I really want to get at this Roald Dahl/Dante collaboration. It is on the list above, but it doesn't really fit into the Fan Theory part of the post, as it may be intentional.

I did a few searches for anything on the internet to corroborate this idea, but there isn't anything from official Roald Dahl sources, and nothing on fan sites or articles about the fan theory really delves into the source material on more than superficial levels. I also couldn't find anything linking the original book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to the Divine Comedy. It is all about the film. So... here is a look at the comparisons of the Divine Comedy by Dante, and the actual Charlie and the Chocolate Factory written by Roald Dahl.

mmm stuck in all that frozen chocolate!

The Divine Comedy, if you didn't know, follows the 14th century (AD) Italian author Dante, and his spectral buddy Virgil (the actual 1st century BC Roman poet who wrote the Aeneid) as he climbs down into Hell, and then back up through Purgatory and into Heaven. The work is in three parts, the Inferno, which people are most familiar, the Purgatorio, and the Paradiso. For this discussion, Inferno is really the only important thing. Here are the basic important stuff we need to glean from the Inferno:

• Dante outlines Hell in a way and with such detail as no one else before had done, and influenced the way people thought about Hell ever since. The sign outside the door that says "Abandon Hope all Ye Who Enter Here" is Dante.
• Hell is designed in tiers, or levels that descend deeper and deeper. Dante specified 9 Circles of Hell divided into 3 distinct parts that coincided with certain types of sins. The first few levels of Lust, Gluttony, and Greed are considered the levels of incontinence, sins of the flesh. These levels culminate in the City of Dis, the city of anger. The 6th Circle, for Heresy, begins the circles of Violence. Level 7 is divided into 3 rings for Violence. Violence toward Others, Violence to Yourself, and Violence to God/Nature are separated out. Finally the 8th and 9th circles are all about Fraud and Treachery. At the very bottom of Hell, in the deepest part of the 9th circle is Satan, Lucifer the Light Bringer, the greatest traitor of all.
• Dante doesn't go through hell alone. He is guided by Virgil, a classic writer who has been dead for 1400 years.
• Souls in each circle of Hell are beset upon by various demons meant to pay them back for their specific sins. For example, Gluttons are attacked by Cerberus, Harpies and Centaurs go after the Violent, horned demons persecute the Frauds.

and over there are the flaming caskets for the unruly kids...

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was written by Roald Dahl and published by Alfred Knopf Inc in 1964. It was followed up by a film in 1971 starring the late great Gene Wilder (pictured above), directed by Mel Stuart. Basically, the plot involves a boy, Charlie, who wins a chance to tour a famous chocolate factory with four other lucky winners and their parents. The factory is owned by infamous recluse Willie Wonka who guides the tour with the hope of finding an heir to his business in the process. One by one, each candidate falls prey to their idiosyncrasies and gets kicked off the tour, leaving Charlie as the last survivor. Sounds promising so far. Here are some important things about this book:

• The factory is divided into rooms. Each room has a different theme, and a different tourist does something stupid in each room and gets kicked out.
• The factory is run by oompa loompas, little orange men from another "country". They also have to clean up after each tourist screws up, and are involved in escorting them out of the factory in one piece.
• Each contestant/tourist/winner has a foible, a personality flaw that then leads to that character's downfall. For example, Veruca Salt is a self entitled brat, and her greed leads her to attempt to take one of the highly trained counting squirrels in the Nut Room. She ends up throw down the garbage chute.
• There are 5 children who go through the tour, with their 5 chaperone parents. They seem to correspond to a few of the 7 Deadly Sins. These characters are:
1. Charlie Bucket. Charlie is obviously Dante in this scenario. He is praised at the end for refusing to indulge in vice.
2. Augustus Gloop, the fat kid. Gluttony, naturally
3. Violet Beauregard. Pride.
4. Veruca Salt. Greed. She's essentially a high-class, snobby garbage person.
5. Mike Teavee. Sloth. His obsession with television keeps him from doing anything else.

Aside from the obvious themes of Cause and Effect, Sin and Consequence, and paying for your poor behavior, there is a case to be made that Roald Dahl set out to create a Dante's Inferno fable for children from the beginning. There are different rooms, like the different circles, where a different child ends up failing. There are inhuman oompa loompas that live there and "aid" the tormented, much like the demons. Wonka acts like Virgil, leading the group through. Charlie, like Dante, observing everything without fully participating in the madness.

