http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/what-if-everyone-on-earth-jumped-at-the-same-time
Here we have an article from Big Think with a link to a video from VSauce, a YouTube channel other STACies have recommended to me in the past. Small world, no? The video and short article accompanying it entail what might possibly happen if every human being on earth jumped at once in close proximity to one another. Now at first, it seems like an impossibility. "There's seven billion people in the world," you're probably thinking. "What sort of place could we pack them all into?" Well, as the video explains, if the world's population density was equal to Manhattan's, we could fit the whole of the human race into the state of Texas with room to spare. If we were packed together shoulder-to-shoulder, our species would fit in the city limits of Los Angeles. But still, as the video points out, that's nothing compared to the earth's mass, and nothing like the earth being thrown out of orbit and into the sun would happen. But on earth itself, there would be some impact. And if it's true that the BBC did get enough people to create some seismic activity (I can't find any other source in favor of this), there's something to this theory. But at the end of the day, there's no real weight to this idea: there simply are not enough people in the world to create anything more than a minor earthquake. Perhaps proponents of this idea should wait a few more decades - certainly there will be a better chance of this happening when our planet's population hits the ten billion mark.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
Dark Disney: The Lion King
I'm sure the vast majority of you know that Disney's The Lion King, the company's greatest animated film of all time (I'm sorry, Frozen fans - I loved the movie too, but say it's better than The Lion King and I'll smack you into next week). If you don't know the plot, you have my deepest condolences, because (if you're a student) you had no childhood or you just missed out on a lot in general. But as funny and safari-themed as the movie is, there's a lot of darkness beneath that warm and fuzzy Disney exterior that I certainly never picked up on as a child. Let's discuss some of it, shall we?
1) Those goofy hyenas are sociopaths
Scar's (Claudius's) three carnivorous lackeys provide a great deal of comic relief. They crack dinner jokes, bite their own legs, and shoot the Rowan-Atkinson-voiced hornbill out of a steam cannon. Only that steam cannon was scalding water, and Rowan Atkinson probably got animated third-degree burns and some nerve damage in the deal. And those hyenas were cracking jokes when they were discussing killing and eating the young Simba (Hamlet) and Nala (Ophelia). Five-year-old Brian didn't realize that the funny hyenas were sociopaths who killed for pleasure (and food).
2) Scar's plot
Speaking of the hyenas...Scar essentially turns their clan into his own personal third reich by promising them food and using some pretty awesome chords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-uyfp2iPM). As a little kid, I just accepted this: "Alright, he wants to be king. He's going to kill everybody who stands in his way. Makes perfect sense." Except it doesn't. I mean, I want power much more than the next guy, but I don't think I'd be willing to kill my own family to get it. Did Scar always hate Mufasa (Old King Hamlet)? There must have been something that sent him over the edge. Scar almost certainly loved Mufasa at some point, and it's clear in the movie that Mufasa genuinely cares for his younger brother. But at some point before the movie, something happened to Scar (without Mufasa's knowledge) that turned him against his brother. It's actually quite disturbing, when you think about it. This, of course, eventually culminates in Mufasa's death and Simba's banishment and self-loathing, which I find a great deal harder to watch now than I did when I was younger.
3) "She's gonna eat me!"
Are we just going to ignore the time Nala tried to kill and eat Timon and Pumbaa (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern)? Their movie role is a bit different, as is hers - after Simba's banishment, the fast-talking, sarcastic meerkat and big-hearted, flatulent warthog take him under their wings, and he becomes their brother in everything but blood. Then Nala, his childhood friend and betrothed, shows up (Scar's excuse for a regime decimated her usual hunting grounds) and chases down the guys who saved his life with every intention of killing and eating them. Simba saves them, of course, and she becomes their friend (this is still a Disney movie), but still...and then, at the end, Scar gets eaten alive by his own servants. Remind me, how was this movie rated G?
1) Those goofy hyenas are sociopaths
Scar's (Claudius's) three carnivorous lackeys provide a great deal of comic relief. They crack dinner jokes, bite their own legs, and shoot the Rowan-Atkinson-voiced hornbill out of a steam cannon. Only that steam cannon was scalding water, and Rowan Atkinson probably got animated third-degree burns and some nerve damage in the deal. And those hyenas were cracking jokes when they were discussing killing and eating the young Simba (Hamlet) and Nala (Ophelia). Five-year-old Brian didn't realize that the funny hyenas were sociopaths who killed for pleasure (and food).
