Monthly Archives: October 2025

Star Wars and the Protean Honor of Old, Scared Men

Now, Star Wars is not the finest example of world building in even cinematic fiction, much less fiction in general, the retconning that took place between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menaceamounts to vandalism of the lore but there are still elements that are intriguing to look at even with the massive alteration to the original trilogy’s history.

When the first film, Star Wars, takes place the Imperial system and the emperor himself have had their grubby little paws in power for less than 20 years. Luke Skywalker is in effect the age of the Empire itself. We could map this to real-world fascists with Italy, where the OG Fascists came to power in 1922 and were still there in 1942, albeit quite diminished in their geopolitical positioning. The German would not match that run their terrible regime, lasting only about a dozen years before imploding and taking millions of lives with it.

Lucasfilm/20th Century Fox

Let’s look at the Imperial Officers presented to us as characters in Star Wars. Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin is the old man of the group we see on the Death Star with the actor about 64 years of age, the rest of his command staff, is much younger but not young men. The other officers are in their 40s, 50s, with some matching Tarkin in their 60s, career men who dedicated themselves to military service — the military service of the Old Republic now enthusiastic and dedicated officers of the Galactic Empire willing to slaughter millions with the throw of a switch.

Undoubtedly it was the easier path when the emperor came to power to not buck the system, to not stand out from the crowd, to just ‘go along for now’ with the new government, the new administration, after all this won’t last forever. The oaths to the Old Republic conveniently forgotten in the harsh light of self-preservation.

Certainly, this observation has no relevance today.

Share

Change My Mind Isn’t a Debate

.

Charlie Kirk, who was murdered a short time ago, became one of the internet’s most posted altered memes. The only other one that comes to my mind that I have seen with such repeated frequency is the replaced subtitling of Hitler losing his temper from the fantastic piece of cinema that is Downfall, but nearly as common is the image of Charlie Kirk, mug in hand, sitting behind a portable table with a sign that reads “Change My Mind.” I really have no idea what he was challenging people to change his mind about in the original, but the endless alterations can be quite humorous.

Setting aside the funny memes of a Gorn challenging people to change its mind about Cetus III being an invasion, there’s something more important in the phrase “change my mind.” It is a challenge, not a debate. It is a statement from a person who already holds a committed position, not one from an open mind seeking honest inquiry. It is an Objectivist challenging you to prove that selfishness is not a virtue, a Scientologist challenging you to question the authority of L. Ron Hubbard’s vision, or a born-again Christian challenging you to change his mind on the existence of God.

None of this was actually about whether Charlie Kirk’s brand of conservatism yielded better governance than a more liberal philosophy—it was performance art. Kirk, it seemed to me, was like a stand-up comedian, but with all the stand-up stripped away so that all that remained was the comedian and the hecklers, and he was very good at dealing with the “hecklers.”

Dealing with hecklers is performance, not philosophy. Nothing justifies the man’s murder, and his surviving spouse’s call for forgiveness is an astounding act in the true Christian faith, but the man, like any talented liberal Hollywood actor, was a performer and not a political thinker.

Share

The House is Too Small

.

There are a number of adjustments, all within the bounds of the Constitution, that I feel are required to pull us back from the political disaster we currently experience. The most important reforms I think are ones required for the United States House of Representatives.

The fact that there are so few competitive seats in the House and that it often has a lower turnover of members than the British House of Lords for god’s sake is a prime reason that we are in this current mental death grip between the two parties. For far too many of the Congressional Districts the only election that matters is the primary election because the voting population of the area is so skewed by the way it has been drawn that only one party ever wins the general election. That said, national legislation addressing the practice of gerrymandering is unlikely to pass constitutional review, so another approach needs to be employed: expand the House.

In 1963, about the time the nation began shifting to a primary-based system for party nominations, each member of the House represented 410,000 constituents, a ratio already more than doubled from the start of the century when it was 193,000 persons.

Because the number of members, which used to be adjusted quite often for population growth, is unchanged, today the ratio stands at about 760,000 persons represented by each member of the House.

Such large population districts make the practice of gerrymandering, particularly ‘cracking and packing’ where populations are either split up or combined into districts with overwhelming populations of a single party or voting bloc, more effective. Expanding the House would not only force a new round of redistricting but with many more districts make some of the tools for gerrymandering far less effective.

Doubling the House I think is impractical, but perhaps an increase of a quarter might suffice to help us back onto a road for more sane governance.

Share

The Light at the End of the Tunnel Isn’t a Train

.

It took not an inconsiderate application of willpower to not dance around my desk at the office yesterday. For the last two days, actual forward progression on my Work-In-Progress, a novel of ghostly cinematic horror, has been halted while I reverse engineer backstory. I had reached the point where mysteries laid out in the text and bedeviling the characters would begin to be understood and their origins revealed, but because I was ‘pantsing’ this story when I wrote those mysteries I did not actually have the answers and explanations in my head.

Now, I do.

The last two days have been working out from what is known and what has been hinted at, the full shape of the story, why it all exists in the manner that it does, and just what the scope of the dangers truly are. This isn’t entirely ‘pulled out of my ass.’ Some of this I suspected as I wrote the novel but other bits I knew I was leaving for future me to solve, and now present me is future me, and I am so happy with my solutions that dancing was nearly irresistible.

As is so often the case, once that clarity is obtained, a full understanding of not only character and plot but theme and subtext as well, a new and better first line came to me. I don’t need a whole new first scene but now I have the sentence that opens the novel: After the summer of 1984 Dave Ludendorff never again lived a charmed life.

Paramount+

Share

Streaming Review The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll

.

