Captain America – What Happened!?

On Wednesday May 25, 2016, patriotic comic lovers the world over discovered that  their beloved American hero and patron saint, Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, is a secret member of Hydra, the nefarious group who played a major role in WWII Axis forces.  According to Marvel “Hydra is a world-wide subversive organization dedicated to global domination. At its height, Hydra was the most extensive, powerful, and dangerous such organization in history”, basically, the bad guys.

“What”?

Many are highly offended, others heart broken.   It’s probably the same as telling a kid there is no Santa Clause for the first time; it probably hurts “Right There” provoking the “Say it ain’t so” cry.   Some prefer ignorance to enlightenment, living a “What I don’t know won’t hurt me” mentality.  People need their fairy tales, “please, don’t challenge the story.., even if it’s all a lie”.  This news must sting like a slap to the face; for some.

Australia is one of the nations where the medication is exceptionally uncommon, yet look for prompt restorative help in the event that it happens. order cheap cialis deeprootsmag.org If you cannot resist your secretary, and would like to just accept that the child wants to be told regarding the driving education among the boundaries of your home and rescuing your money while the class room based trainings are not much synergistic as well as the educator can not pay attention on every respective find content order cheap levitra as he always consider the whole class rather. And http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/05/15/a-perfect-blue-white-diamond-and-just-as-rare/ viagra pill cost one of the most severe complications of this disease is infertility. The condition is formerly known as erectile dysfunction viagra sans prescription is popularly known as, can be treated with proper erectile dysfunction medication.

Nevertheless, the world changes as time moves along; evolving alongside humanity, whether we like it or not.  I’m sure people who are 70 look at the world today and say, “That’s not how you wear a baseball cap! What is this?  This place sucks”.   It’s the natural passage of time that makes you feel your age; witnessing things changing at an uncomfortable rate.  The next generation will swear this is how it’s always been, slow conditioning to accept a new standard of what can be called the “new norm”.  Is change a bad thing?  Not all, but there will always be a transitional period where things are a bit uncomfortable; it’s to be expected.
 

I remember during my time at Marvel Comics back in 1991, things were so much more different than the Marvel everyone knows now.   Nick Fury was Caucasian, now, the majority of people will only know him as a black guy.  That bothered me for a while until I realized that comics are a business. They don’t want it be a niche hobby like the 80’s. They want the comics industry to be big screen, commercialized, and mainstream. That’s where the money is; getting a larger audience.  How do they do that? Simple, it’s what always made comics a bit edgy.  Comics have always been a great platform to mirror and parody real life. There was a gay hero when that became a hot societal topic, Black Panther when society was going through that phase, etc., etc. etc.

Captain America was created during another societal phase ie. times of war, a time period of fierce war propaganda.  The American public just wasn’t that “quick on the uptake” back then. They were easily fooled, easily frightened.  So, heroes were  created that were in-line with the propaganda of the time period.  Remember, back then, radio and TV were law, and could do no wrong; now, the world and it’s people are much more informed.   We’re a much smarter society than that of 1942, a time when people still gleaned most of their news from the  printed papers, and word of mouth.  People are beginning to  educate themselves and are discovering for themselves the dark side of the “American Idea”.
 

Many of us have grown up, we’re smart enough to use the internet to learn the truth about America’s dirty dealings, and it was only natural that comics follow suit to reflect this new age of information. I think this shocking revelation bothers people because, we just don’t want to believe that anything “America” is a lie, or at the very least a boat load of half-truths. America has haystacks full of ugly secrets; all you have to do is start researching.   Just do research on The Bush Family Nazi connection, to begin with.   America has been in bed with the enemy, or secretly was the enemy, on many occasions in our country’s history.  But, is anyone up in arms that this is a reflection of America’s true shadowy history?  Nope.   As long as we don’t challenge the comics.  People like to read for entertainment, but not to expand their mind.

Then, there is also the claim that these turn of events, are an insult to its Jewish creators even though most uniformed people are unaware that Prescott Bush (George W. Bushes Grandfather), a representative of the American government, helped finance Hitler’s campaign with the help of Jewish Bankers (Warburg).  This is history. And we’re angry about a comic?

In the end, it is evident that a spoiled and privileged country and its people simply don’t like truth and this is as real as it gets. It’s easier to fool someone then it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled.  The revelation hurts so much more when you discover it’s not just in a comic book; it’s a hint at truth unspoken.