Despite all of this I wasn't completely convinced of this theory. There being no direct correlation to Dahl characters and Dante's 9 circles being a huge hole. There are only 5 child tourists after all. If Wonka is Virgil, and Charlie is Dante, that means the other 4 kids have to be metaphors for sinners in 9 different circles? The characters don't really match up to sins from Dante anyway. Where is the angry kid? the lustful one? the scheming fraudster? It doesn't add up. 

However, I then read about extra characters and chapters left out of the original publication. There were a few things left out and rewritten by Dahl as suggested by the publishing company. There apparently were plans for 10 Golden Tickets for 10 contestants/tourists originally, which would correspond to the 9 Circles of Hell, plus one ticket for Dante/Charlie.

There are also a few missing chapters published from earlier drafts. Spotty Powder, The Vanilla Fudge Room, and Warming Candy Room, all feature extra characters. These chapters did not go through extra edits, and some of the character elements pop up in other characters.

• Miranda Piker is a strict no-nonsense, "humorless" school girl, daughter of a Headmaster. She goes on an angry, violent tirade to try and sabotage Spotty Powder, a sugary substance that briefly makes the eater break out in hives, so they can fake being sick and skip school. She would undoubtedly be the sin of Anger, and probably fill the Circle of Anger, and/or the Circle of Violence.  
• The Warming Candy Room is about 3 characters Clarence Clump, Bertie Upside, and Terence Roper who eat an excessive amount of warming candies, which heat people up from the inside, so they can be out in cold weather and still be nice and warm. Eating too many of course, ends in them having to end the tour in a cold room. This may have been an early attempt to fit the Sin of Lust into a kids' book without having to talk about sex. Getting "worked up and over-heated", and then having to spend time "cooling off" sound like dirty metaphors to me.

These are only the missing chapters and early drafts that have been found to survive, but they certainly give an insight into how the process changed. Who knows what other plans Dahl had in mind.

Lastly there is a character mentioned briefly in the book. Arthur Slugworth is a past adversary to Willie Wonka. He is another rival candy maker. Slugworth is responsible for Wonka's public disappearance due to corporate espionage that allowed Slugworth to steal and copy Wonka's ideas. If Dahl had originally started out to do a direct homage to Dante, then Slugworth would be the ultimate villain. The bottom of Hell is reserved for Fraud and Treachery, and Slugworth certainly fits that bill. Slugworth, though, becomes a passing thought, a distant memory to fill in the plot hole of why this factory had been shuttered for so long, enshrined in secrecy.

Ultimately, though, I think upon further investigation, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory can not be linked directly to Dante's Inferno. There is too much missing, and too much would need to be stretched to fit. However, I do think that perhaps Dahl had meant to write his book this way, but through rewrites and issues with the publisher, settled for a fable of children meeting consequences for behaving poorly instead of a masterful homage to a great literary work. 

Also to help destroy this otherwise awesome theory that I wish were true: apparently Dahl had originally planned for 3 books about Charlie and Willie Wonka. 3 books to coincide with the 3 parts of the Divine Comedy, right? But the Great Glass Elevator, which follows the Chocolate Factory story has nothing to do with an ascent through Purgatory. It has to do with space and nasty aliens, and the White House, and all sorts of weirdness. So, nevermind. 

Friendly Neighborhood Debate: Best Villains Ever?

Recently, a friend of mine, also with a silly little blog, wrote a post about the Definitive Top 10 Fictional Villains of Pretty Much Everything (in my Opinion). You can go over to Wordpress and read from the Waiting in Suspencer blog right now if you choose. I don't usually do this, but here is my rebuttal, because quite frankly, I enjoy a good debate and comparisons of fictional characters is enjoyable.

The Rules:

• One villain only from any one franchise. For example, even though He-man and the Masters of the Universe has several villains to choose from, you have to pick only one from that franchise.
• Anti-Heroes don't count. In the words of the Suspencer, "If you're going to be bad, be bad". So, none of this Catwoman, Venom, Man with No Name flipfloppy bullshit.
• Villains are pulled from all fictional mediums, right? So, film, comics, literature, they all count as long as it's fictional. So, Hitler, even though he pops up in all mediums and even things like Castle Wolfenstein and Danger 5 where he barely resembles actual historic Hitler, doesn't count. That would be too easy.