In preparation for this week’s episode of The Evolution of Horror podcast, last night I watched The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll, released in the United States as House of Fright.

Hammer Studios

Yet another adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this Hammer Studios production is not very memorable. It has the same core elements of nearly every other adaptation: Dr. Henry Jekyll develops a ‘scientific’ method, in this case an injection, for separating out elements of the human mind often labeled good and evil. Experimenting on himself, he releases Hyde, and a battle ensues between the two personalities for control of the corporal body that they share, ending tragically for the good doctor.

The production reflects that distinctive Hammer look with vibrant colors that pop off the screen and a collection, particularly in the opening scene’s supporting characters, of idiosyncratic personalities.

Paul Massie plays Jekyll/Hyde, and in a twist, it is the good doctor that is presented as more hirsute and Hyde as clean shaven. Dawn Addams is Kitty, Jekyll’s wife, who is carrying on an affair with Paul Allen (I seriously could not hear that name without thinking of Microsoft), played by Christopher Lee, who was the film’s only real saving grace. Most cinematic productions of this story make a meal of the transformation in the same way most directors lavish money, time, and creativity on the creation sequence in any Frankenstein movie, but not here. I suspect this was due to a lack of funds; Hammer productions were often resource and time strapped. Here, Jekyll would find some reason to hide his face from the camera, slumping on the desk, turning away, and so on; the camera would move away and then back again to reveal Massie now presenting as Hyde or vice versa.

I can’t say this movie was very engaging. Certainly, my mind wandered, and I found myself just longing for scenes with either Christopher Lee because he always brought his best game, or Dawn Addams because she was a very attractive redhead with a most charming smile.

Overall, I am glad to have seen another Hammer film, but it is not one I shall be revisiting.

Share

No Quick Solutions to America’s Gun Death Problem

No Quick Solutions to America’s Gun Death Problem

In the novel I am writing, taking place in 1984, that summer in reality witnessed the first of the modern era of mass shootings with the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre. I have struggled to work out how this should play into a novel of supernatural threats, ghosts, and terrible dark gods beyond the stars. In the end I think I may just wrap up the story before that terrible day in August, though it means I won’t have an in-story salute to my girlfriend at the time who slapped someone for a tasteless joke as a callback during that weekend’s screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Since that day and since Columbine, the pace of mass shootings in this nation has accelerated so horrifically that now not only do we have frequent mass shooting events, they have become background noise in the media maelstrom, sometimes passing unnoticed.

The right will make actionless pleas for “thoughts and prayers,” decry the mental state of the individuals, and lately look for even the slimmest evidence that the murderer came from their political opponents’ camp.

The left will decry that the right will not let them make even the smallest move to control the sale and ownership of firearms, mock the thoughts and prayers even as some offer them sincerely and not in the same cynical move as the elected officials, and also engage in the “it was one of them” hunt now so popular.

In my opinion, both sides are wrong and deluded.

Part of the humor in the horror comedy from New Zealand, Black Sheep (2006), is that in that island nation there are more sheep than people. In the United States there are more guns than people. I think the current estimate is 1.2 firearms for every man, woman, and child, and of course they are not evenly distributed. The guns are out there, compliance with any new laws will be resisted and lax, meaning those guns will be there for any foreseeable future. Prohibition is a legal tactic that never eliminates the forbidden actions or possession. What prohibition does is license the state to use its monopoly on violence to selectively, and it is always selectively—ask any African American in America if the law is applied without favor or bias—as a punishment and message on the subject. If we were starting from a much lower ratio of guns to people, maybe perhaps the supply side could be effectively tempered, but that ship has long since sailed.

Anyway, the gun is not the trouble; the person using it is. Now, this sounds very much like the right’s argument that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but that’s merely a verbal dodge to change the subject and preserve their beloved hobby. (And it is a hobby. I doubt any of the firearm militia enthusiasts would answer a call from Governor Gavin Newsom to put their bodies on the line for California, which is the duty of the militia in ensuring “the security of a free state.”)

The trouble with the person who easily moves to murder, or to suicide, which accounts for nearly half of all gun deaths, is the culture and society which produced that person.

Suicide and mass shootings I feel are psychological siblings, with most mass shootings acting as vicious, hateful forms of suicide. The psychological forces driving people to despair and or hate so deeply that murder and death become seemingly rational are powerful sociological storms which we cannot change overnight.

The way I see it, two major factors are at play: a sense that the future is hopeless. When someone, particularly young men, sees the future as futile, despair and depression find fertile ground to blossom. Despair and depression can turn inward, becoming entirely self-destructive, or they can turn to hatred, lashing out at perceived victims.

In previous generations, young men moving into productive adulthood could see paths that led to stable lives, good middle-class jobs and incomes, and a social structure that valued white men more than any other category. The destruction of labor unions, the shattering of the social connections between employer and employee, killed the middle-class dream. Economic growth concentrated more and more in classes that the young men perceived as the enemy. Social changes bringing about equality they perceived as “demotions” of their status. Is it any surprise that this turned into epidemics of suicide and murder?

Rebuilding unions, the engine that drove the economic miracle of midcentury America, requires that the conservatives abandon their current policies, and even if they did, the damage which took generations to incur would take generations to heal.

The other clear factor that separates America from the rest of the world on this issue is that when it comes to healthcare, America’s bootstrap system leaves far too many people wallowing in pain, both physical and emotional, without any hope of relief. More despair to transform into hate.

Again, conservatives, intent on transferring economic gains to the upper ends of the bell curve, have no incentive or taste for an expensive universal healthcare system.

With the current political parties and system, we are trapped, and for generations we will see more murder and more pointless deaths.

Share