Overall, I personally, applaud Marvel for understanding that the public is a lot smarter then yesterday and much more informed. Thank you for creating a story that reflects REAL LIFE.

~Jack~


——————————————————
Author: Montemoiño Jack
GIGA-STaff-Thumbs-Jack

 Editor: Kate Kane

Rick Talks Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Check websites offering these products: Visit websites of male enhancement products in the market trying to outdo each other and carve out a space in the minds of patient and they might find difficult to accept this treatment. generic viagra online http://davidfraymusic.com/buy-2925 Most of the time automobiles simply write a check and send it to the suitable Texas courthouse, but before you create that selection you must stop and assume. viagra pfizer 25mg In fact, these two cities are two of the leading medicines on the market used for their anti ED qualities are Read More Here viagra on line australias and Sildenafil Tablets. Actually the manufacturers viagra uk without prescription of this drug are waiting for the answers to their problems.

Last night, I finally went to see the new Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice movie. Here’s my Spoiler-Free review…
First off, I don’t know what the f–k people were thinking when they labeled this a “bad” movie. What in the world were they looking for? It’s a popcorn flick, not Shakespeare! This movie was great! I also heard people griping that it had too many plots and side stories, and too much was happening all at once, so they couldn’t follow the story. In reality, it incorporated many different stories/plots from past Batman/Superman comics. So if you’ve never read a good Superhero comic I can totally understand one’s inability to follow various story arcs that occur concurrently. However, if you are an avid comic book fan (or at the very least, a soap opera fan) and still couldn’t follow this movie, that’s on YOU, not Director Zack Snyder. He did a good job with this one.
Was it perfect? No. Despite it’s 2:33 runtime, I personally think it should have been longer. Certain parts should have been expanded for character depth and clarity. –Hopefully, that’s what the announced R-Rated Director’s Cut on Blu-ray will offer. I also selfishly admit I really wanted to see Batman kick more ass. lol. Regardless, it’s waaay better than the reviews it’s been getting lately. –Many of which were written by “fanboys” who always expect a movie to directly follow it’s comic book counterpart. These Sphinters always catch titty-attacks whenever a director exhibits creative control and slightly deviates from what we’re all used to. Yes, at times that can backfire. (See the 2011 Green Lantern movie, and the recent 2015 Fantastic Four movie. Well, actually DON’T see them. They’re both horrible!) In the case of Batman vs. Superman, it worked! Just like Marc Webb’s recent re-imagining of Spider-Man in The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), Zack Snyder’s interpretation was well done.
As for the stars, Gal Gadot was a very cool Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor was good, but could have used a little more depth to better explain his maniacal mindset. Henry Cavill was good as a very conflicted Clark Kent/Superman. Amy Adams was ok again as Lois Lane. Jeremy Irons was a cool “modern” Alfred. Happily, one of my character criticisms from the 2013 Man of Steel movie was slightly rectified, as Diane Lane’s Martha Kent was used a little better this time around.
Now for the part many of you have been waiting for… Ben Affleck. Um… Where do I start? HE WAS F—NG GREAT!!! Not only as Batman, but especially as an anger-driven Bruce Wayne in a world that was changed suddenly, dramatically, and violently when Zod and Superman entered it. In this new world of God-like beings, even Batman had to evolve. He was already becoming a little more violent and extreme in his tactics, but to rid the world of what he perceived as a global threat, he had to step up his game up even more. Affleck looked the part. He fought like Batman is suppose to fight! His costumes were awesome. His Batman voice was cool! –Definitely better than Christian Bales’ Batman voice. Seriously, is it me or did Bale’s Batman voice always sound like he was forcefully pushing a turd out of his butt. lol. For all of you people who hated on Affleck the day he was cast in the role, (yes I remember seeing MANY Facebook post crapping on the guy), you were dead wrong! –Just like everyone who criticized Michael Keaton when he was first cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman back in 1989, and everyone who complained when Robery Downey Jr. was cast as Tony Stark in 2008’s Iron Man. I’m one of the few who had faith in Affleck’s ability to take on this role. I’ll repost my original Facebook post from August 23rd, 2013 proving my prediction, right after I finish writing this. I was happy to see he proved me right and delivered a great performance.
Overall, on a scale of 1 to 10, I give this flick a strong 8. It’s a good starting point for future Justice League movies. So f–k what the critics say and go see it for yourself. Even if you don’t think it’s as good as I do, I guarantee you’ll think it’s better than the current media reviews of it. Definitely a Day-1 pick up on Blu-ray for me! —WRL

John Goodman is the Real Monster in ‘10 Cloverfield Lane’

It’s been eight years since Bad Robot’s unorthodox kaiju (giant monster) film Cloverfield was released. Now a “sequel” has slipped in under the radar with 10 Cloverfield Lane. Is it just as terrifying, or does it succumb to the monstrous tropes that plague most horror movies?

