Suspense

My wife will tell you that I am not a fan of scary movies. She enjoys a good scary movie every once in a while, but she can't watch them with me. I attribute it to my active imagination. We watched The Others our first Halloween at 10:00 am with the sun shining nice and bright through the window. That's how much I'm not a fan of scary movies. Perhaps it was from seeing a big chunk of the movie It when I was about eight. Not a happy memory. No, I'm not afraid of clowns.

The funny thing is, my fear is primarily in events that have a super-natural element. I enjoy watching many of Hitchcock's films including To Catch a Thief, The Man who Knew to Much, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window, and (my personal favorite) Rebecca. I also like Charade by Stanley Donen, and Wait until Dark by Terence Young. Despite my enjoyment of many of Hitchcock's films as well as others, I have no interest in seeing The Birds, or Psycho. Those movies frankly scare me. Perhaps it is the idea of the ordinary becoming malicious. A normal shower becomes a scene of a murder. Crows and ravens descend as killers. For whatever reason, there are plenty of films that I have no desire to see.

Interestingly enough, the same is true of books. In fifth grade I would asked to be excused when the teacher started reading "scary stories" as part of a Halloween ramp-up. However, one day she pulled out a collection of Edgar Allen Poe short stories and I fell in love with his dark style. "The Masque of the Red Death" and "Cask of Amontillado" are two of my favorites along with "Hop-Frog" and "the Pit and the Pendulum." As I mentioned previously, Dracula by Bram Stoker is a personal favorite of mine after reading it in college. I will say, however, that when I first read it, I would not read it after 3:00 pm - just to be sure.

What many of these stories, whether printed or filmed, have in common is suspense. I attended a lecture one Halloween in college where a professor of English and film talked about what made Hitchcock so good at suspense. He explained that suspense is not the unknown, but rather when you know what is going to happen and you are watching someone who doesn't know what is happening. This image - of a person standing behind the shower curtain, out of sight and consequently unknown to the lady - is more suspenseful than this one of the woman seeing Mr. Norman Bates.

Hitchcock was also good at turning that model on it's head. Rear Window has you watching a man who is witnessing this catalyst for suspense himself. He can the danger that his friend is in even when she can't. And our suspense it watching him in suspense. Rear Window may very well be one of the most suspenseful films done simply because of this strange twist on the usual formula.

The Birds is not to be left out. Here Hitchcock plays our own knowledge against us. In the iconic schoolyard scene we see a flock of crows gathering. We know that the woman cannot see them and that the crows having nothing good planned. But lets see what Hitchcock does with our expectations. Watch the scene here.

I'd have posted the clip in text, but it gives away Hitchcock's device. We know what to expect and instead of meeting them, Hitchcock gives us an overdose - a shock that turns the suspense we feel for the women to share in her terror as she realizes what is in store for her. Rebecca does a similar thing where we expect to hear one thing and then find out another. We think we have him figured out, only to find out it's much worse.

This Halloween I won't be watching anything worse than The Mummy staring Brendan Fraser or even Abbot and Costello meet the Mummy. This is in part because we will have smallish children with us, and also because I don't really like scary movies. I hope you enjoy your Halloween.

Real life Twilight: Vampires and Werewolves

Since I posted last week on Dracula, the big bad himself, and with All Hallow's Eve coming up next week I figured I'd share some stuff I learned about real like vampires and werewolves.

Both of these resulted in my discovering the National Geographic Wild YouTube channel. In addition to having some fun animal stuff (as well as other National Geographic programs), there are even full episodes of shows. One that I've recently watched is America the Wild with Casey Anderson. He strikes me as a Bear Grylls meets the Kratt Brothers - an outdoor enthusiast with a strong interest in animals. That and like the Kratts, he's willing to do some pseudo-crazy things. Like lie down with a bunch cows that are being fed off of by vampire bats.

Some interesting points that come up in the episode. For instance, vampire bats are the only mammal that that are exclusively hematophagy (feed on blood). From what I could find, the only other creatures that only subside on blood are our common friends in the bug world. Another interesting fact is that if you are on the look out for vampire bats, you need to watch the ground. They sneak up on their pray and leap on them, rather than flying on them. Something else I found interesting is that the their face is packed full of heat sensors that can pick up where the blood is closest to the surface. From there they simply open up the vein and let their spit keep the blood from clotting. I can't say I would ever find myself getting cozy with a vampire bat, but they are kind of cool for how they have adapted and their unique hunting style.

I also promised werewolves and while I still think that Corriea has the coolest werewolf ever in Earl Harbringer (see the first sentence on that page, "Dirty Harry meets Twilight." got to love it! Oh, click next to read chapters from the book.) I have to confess that Casey's Monster Wolf is a pretty convincing idea.