Alternative Facts

Starting from the bottom, without further ado, here is my rebuttal to the Top Ten Fictional Villains of Pretty Much Everything. I'll start at the bottom with number 10.

TEN: Darth Vader

Anakin "Darth Vader" Skywalker, the man Hooper X once called the "Blackest Brother in the Galaxy", starts off the list on the bottom. I agree with my friend here. If Disney decides to uncannonize the prequels and redo them, Vader may rise through the list. But as it stands now, knowing it didn't take much aside from jealous love to turn him to the Dark Side makes him kind of pathetic. Vader may border on the Anti-Hero, which, according to the rules, puts him out of contention anyway.

There are some problems with Vader's evilness that I still don't understand. He is a towering presence, "more machine than man" with telekinetic abilities. Why are Imperial generals so quick to dismiss him? True they get force-choked into submission, but seriously, at the time of A New Hope, he surely has the reputation as the dude in charge that you don't fuck with. All that time of being terrifying and your subordinates still don't respect and fear you?

Also, technically, he isn't even the real main antagonist in the entire story. Palpatine, Darth Sidious, is the driving force behind all the evil in the universe, supposedly. He is a master manipulator and is able to turn and control one of the most force sensitive people in the universe, and use him as a weapon. We'll get to characters like Palpatine later though. For now, being subservient gets Vader moved to the  back of the bus.

NINE: HIM

Yes, that is a transgendered clown looking dude with crab pincers for hands. And yes, it is a villain from the cartoon the Powerpuff Girls. Shut up, and let me explain. This particular villain is really the only character the Powerpuff Girls actually fear. He is called "so sinister, so evil, so scary, so horribly vile that even the utterance of his name strikes fear in the hearts of men". Not bad for a red skinned dude in a tutu and heels. He is some kind of demon, perhaps THE demon. Negative feelings, like those that give Vader the power of the Dark Side, also empower Him. Like the Hulk, more negative feelings mean stronger powers. He can possess children's toys and speak through them, which is all sorts of horror movie creepy. Also telekinetic. Also can raise people from the dead. Also controls monsters.

This particular villain is so out of place on this show. It's a cartoon made for kids starring 3 super powered child heroes. The other villains are a green monkey with a giant brain, a pink fuzzy big foot thief, and a stuck-up rich girl princess. The Lord of Darkness kind of stands apart from the usual suspects on this show. It would be like if Vader suddenly turned up on an episode of My Little Pony.

The reason HIM is on this list is because he is truly terrifying in an otherwise silly kids show. Maya Angelou once said people forget what you say, but never forget how you make them feel. And that is why HIM is scary. Laura Duca from the HuffPost wrote that Him is "the most terrifying villain to ever take a bath on the small screen", so bad that we forget he is probably the "first plausible transgendered character" on television.

MW Bychowski explained HIM being so terrifying because of this inability to sort him out into a normative category. She writes, "Terror as well as wonder can be created by making bodies illegible to our frameworks of understanding". The dragqueen makes for a wonderful visual of terror.

EIGHT: Cruella De Vil

I know, at first this doesn't appear to be that terrible of an evil villain. But just like HIM, let me explain. Firstly, the character is not just the Disney portrayed witch with a demented fur fetish who looks like Skeletor's mom. She's originally from the book by Dodie Smith, and like all Disney properties, she's way way worse. She is an heiress to a modest family fortune, treats people as beneath her, and kidnaps puppies in order to skin them and make a coat. She needs the puppy fur, you see, because if they get older, dog hair becomes too coarse to make comfy coats. Also, she has a Siamese cat that she detests, but keeps it because it's valuable. But every time the cat has kittens, the litter gets drowned... so they aren't that valuable, I guess.

She makes the list for living up to her namesake. Cruelty for the sake of beauty and vanity makes her pretty much a garbage person. The fact that she is willing to destroy life not only for the sake of her own material desires, but also because those lives are inconvenient makes her a monster. Up until now our villains take lives for specific reasons, this woman does it for seemingly no reason at all except convenience.

SEVEN: Ernst Stavro Blofeld

From the mind of Ian Flemming comes a character who became a trope. As far as evil dudes go, Blofeld is pretty much your average super villain. He is the head of a worldwide criminal/terrorist organization which has its fingers in racketeering, espionage, grand theft, blackmail, murder, and of course world domination. The arch villain mastermind look, the middle aged, bald white dude with facial scars, and a pet white cat has become the defacto supervillain, used in Inspector Gadget, Austin Powers, and Pokémon, among others.