2) Scar's plot
Speaking of the hyenas...Scar essentially turns their clan into his own personal third reich by promising them food and using some pretty awesome chords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-uyfp2iPM). As a little kid, I just accepted this: "Alright, he wants to be king. He's going to kill everybody who stands in his way. Makes perfect sense." Except it doesn't. I mean, I want power much more than the next guy, but I don't think I'd be willing to kill my own family to get it. Did Scar always hate Mufasa (Old King Hamlet)? There must have been something that sent him over the edge. Scar almost certainly loved Mufasa at some point, and it's clear in the movie that Mufasa genuinely cares for his younger brother. But at some point before the movie, something happened to Scar (without Mufasa's knowledge) that turned him against his brother. It's actually quite disturbing, when you think about it. This, of course, eventually culminates in Mufasa's death and Simba's banishment and self-loathing, which I find a great deal harder to watch now than I did when I was younger.
3) "She's gonna eat me!"
Are we just going to ignore the time Nala tried to kill and eat Timon and Pumbaa (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern)? Their movie role is a bit different, as is hers - after Simba's banishment, the fast-talking, sarcastic meerkat and big-hearted, flatulent warthog take him under their wings, and he becomes their brother in everything but blood. Then Nala, his childhood friend and betrothed, shows up (Scar's excuse for a regime decimated her usual hunting grounds) and chases down the guys who saved his life with every intention of killing and eating them. Simba saves them, of course, and she becomes their friend (this is still a Disney movie), but still...and then, at the end, Scar gets eaten alive by his own servants. Remind me, how was this movie rated G?
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Big Think: Ukraine
It's a f---ed up world we live in.
http://bigthink.com/purpose-inc/human-rights-crisis-in-ukraine-uprising-in-flames
This was the situation in Ukraine two days ago, as had been the situation for several weeks. The president flopped on a move that would have aligned Ukraine with the European Union and the rest of the west, breaking the once-Soviet territory further away from Mother Russia. Like the article mentions, government corruption (rampant in Ukraine) likely played a role in this change in opinion. In the last couple months, Ukraine has started resembling another Eastern European nation I could mention (yours, Mr. Putin), what with limitations and restrictions on basic freedoms we Americans take for granted. Things turned violent a few days ago, with protesters clashing with riot police.
This is what's happening today: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0
We don't really know which side struck first (though I have a pretty firm idea myself), breaking the hastily-arranged truce. What we do know is that over seventy protesters are dead after police opened fire. And that's just sick. These are your people out there. If you hate them so much, have the decency to pull a Czechoslovakia and separate peacefully. The real kicker is that the west can't do anything to interfere, for the same reason we couldn't interfere with Syria - if we do, Mr. Yanukovych will call on his ol' buddy Putin, and then we have another world war on our hands. And that's the last thing anybody wants. Hopefully, the Ukrainian people will be able to work this out peacefully or have a peaceful split. But the odds aren't favorable.
http://bigthink.com/purpose-inc/human-rights-crisis-in-ukraine-uprising-in-flames
This was the situation in Ukraine two days ago, as had been the situation for several weeks. The president flopped on a move that would have aligned Ukraine with the European Union and the rest of the west, breaking the once-Soviet territory further away from Mother Russia. Like the article mentions, government corruption (rampant in Ukraine) likely played a role in this change in opinion. In the last couple months, Ukraine has started resembling another Eastern European nation I could mention (yours, Mr. Putin), what with limitations and restrictions on basic freedoms we Americans take for granted. Things turned violent a few days ago, with protesters clashing with riot police.
This is what's happening today: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0
We don't really know which side struck first (though I have a pretty firm idea myself), breaking the hastily-arranged truce. What we do know is that over seventy protesters are dead after police opened fire. And that's just sick. These are your people out there. If you hate them so much, have the decency to pull a Czechoslovakia and separate peacefully. The real kicker is that the west can't do anything to interfere, for the same reason we couldn't interfere with Syria - if we do, Mr. Yanukovych will call on his ol' buddy Putin, and then we have another world war on our hands. And that's the last thing anybody wants. Hopefully, the Ukrainian people will be able to work this out peacefully or have a peaceful split. But the odds aren't favorable.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Brian's Creative Writing Tips
As most of you know, I'm the type of guy who enjoys writing. What some of you may not know is that I enjoy creative writing, and I spend a significant portion of my spare time writing. At present, I have three or four storylines going (I lose track), spanning several genres and regarding varied events. In addition to the pleasure of seeing a story take shape, this gives me something to VLog about, so stay tuned. Long story short: over the years, I've developed a few tricks to help keep the words flowing. This is for those of you who want to start writing, or for the writers out there who want to see how a fellow writer does it. Essentially, all these tips boil down to one main idea: DISTRACTION IS THE ENEMY!