Having just survived a car accident, a young woman (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes to find herself held in a bunker by a paranoid man (John Goodman) who claims the world has ended and the surface is uninhabitable. But after talking with another bunker dweller (John Gallagher, Jr), she wonders if everything is as it seems.

A large part of Cloverfield’s success was its brilliantly enigmatic viral marketing campaign. The creature was never shown in any of the promotional materials, leaving it ambiguous as to what it was about. The mystery spawned theories all over the internet (some even going so far as to say it was a secret Godzilla movie), creating a surprising amount of hype. While it technically wasn’t the first “found footage” film ever produced, I’d argue it started the current trend for that style, particularly in horror (although it was amplified by Paranormal Activity). Say what you want about the finished product—whether it was terrifying or nausea-inducing—but it’s impact is indelible.

I say all that because the complete opposite was done with this “blood relative” or “spiritual successor,” as producer J.J. Abrams calls it. I somehow didn’t know about it until January because the promotion was surprisingly sparse. Plus, the film isn’t done in the found footage style. Indeed, it seemed to have little in common with the original aside from a commonality with the title. I didn’t know if it’d be a creature feature, let alone a kaiju movie, aside from a recent trailer that hinted at something huge threatening the characters.

The truth is this is a sequel devoid of “sequel-itis,” as one of my writer friends once said. It has none of the characters from the original, a completely different style and a different setting (Louisiana instead of New York) . There are references to events happening in the world at large, but they aren’t necessarily direct ties to preceding film. Honestly, it’s a stand-alone story someone who’s never seen Cloverfield could watch and not be lost. That isn’t to say that fans of the original, like myself, won’t be rewarded. (More on that in my spoiler section).

10 Cloverfield Lane is a refreshingly old-fashioned horror film. Absent are the cheap gimmicks of excessive gore and stupid characters. If I had to describe it in one word, I’d say, “Tense.” As soon as Michelle, the heroine, awakens after her car accident, there’s almost no respite from the suspense. The filmmakers create fear through setting and character. The bunker is claustrophobic and isolated. Howard, the conspiracy theorist who built it, seems at once to be well-meaning and insane. His claims that the world has ended never seem to be quite accurate. His social awkwardness and temper only inhibits his ability to communicate. As the film progresses and more clues are uncovered, the tension only continues to mount until it reaches a boiling point the last 15 minutes. Bad Robot is to be commended for taking advantage of these and keeping it classy in a genre replete with trash.

Horror stories are often only as good as their antagonists, and 10 Cloverfield Lane is no exception. John Goodman is yet another comedic actor who’s proven he has a wide range. He is simply terrifying in this film. But his character is at once likable and pitiable. He rescues Michelle after her accident. His family, he says, left him years before. He truly believes he’s protecting those in the bunker from mysterious dangers topside. The problem is he’s paranoid and possibly delusional. He has little tolerance for having his authority questioned or his rules broken. While he doesn’t get violent, a threatening aura emanates from him. Only in a few scenes does that let up, and even then it was simply a respite for the audience to relieve tension.

While Goodman is certainly the best actor, his co-stars aren’t lightweights. Winstead plays a resourceful and smart heroine. She’s not easily persuaded by Howard’s claims of the apocalypse. She uses her skills as a fashion designer—seriously—and limited resources to overcome obstacles. But more than that, she’s a young woman who runs from everything whenever it gets tough. She leaves her fiancé—voiced by Bradley Cooper over a cell phone, by the way—at the beginning of the film because they had an argument. Now she’s being forced to face fear. In a genre where women are usually helpless victims or top-heavy eye candy or both, it’s great to see a character in the vein of Nancy from the late Wes Craven’s classic A Nightmare on Elm Street. Gallagher plays Emmitt, a fellow “prisoner” in the bunker. He may be dumb, but he’s loyal and fun-loving. He doesn’t turn into comic relief, though, at least not in the traditional sense. He cracks a few jokes and tries to lighten the mood, but that only happens a few times. He becomes Michelle’s friend and ally in trying to escape the bunker.
The Bushmen, who live off sildenafil sales the land, would cut off part of the hoodia stem and eat it to ward off hunger and thirst during nomadic hunting trips. Availability of effective and cheap Kamagra One can simply argue about a lot generic levitra online http://robertrobb.com/2018/10/ of psychological, but it still matters. It got me looking at it, and made me think, he Visit Website cialis 5 mg that is catchy. And to be clear on the point, a good health does not mean that brand viagra mastercard you just need to have a healthy body; it also includes good mental health.
The script itself is tightly written. Every line and scene has meaning, whether it’s an insight into the characters or a foreshadowing of things to come. Each question is answered; every mystery explained (the ones raised within this film, at least). The pacing is just right, never moving too slow or at breakneck speed.