SIX: Bill Sikes

The bottom half of this list is rounded out by Charles Dickens's character from the wonderful world of the London underground in mid 1800s. Oliver Twist, the protagonist of the novel of the same name, is an orphan who gets introduced to and mixed up in the grimy criminal underground of London by Fagin. Fagin is a nasty dude who trains homeless boys as pickpockets, and he is pretty despicable. But Bill Sikes is a monster that even Fagin fears.

On the list this high purely for his savagery, Bill Sikes's story goes like this: presumably he was once one of Fagin's pickpockets, but now a grown man, he's become a burglar, breaking and entering. The man is described as a rough, barbaric man, aggressive and violent. He is the epitome of domestic abuse. He beats his girlfriend Nancy to death after believing she snitched on him. In the end, he hangs himself trying to escape from an angry mob.

While not sounding like a villain that should surpass Vader, or HIM, or even Cruella De Vil, the capacity for this man to murder, in the way that Dickens describes, tops even the cat drowner. He is an uncontrollable, amoral force of brutality. Sikes is the prototype for every muscle bound monster full of rage. He is an unremorseful, angry, unpredictable son of a bitch. And that is why he's up so high.Sikes is the realistic Jekyl and Hyde, only there is no Dr. Jekyl.

FIVE: Kurtz

I think, as a species, one of the most terrifying things is the thought of madness. And Kurtz, from Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, embodies madness. The story, in a nutshell, is about an ivory trader settled in the heart of the Congo, in Africa. The man suffers from delusions of grandeur, convinces the local population to deify him, worship him. Madness overtakes him.

Kurtz embodies Imperialism, and all the white burden atrocities associated with Colonialism. He is Columbus. He is the Triangle Trade. The partitioning of India, Apartheid, the Trail of Tears, he is all these things. He is the prototype for every villain who blurs the lines of sanity in order to fulfill ambition. Anyone who feels entitled to build success on the backs of other "inferior brutes".

Insanity, I think, is part of every good dark villainous character. The idea that a person can be betrayed by their own mind is frightening, and the best villains seem to be the ones that are no longer playing with a full deck of cards. Madness is a central theme in R Scott Bakker's novels. Sanity is debated in Alice in Wonderland. The best villains in A Song of Ice and Fire fall into madness. The Joker, the best villain in the comic book medium, is built around the idea of insanity. Kurts is a great exercise in mental fragility and what that can mean to a society.

FOUR: Hannibal Lector

Speaking of crazy people... Hannibal Lector comes in a number four. Fear is a major theme to my list, and Hannibal is one scary guy. Hannibal has been called the King of Hollywood Psychopaths. Samuel Leistedt, a forensic psychiatrist, lists "high intelligence, a vain cat-like demeanor, a prestigious career, a calm always in control attitude, and an unrealistic exceptional skill at killing people" as traits, a list of traits probably not found amongst your normal, average psychopath. In fact, Leistedt doesn't believe this sort of "elite psychopath" can truly exist and actually be a real psychopath in the clinical sense. This is probably why, in Red Dragon, they make it very clear he doesn't fit any known psychological profile.

Hannibal is a cannibal. The name rhymes. It's cute. William Arens wrote that charges of cannibalism by one society to another is a way to discredit the other society as inferior and set up a perception of cultural inferiority. Mythogical folklore also establishes cannibalism as taboo, often changing the cannibal into an actual monster, like the Algonquian wendigo, or the Arabic ghoul. In Germanic mythology, witches are said to eat people as well. Basically, in most cultures, eating another human being is probably the worst thing you can do.

Hannibal is something out of a true nightmare. He is highly intelligent, a psychiatrist and surgeon with an eidetic memory. He speaks 7 languages. Also he murders without hesitation, especially when he feels someone has been rude to him, or if they have poor manners. This is what makes him terrifying. He is smarter than you, quicker than you, stronger than you, and cares nothing for societal norms like "no killing", or "don't eat people". And he hides in plain sight, a sophisticated gentleman in a trustworthy white collar profession.

Hannibal has been the blueprint for every "elite psychopath" character created since. His traits have even leaked into newer portrayals of older characters like DC's Joker.