Tip 1: Don't Get Up!
I always go to the bathroom before I start writing. And when I do write, I always have something to drink on my desk. Personally, I'd avoid caffeine and/or sugary drinks: I usually stick with plain old water, or some mix of water and Gatorade (don't ask). If you're the type of person who doesn't keep granola bars stashed in their desk, that's something to consider as well. Sure, getting up to get a drink of water from your bedside table, all of six feet away, might not seem like a big distraction. But then you may see your phone, check your Facebook page and your email, text your friends, and waste fifteen minutes right there without even realizing it. Which brings me to my next point:
Tip 2: Phones Away!
For the reasons stated above, that annoying little thing is creative writing's nemesis. Well, ninety-nine percent of the time: if you're writing about how people overuse technology, keep that little bugger on your person at all times. But otherwise, phones stay out of sight and/or off, Facebook pages and email accounts are absent, and any other non-writing-related technology is off.
Tip 3: Music: Only When Relevant
Personally, I find that music helps my writing, but only when it's relevant to what I'm writing about. If you're writing about, say, a family in the nineteen thirties, you shouldn't be listening to pop or rap music. Likewise, if you're writing about a famous modern individual, I would advise against any Renaissance playlists you might have. If you're writing horror, listen to creepy music. If you're writing about Medieval France, find some medieval French music. I'm sure it's out there.
Tip 4: Organize!
Whenever I work on a storyline, I always have two Word Documents open: one with the actual writing ([Insert File Name] Writing), and one with my character-event outline (Insert Same File Name). What a character-event outline is is essentially a list of the traits of all your characters and of the major ideas and past events. For each character, write down things like hair color, eye color, skin tone, family, personality, nose shape, height and build, and so on. Trust me - these things will all come up later on, and it's a pain in the ass to go back and search through all your writing to find them. As for the "event" part of the outline, I personally prefer to have a list of a few major themes or ideas before I start writing. Why do I call it the character-event outline, then? Well the ideas (and past events, depending on the story) will shape the events in your piece.
Tip 1: Don't Get Up!
I always go to the bathroom before I start writing. And when I do write, I always have something to drink on my desk. Personally, I'd avoid caffeine and/or sugary drinks: I usually stick with plain old water, or some mix of water and Gatorade (don't ask). If you're the type of person who doesn't keep granola bars stashed in their desk, that's something to consider as well. Sure, getting up to get a drink of water from your bedside table, all of six feet away, might not seem like a big distraction. But then you may see your phone, check your Facebook page and your email, text your friends, and waste fifteen minutes right there without even realizing it. Which brings me to my next point:
Tip 2: Phones Away!
For the reasons stated above, that annoying little thing is creative writing's nemesis. Well, ninety-nine percent of the time: if you're writing about how people overuse technology, keep that little bugger on your person at all times. But otherwise, phones stay out of sight and/or off, Facebook pages and email accounts are absent, and any other non-writing-related technology is off.
Tip 3: Music: Only When Relevant
Personally, I find that music helps my writing, but only when it's relevant to what I'm writing about. If you're writing about, say, a family in the nineteen thirties, you shouldn't be listening to pop or rap music. Likewise, if you're writing about a famous modern individual, I would advise against any Renaissance playlists you might have. If you're writing horror, listen to creepy music. If you're writing about Medieval France, find some medieval French music. I'm sure it's out there.
Tip 4: Organize!