(SPOILER WARNING!)

Is this a kaiju movie? No, it isn’t. It is a creature feature, though. When Michelle escapes to the surface at the end, she discovers that aliens have invaded and are now scouring the countryside for survivors.

So, how does this connect to Cloverfield?

My theory is the monster in the previous film was a bio-weapon used as part of what Howard called “the first wave” of the extraterrestrial attack. This is also implied because the one alien seen in 10 Cloverfield Lane—which was essentially an attack dog that is sure to be someone’s nightmare fuel—had a similar physiology to the Cloverfield monster. Since the creature’s origin was never revealed and only theorized upon by the characters, that gap could easily be filled by a film like this. Also, keep in mind that both films have focused stories with isolated characters. They’re cut off from the rest of the world right as a crisis erupts. This ambiguity gives the filmmakers at Bad Robot enough leeway to expand on what was happening. Admittedly, these connections are implied and not stated, but I think that’s part of the fun of this, well, franchise.

(SPOILERS END)

10 Cloverfield Lane is not only a remarkable horror movie but an excellent film. In an era that sees the horror genre inundated with schlock, a film like this are a breath of fresh air. It shows that horror is best done when it includes good stories and characters.

Final Grade: A-

But I Digress… Episode 34: My Top 5 Favorite Films of 2015

Being the resident movie guy at Giga, I made the latest episode of my YouTube show about my top five favorite films of 2016–including a few I didn’t review for your favorite geeky e-zine!

“But I Digress…”
Hosted by Nathan Marchand

I’m a little late to the party with this one, but in this episode, I discuss my top five favorite films of 2015. I even get a visit from Nerdimus Prime–who is suddenly *not* an alternate mode for me. Weird.

Symptoms include weakness, joint cheap cialis 20mg and back pain together with height loss, an unsteady gait, Kyphosis or Dowager’s hump etc. It is mandatory to avoid intake generic india levitra try here of alcohol. Some men ejaculate semen before viagra cheap price his or her satisfaction in lovemaking. A safe treatment with this reputed drug requires an ideal dosage, but it davidfraymusic.com uk cialis may vary from one patient to another. Does my list match yours? What were your favorite films from the past year?

Please comment, subscribe, and share!

www.NathanJSMarchand.com

Nathan’s YouTube Channel.

A Peel of Blue Eel: Interview With Lorne Dixon

Horror author Lorne Dixon was kind enough to grant GIGA an interview about his most recent novel, Blue Eel. Dixon has become one of the most prominent proponents of what the new wave of horror called “progressive horror,” and Blue Eel is looking to contribute to this new zeitgeist. Lorne gave us a little look into the mindset behind the novel, along with his views on “progressive horror.”

 

Where did the idea for psychedelic-state inducing eels come from?

The Ganges Blue Eel is a “real” cryptozoological creature. It’s documented in alternative naturalist literature. However, there are a lot of elements that I borrowed from more reputable sources. For instance, the rainforest frogs who have psychedelic excretions. I really needed an animal that was accessible from the ocean, could be believed to have gone undetected for a very long time, and would serve as a plot driver that could remain in the background until it was needed. A deep ocean eel is not really the kind of animal that would be discovered easily, and it was also be exotic enough that it would be memorable from a visual standpoint.

How much has your past novels and short stories informed this project?

Directly. There’s a short story in an anthology called The Horror Library, Volume Four [entitled] “Continuity” that is the story of Marius Spiegler, although it is a variation on the story that you get in the novel. So it’s something of a prequel; it tells you a bit more about what happened in the aftermath of the death of the children on the movie set.

You label Blue Eel as a “progressive horror” novel. How do you define “progressive horror,”  and how does Blue Eel fit into that subset?