THREE: Iago

In my friend's original post on his own blog, he cited this character from a movie based on Shakespeare's Othello. This made no sense to me. If the character of Hugo from O is based on Iago from Othello, and the list is the best villains from all mediums, why not pick the source? A play is a fictional medium, so it isn't off limits. Anyway, Iago has become an archetype for villainy. Much like the other people on the list, he is so good at being evil, his traits get copied by everyone. Hugo from O is Iago, just in a different adaptation.

In case you aren't familiar, Iago is a masterful manipulator. During the play, he becomes angry when he doesn't get promoted by his boss, Othello. Othello promotes another dude, Cassio, instead. So, Iago decides to ruin everyone's lives. Not only does he get Cassio demoted, but then he makes it seem like Cassio and Othello's wife are having an affair, which leads to Othello killing her. Then Iago murders his accomplice, and the girl that reveals his plot. He does go to prison, but Othello commits suicide.

The Iago character, the trustworthy aide, the right hand man who turns into the treacherous unsuspected mastermind antagonist can be found everywhere in fiction. Every surprise double cross, every double agent, every seemingly humble friend hiding a vicious knife is a shade of Iago.

TWO: Professor James Moriarty

Probably the greatest of all the villains ever in fiction, Professor James Moriarty has become Sherlock Holmes's greatest and final foil. He is called the Napoleon of Crime. Like Iago, Moriarty is a master manipulator. But unlike Iago, he never actually commits any crimes. Moriarty is the head of an intricate crime ring, whose plots, designs, and leadership create sinister crimes. Moriarty is genius level smart, keeping himself from ever being implicated in his own schemes. Holmes states he is aloof from "general suspicion, so immune from criticism, so admirable in his management and self effacement" that even by being accused, says Holmes, he would sue and win and ruin your life legally.

If you took Iago, a malicious, conniving, backstabbing character beyond suspicion, and turn him from a jealous revenge schemer into a cold, calculating mob boss you would have Moriarty. Arthur Conan Doyle perfected the Iago archetype, and the only point of this creation was to kill off Sherlock Holmes. Moriarty influenced every white suited mobster criminal ever in fiction.

ONE: Sauron

Mythology and theology associated with it intrigue me. Which is why Star Wars appeals to me, as it is the mythology of the hero. JRR Tolkien created his own universe, complete with languages, mythologies and cultures. This creates a kind of depth that fantasy never had before. Sauron may seem like an obvious number one cop-out, but I can't think of another more well-rounded villain with this much depth, or influence.

Sauron is the primary antagonist of the Lord of the Rings. However, he never actually shows up in the novels, he is only a spirit in the form of a giant eye of fire atop a tower. The Eye of Sauron seems to have limited Omniscience, and is tied to the One Ring of Power.

The mythology of Middle Earth includes a parable for the existence of Evil, and Sauron plays a role. The Eru, the god-like being who creates everything, created the Ainur to help him with creation. One of the Ainur, called Melkor, turns bad and enters creation to corrupt it. Other Ainur also enter creation and become Valar (gods) and Maiar (wizards) in order to protect creation. One of these Maiar is known as Sauron. Melkor corrupts Sauron and makes him his Right Hand. Together they capture, torture and corrupt a band of elves, creating the first orcs.

So, there we have it. Definite parallels to Judeo-Christian mythos. The fallen archangel becomes the dark lord, creates demons and corrupts the innocent. Sauron actually seems to have influenced most of the other villains on this list, and some of the ones not on the list that maybe ought to be. For example:

Darth Vader. Corrupted by another greater evil. The Dark Lord of the Dark Lord, Vader carries out his master's bidding, much like Sauron carried out Melkor's bidding, until Melkor was cast out into the abyss.

Voldemort. Not only is Voldemort the Dark Lord that corrupts the wizarding world by championing the Dark Arts, but he imbues pieces of his soul into artifacts. The One Ring sure does sound like a horcrux to me. Also, Voldemort spends most of his time in those Harry Potter books trying to piece himself back together after having being incorporeal for decades.

Sauron has become the defacto archetype of the distant impending darkness. There are too many fanstasy/sci-fi stories that revolve around protagonists trying to keep antagonists from reintroducing some unfathomable ancient evil.

Sauron is the ultimate scheming, manipulating, behind the scenes planner. He is a giant eye ball on fire, and yet he can orchestrate the war to end the world.