Whenever I work on a storyline, I always have two Word Documents open: one with the actual writing ([Insert File Name] Writing), and one with my character-event outline (Insert Same File Name). What a character-event outline is is essentially a list of the traits of all your characters and of the major ideas and past events. For each character, write down things like hair color, eye color, skin tone, family, personality, nose shape, height and build, and so on. Trust me - these things will all come up later on, and it's a pain in the ass to go back and search through all your writing to find them. As for the "event" part of the outline, I personally prefer to have a list of a few major themes or ideas before I start writing. Why do I call it the character-event outline, then? Well the ideas (and past events, depending on the story) will shape the events in your piece.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Big Think
This is the reason I don't subscribe to horoscopes, people.
http://bigthink.com/praxis/love-peppermint-patties-you-must-be-a-republican
It's a good thing that the article and its source article acknowledge that such a method is little more coincidental - otherwise, I would spend the duration of this post destroying that point. It is somewhat interesting, when you think about it. A person's choice in some things says a good deal about their political alliance. I doubt many liberals drive Hummers, or name themselves as fans of Chick-Fil-A. Likewise, you don't see many Republicans cruising around in Priuses or attending a pro-choice rally. But candy choice? Where's the logic in that? Based on the graph provided, I'm a Tea-Partier, a strong liberal, and just about everything in between. How could liking Reese's Peanut Butter Cups make you a Republican, or preferring your Hershey's chocolate in kiss form make you a Democrat? If I were a gambler, I would bet my life savings that every single person who looks at this chart would be able to find a candy that goes against their political ideology (but don't quote me on that one, because I'm a bit attached to my life savings, and not the gambling type). Seriously, people - judge somebody's political ideology based on who they usually vote for at the polls, not on their favorite type of dessert. Unless, of course, that dessert is a five-thousand dollar ice cream sundae made with aged wine, chocolate truffles and flakes of gold. In that case, it's a safe bet that such an individual doesn't lean left.
http://bigthink.com/praxis/love-peppermint-patties-you-must-be-a-republican
It's a good thing that the article and its source article acknowledge that such a method is little more coincidental - otherwise, I would spend the duration of this post destroying that point. It is somewhat interesting, when you think about it. A person's choice in some things says a good deal about their political alliance. I doubt many liberals drive Hummers, or name themselves as fans of Chick-Fil-A. Likewise, you don't see many Republicans cruising around in Priuses or attending a pro-choice rally. But candy choice? Where's the logic in that? Based on the graph provided, I'm a Tea-Partier, a strong liberal, and just about everything in between. How could liking Reese's Peanut Butter Cups make you a Republican, or preferring your Hershey's chocolate in kiss form make you a Democrat? If I were a gambler, I would bet my life savings that every single person who looks at this chart would be able to find a candy that goes against their political ideology (but don't quote me on that one, because I'm a bit attached to my life savings, and not the gambling type). Seriously, people - judge somebody's political ideology based on who they usually vote for at the polls, not on their favorite type of dessert. Unless, of course, that dessert is a five-thousand dollar ice cream sundae made with aged wine, chocolate truffles and flakes of gold. In that case, it's a safe bet that such an individual doesn't lean left.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
The Free Post I Forgot To Title
Well, I'm not having a great week. It seems that all my teachers have unanimously decided to give me three weeks worth of work in these five days before break. Tonight, after finishing half an hour of math and over an hour of English, I still have a good half-hour of French ahead of me, not to mention a full hour of physics and at least an hour and a half of SAT prep work, for the SAT class I'm taking, which will keep me from getting home until 9:30 or so tomorrow evening, so I have to get the jump on Thursday's homework as well. The long and short of it is...well, the long of it. As a direct result, this is going to be one of my shorter posts. Anyways, I found this video on my computer's home page...
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=10&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/b130452d-a02b-4d27-9d9d-990f81dbd36a
This is both astonishing and unnerving, in that it throws into sharp relief just how powerful our nation's military really is. It isn't something you suspect to hold any water here in America. Besides, these guys are the elite of the nation's forces. But one has to wonder if these men are the face of America, to our enemies. When people across the world view Americans, many of them view the American stereotype...when they think of the American military, I would think they would see something quite different. When nations like Iran and China have to contemplate negotiations with America, do they picture men like those in the video, who will take those who oppose them out of their homes in the middle of the night and imprison them? More importantly, is this something we should try to change, or something we should use to our advantage?
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=10&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/b130452d-a02b-4d27-9d9d-990f81dbd36a
This is both astonishing and unnerving, in that it throws into sharp relief just how powerful our nation's military really is. It isn't something you suspect to hold any water here in America. Besides, these guys are the elite of the nation's forces. But one has to wonder if these men are the face of America, to our enemies. When people across the world view Americans, many of them view the American stereotype...when they think of the American military, I would think they would see something quite different. When nations like Iran and China have to contemplate negotiations with America, do they picture men like those in the video, who will take those who oppose them out of their homes in the middle of the night and imprison them? More importantly, is this something we should try to change, or something we should use to our advantage?