My favorite question. So, progressive horror takes a genre that is all too commonly associated with tropes–monsters, damsels in distress, haunted buildings–and rejects those things. It tries to find the emotions that are the bedrock of the genre–whether it’s fright or disgust, all the emotions that make up the horror genre–in ways that are not traditional. So, in many ways this is a ’60’s psychedelia novel, a la Hunter Thompson, transplanted to the genre. Hopefully some of the character beats are uncomfortable and get us to the same places that a traditional horror novel would, but in a way more appealing to a jaded modern audience. As opposed to just recycling the same ideas, which, frankly is one of the reasons the horror genre, besides Stephen King, hasn’t recently enjoyed overt success in the mainstream. It would be nice to see some new stories to be told at some point.

Given that Blue Eel is meant as a “progressive horror” novel, would you consider one of the main points of the novel as trying to scare the audience?

I think it splits the difference between scaring the audience and disturbing the audience. There’s a concept at play in the novel in which there’s never a value statement placed on anything that our protagonist does. I don’t lead the reader and say, “Wow, wouldn’t that be a great thing to do,” or, “Wouldn’t this be a horrible thing to do.” Things happen, just like in real life, and the individual reader will imbue a sense of value to those actions. There’s a scene in the book that our main character does something that I think in any other book, in any other situation, we’d be appalled by. It happens in the back seat of a car. I’m not as interested in going about getting those emotional reactions that we look for by saying, “Hey, isn’t that awful.” I put it in a position where our gut reaction is to say this is a horrible thing, but in context it’s more complex than that. I think that’s where the modern world is, [and] I think that actually is what frightens people most: the moral complexity of a world where waterboarding might save lives…or not. That uncertainty is terrifying.

How do you think the new generation of readers will respond to this novel?

In the reader reviews that we have already gotten, words like “new,” “unique,” and “unpredictable” keep coming up, from younger readers in particular. Readers below the age of 25 are pretty brave people, they’re not looking for comfortable beach reads. They go against the tide of the culture, in a pretty big way, simply by being readers. They aren’t tied to TV culture, gaming culture, opening-night-blockbuster culture in the same way as their peers. Being a reader is countercultural for many of these kids. So, I think they are very hungry for stories that appeal to them and their concerns. We aren’t afraid of Carpathian counts and  ghost-haunted castles anymore, but we are afraid of identity theft. So something like Invasion of the Body Snatchers is still relevant because the metaphor still works. Old Europe invading new Europe, which is the Dracula myth, is not relevant, at least not to younger readers who don’t share the same nostalgia of older generations.

Where did the inspiration come from for the character of Branson Turaco?

Most clearly, the JonBenét Ramsey case is a jumping off point. There came a point where I realized that the media had convicted that entire family. Everyone had assumed that whatever happened to JonBenét that night came from the family, and later on after the media attention faded, the family was basically exonerated, the DNA samples didn’t match, but it didn’t really matter: the narrative was already set. The family was guilty as far as tabloid America was concerned, or at least complicit, or a bad parent, or not enough of a parent.  So that was the jumping off point. If that was you, and you were being condemned by the police, your friends, your estranged wife, and you found out that there was a way to prove all that to be untrue, and you could get your daughter back, how far would you go? How much would you risk, how much of your values would you sacrifice and potentially become the monster everyone believes you to be in order to get your daughter back? And that was the genesis.

Would you consider Branson to be an abusive person?

I don’t like to lead the reader, so in the context of the book, I wouldn’t answer that. In terms of myself, I do think he crosses lines, I think he definitely does things that aren’t morally acceptable, but the question is, “Whose morality?” and, “In what circumstances?” If it was your mother, daughter, or best friend, would you be willing to do things that in any normal instances you wouldn’t? Does that make him a white knight? Certainly not. Does it make him the villain of the piece? I don’t think so, but he may be for someone else. I think it depends on how you feel about his situation, and that’s the whole concept of letting the reader bring more to the story than I do.

However, it is an imperative for the tobacco companies to the grand jury as well as on cialis discount india the show the 60 minutes. Therefore to bring the tampered life of the female viagra pills see content now person as it creates problems with the partner and spoils the love life. There are many medicines which are sildenafil tab used to ease the blood flow in the arteries or ease hyper tension etc. This devensec.com cialis 50mg is not an untested or dangerous product. How do you feel about the reader “owning” their interpretation of a work?