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Big Think Post: A Lack of Innovative Leadership
http://bigthink.com/videos/a-drought-of-leadership
This is perfect. Absolutely perfect.
There's no better way to sum up the world's leadership. It's pathetic, really, when you reflect on past politicians. Less than a century ago, FDR, possibly the greatest president the US has ever known, lead our nation through an economic crisis and the most horrible conflict the world has yet seen. Winston Churchill, his contemporary, kept the British people fighting even when all their hopes seemed lost. Even men as evil as Stalin and Hitler...they got things done, and not all of it was evil. Hitler brought Germany back from the dead, and Stalin turned the Soviet Union into a superpower that dominated world affairs for half a century. History has known many great (or at least effective) leaders who rose in the face of adversity, including Abraham Lincoln, several English monarchs, Saladin of the Ayyubid dynasty, Charlemagne and his grandfather Charles the Hammer, Alfred the Great, Arminius, Julius Caesar...the list goes on and on. And yet we don't have any great leaders today. President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron are ineffective, facing legislative bodies that oppose them and allowing weaker foreign governments to push them around. Even our ambivalent enemy China is facing some dissent in light of democratic sympathizers. Ironically, the only modern leader I would consider powerful is Vladimir Putin of Russia, and we all know fully well what he's using his power to do: persecute gays and imprison his political rivals. Hopefully, we'll soon have leaders who know how to effectively use their power for a better future for the good of all. Because the alternative isn't a bright one.
This is perfect. Absolutely perfect.
There's no better way to sum up the world's leadership. It's pathetic, really, when you reflect on past politicians. Less than a century ago, FDR, possibly the greatest president the US has ever known, lead our nation through an economic crisis and the most horrible conflict the world has yet seen. Winston Churchill, his contemporary, kept the British people fighting even when all their hopes seemed lost. Even men as evil as Stalin and Hitler...they got things done, and not all of it was evil. Hitler brought Germany back from the dead, and Stalin turned the Soviet Union into a superpower that dominated world affairs for half a century. History has known many great (or at least effective) leaders who rose in the face of adversity, including Abraham Lincoln, several English monarchs, Saladin of the Ayyubid dynasty, Charlemagne and his grandfather Charles the Hammer, Alfred the Great, Arminius, Julius Caesar...the list goes on and on. And yet we don't have any great leaders today. President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron are ineffective, facing legislative bodies that oppose them and allowing weaker foreign governments to push them around. Even our ambivalent enemy China is facing some dissent in light of democratic sympathizers. Ironically, the only modern leader I would consider powerful is Vladimir Putin of Russia, and we all know fully well what he's using his power to do: persecute gays and imprison his political rivals. Hopefully, we'll soon have leaders who know how to effectively use their power for a better future for the good of all. Because the alternative isn't a bright one.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Vampires: How Did it Come to This?
I know it's not Halloween. To quote Jim Carrey, "DEAL WITH IT!"
So, there's another vampire movie coming out, if today's commercials are any judge. Another one of those fancy-schmancy "Vampires are good, vampires fight werewolves, vampires are dreamy" chick-flicks. And it got me thinking that these modern monsters are so ridiculously different from their original forms. So, since I'm in a bit of a bad state thanks to tonight's episode of How I Met Your Mother (sitcoms aren't supposed to be this emotional), I'm going to distract myself/explain the original legends of vampires, and how the tales have changed.
Let's start off from the very beginning: although vampire legends are found all over the world, almost all of these demons are some variant of undead. No matter where you went in the past, vampires are dead beings that consumed the life-force of the living. Some were reanimated corpses, some were vengeful spirits, and some were even demons, but all were definitively dead. As for the life-force they drained, it varied from place to place. Many vampires fed on flesh, creeping up on their sleeping victims. Some consumed the soul itself, as was the case with certain demonic vampires. And a few particularly nasty vampires consumed the fetuses of pregnant women, sucking the babies out through their mothers' mouths. European vampires fed on blood, and so modern vampires do as well. Due to the western bloodsuckers' association with witches and the devil, they could assume the forms of creatures of the night, notably bats, wolves and owls. Why did people believe in reanimated corpses, you may ask? Well, back in the day, being dead didn't make you harmless. If an individual had hated you in life and you fell sick after your death, you might believe your enemy's vengeful soul was seeking revenge upon you - or worse, that they now lived as an undead vampire. If you suspected the latter, you would rile up your fellow villagers and dig up your enemy's coffin. Due to decomposition, they might be in a different position than they'd been buried in - but remember, the concept of decomposition didn't exist back then, so lo and behold, you were being victimized by an honest-to-goodness vampire. Of course, certain measures needed to be taken to ensure that your enemy stayed dead. In Europe, the most common practice was to drive a stake of ash or aspen through the heart, cut off the head, fill the mouth with garlic, and place the head between the feet - a practice immortalized by Bram Stoker's Dracula, which redefined the vampire myth. Wild rose, hawthorn, garlic and holy items kept attacking vampires at bay, but they were not vulnerable to sunlight. Our old friend from Nosferatu started that rumor. But then Dracula happened. And, although the nature of the myth remained essentially the same, the character of the vampire changed dramatically. Vampires were suddenly intelligent, suave, powerful beings, after centuries of being reanimated corpses. Once that took place, it wasn't much of a stretch for vampires to lose their old vulnerabilities. Modern fiction has annihilated the old weaknesses and turned vampires into immortal, bloodthirsty sex symbols. Now we have Twilight, True Blood, and The Vampire Diaries, and vampires are the beloved protagonists. Some old medieval villager is rolling in his grave right now. But don't worry - it's probably just a side-effect of decomposition.
So, there's another vampire movie coming out, if today's commercials are any judge. Another one of those fancy-schmancy "Vampires are good, vampires fight werewolves, vampires are dreamy" chick-flicks. And it got me thinking that these modern monsters are so ridiculously different from their original forms. So, since I'm in a bit of a bad state thanks to tonight's episode of How I Met Your Mother (sitcoms aren't supposed to be this emotional), I'm going to distract myself/explain the original legends of vampires, and how the tales have changed.
Let's start off from the very beginning: although vampire legends are found all over the world, almost all of these demons are some variant of undead. No matter where you went in the past, vampires are dead beings that consumed the life-force of the living. Some were reanimated corpses, some were vengeful spirits, and some were even demons, but all were definitively dead. As for the life-force they drained, it varied from place to place. Many vampires fed on flesh, creeping up on their sleeping victims. Some consumed the soul itself, as was the case with certain demonic vampires. And a few particularly nasty vampires consumed the fetuses of pregnant women, sucking the babies out through their mothers' mouths. European vampires fed on blood, and so modern vampires do as well. Due to the western bloodsuckers' association with witches and the devil, they could assume the forms of creatures of the night, notably bats, wolves and owls. Why did people believe in reanimated corpses, you may ask? Well, back in the day, being dead didn't make you harmless. If an individual had hated you in life and you fell sick after your death, you might believe your enemy's vengeful soul was seeking revenge upon you - or worse, that they now lived as an undead vampire. If you suspected the latter, you would rile up your fellow villagers and dig up your enemy's coffin. Due to decomposition, they might be in a different position than they'd been buried in - but remember, the concept of decomposition didn't exist back then, so lo and behold, you were being victimized by an honest-to-goodness vampire. Of course, certain measures needed to be taken to ensure that your enemy stayed dead. In Europe, the most common practice was to drive a stake of ash or aspen through the heart, cut off the head, fill the mouth with garlic, and place the head between the feet - a practice immortalized by Bram Stoker's Dracula, which redefined the vampire myth. Wild rose, hawthorn, garlic and holy items kept attacking vampires at bay, but they were not vulnerable to sunlight. Our old friend from Nosferatu started that rumor. But then Dracula happened. And, although the nature of the myth remained essentially the same, the character of the vampire changed dramatically. Vampires were suddenly intelligent, suave, powerful beings, after centuries of being reanimated corpses. Once that took place, it wasn't much of a stretch for vampires to lose their old vulnerabilities. Modern fiction has annihilated the old weaknesses and turned vampires into immortal, bloodthirsty sex symbols. Now we have Twilight, True Blood, and The Vampire Diaries, and vampires are the beloved protagonists. Some old medieval villager is rolling in his grave right now. But don't worry - it's probably just a side-effect of decomposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)