Our culture has caught up to that concept. If you look at how people view owning music and movies today, it’s very different than how 25 years ago. People feel truly betrayed when their favorite film franchise or television series goes in a direction that doesn’t connect with them. There is a sense of ownership, and I think it’s time for content creators to start embracing that.

How about Marius Spiegler?

Should I even be talking about this? So, in 1983 there was a horrible accident that occurred on the set of a movie. There’s a great nonfiction book about the incident. Again, it’s really ripped from the headlines character building. All these bigger-than-life characters that we are familiar with from tabloid news, but taken to the fantasy level, where they are in service to a story that hopefully informs people a little bit more about their tolerance for violence and retribution. It asks the reader how far you’ll support a vigilante, because there’s a line for all of us. Spiegler isn’t a person who necessarily did anything wrong, but he’s a guy who will never live down the fact that he’s indirectly responsible for the death of two children, and that’s going to be part of his legacy forever. Just like in the real case, I think that outrunning that kind of a situation in the world of today’s hyper-media is impossible. And frightening, because what if the newscasters get it wrong? It’s not a redemption story for the character, though it seems like it’s going to be. I have no interest in forcing the reader to feel one way or the other.

Moral relativity plays a major part in the characterization of the leads of this novel. Given their own moral shortcomings, would you classify the antagonists such as the Moonmen as “evil” or some similar label?

That depends on how you approach the story, but with the Moonmen, I think it’s easier to cast them as morally compromised to an unforgivable level. The Moonmen live out in the desert and do their own thing, which is noble libertarianism taken to an extreme, but they are also involved in human trafficking and drug smuggling, which is not noble. But then both cults, the Moonmen and the Pacificans, have their homes invaded and children taken. Is that really so different than what’s happened to Branson?

How would you respond to a reader labeling Abriella as Branson’s love interest?

Branson is accused of doing something horrible to his daughter and ends up with someone so young. That should be uncomfortable and complex for the reader and certainly challenge what’s moral. There’s no cohesion, there’s never a point where Branson forces any of it to happen, but he lets it happen. He’s complicit on some level. He doesn’t make the first move, but does that make him unaccountable? If she’s a surrogate for his daughter, then that’s really uncomfortable. Is it just an age difference, or something far less acceptable? That’s up to the reader.

Much of the description in the novel is devoted to grotesque imagery, such as open wounds and disgusting environmental conditions. How do you feel this works into Blue Eel as a “progressive horror” novel?

Body horror, in some form or another, has been with us forever, but in modern uses of it, such as the films of David Lynch or David Cronenberg, repulsive images are used not just for their visceral reactions but as a critical component of storytelling. Cut us open and we have a graphic internalization of the plot: in Blue Eel, Branson finds himself inside a teepee made of bone and a room made of flesh. We’re as deep inside the character as we can get.

How do you feel the overall development of the horror genre has impacted modern society’s sensibilities?

Horror is everywhere. The young adult genre is probably about 65% horror, and if you include dystopian science fiction, it’s really more like 85%. Television shows like The Walking Dead and police procedural about serial killers are insanely popular. We just came out of Hannibal being made into a mainstream television show. I think that the label “horror” has not done as well as the actual genre. I think the label still has some negative connotations, but heightened approaches to tragedy are everywhere. I’ve seen it reflected in greeting cards, in junk mail, on t-shirts. It’s everywhere and so ubiquitous that we really don’t even call it horror anymore. The imagery and emotions being evoked are common and mainstream, even if the “horror genre” proper has been sidelined.

How do you feel Blue Eel will affect your future works?

I’m about three-fourths of the way through writing my next novel. I wrote my first three novels for a previous publisher. I wrote traditional monster novels because that’s what the publisher wanted. It was fun, but it wasn’t particularly what I wanted to do forever. I wrote Blue Eel without a publisher or a contract; I really wanted to write it. I didn’t know if it was salable, I didn’t know if there was someone out there that would be willing to take a chance on a noir-psychedelia-suspense-revenge horror novel. But what I learned is that the reward is greater than the threat. There isn’t a whole lot like it. It’s a unique experience and treats the reader with respect. I think that is lacking, not just in horror, but in fiction in general. That concept–treating the reader as the writer’s equal–is really compelling to me. I don’t think I can possibly go back to writing the traditional monster stories.

Any last words on the interview?

Please support what you love. Take chances. Explore. Settling for a known commodity will never be as rewarding as taking a chance and having it pay off. Horror readers have a rough individuality in their character anyway, so why not lead the way into uncharted waters?