The premise of the Monster Wolf episode is to try to explain why there are wolves and wolf packs that are more aggressive - and consequently more dangerous to people. The hypothesis is that at some point the wolves bred with dogs giving their mental and genetic makeup a bit of a cognitive dissonance. On one hand they are familiar with humans and being near them. On the other they have instincts that make them extremely dangerous. Ultimately what you get with a wolf-dog (the result of interbreeding) is a creature that is not afraid of humans but that is hardwired to protect itself, its territory, and its food from everything. They point out that wolves, even cubs, cannot be domesticated. It's an argument of nature verses nurture and with wolves nature is all that matters. In some ways wolf-dogs are literal werewolves because they will be very dog like - playing, romping, etc - but as the video shows (just after the 17 minute mark) they can turn into the primal wolf with the right stimuli. It may not be a full moon, but the change happens just as fast.

Werewolves and Vampires have a long history in culture and folklore. I will put in another plug for Corriea's Monster Hunter Alpha (and the rest of the series to boot) as it gives a different mythos to the origin of werewolves. And lets just face it that Earl Harbinger could take Jacob, Sam, and the whole twilight pack apart. And that would be even before he changed forms. While the Volturi show up with just a lot of people, Earl brings a small crew and a Carl Gustav. Larry, I want to read the account of MHI taking out the Volturi. Make it happen!

The Monster Man

I've learned that there is a new television series coming out called Dracula. I've looked at some of the promotional material and  I have to say that I have mixed feelings. This is partially because I particularly enjoyed reading the book (despite my avoidance of horror literature and film) and I worry about how they treat the original work. But that is a common fear for any adaptation and not a valid reason to dislike something. I do have to say that I am curious about the way that Dracula is portrayed and the way they take the story. It is highly unlikely that I will watch the new drama, however. One reason is that I'm not a big serial drama consumer. The second is that I do not appreciate watching overly sexual television or film. The last reason is that I don't have any way to receive television signals - and I'm perfectly happy about that. Now, I mentioned how I have mixed feelings about the idea of the new Dracula take - this is because I think that evil should be portrayed as such.

I have to agree with Tracy Hickman. In a Writing Excuses episode from 2009 he expressed his resistance against the popular rise of vampires by saying: "Vampires are monsters, and they should be monsters, and they've turned into cute, cuddly, hunks. And I object to that. I think that's actually ill serves women, because what we've done is, we've taken this monstrous cliche, the idea of the monster man as a warning -- a cautionary tale for women and turned it into a chick-flick." In the original Dracula story, by Bram Stoker, Dracula is a creature that steals infants from their mothers to drink their blood, kills without hesitation, and is intent on dominating others - by forcing them to drink his own blood. He is methodical, cunning, vicious, and worst of all charming - the mask he uses to cover his viciousness. Some may say that he is justified by his love of country and his desire to preserve it, but the question is "justified to what?" Character has grown stronger over the years as others have interpreted him and his power and abilities have grown. Yet, I see no situation in which he himself would seek redemption. I suppose the new series could feature an anti-hero as our main character. I can't say that I've ever really got into those however. So what is this interest in the macabre [dealing with death] romance?

Dan Wells, in his novella Night of Blacker Darkness, may demonstrate another part of the equation. Wells' vampires are weaklings who cannot overpower an adult. They are easily overcome by any strong smell (one was turned away by a sharp cheddar cheese once) and are quite pathetic. They claim to have started the Gothic movement "to romanticize the concept of the powerless victim." (Their problem now is that all they got are moody young women who start book clubs. Really, the book is hilarious.) If you take the idea of Tracy's "monster man" and combine it with Dan's "helpless victim," I wonder if you get the recent surge in paranormal romance. The same Dan Wells, along with his brother Rob, put together a fun list of "Which monster would be the best boyfriend?" Dracula scored below Mr. Hyde and above the Phantom of the Opera. He was docked down the list because he already has three wives already. But lets not forget that he is a monster.

Now, despite this line of thinking, I must confess to quite enjoying the movie Hotel Transylvania which features Dracula as an over-protective father, trying to keep his daughter safe from the terrors of humanity. Perhaps I feel more comfortable with this Dracula because he is such a complete opposite of Bram Stocker's. Or maybe it's the fact that I can be empathetic to his situation (I found out that my 5 year old already has a cadre of boys following her around and I want to buy a shot gun). Or perhaps because there is such a need to suspend disbelief for everything else, I can excuse such a portrayal of evil as "misunderstood." Whatever the reason, you may call me a hypocrite for liking one alternate version of Dracula while disparaging another. With that said, I know what to do with vampires, regardless of if they're named Dracula or not.

[picture citation]
Or you can always read Larry Corriea for some suitable ways to get rid of them. My personal favorite is plastic explosives. I would love to see a Twilight / MHI crossover. And yes, I've read both series.

What are you saying?

I returned from a professional conference this week. out of the fifteen or so sessions I attended two of them were on nonverbal communication. I work with students all day, not to mention coworkers, and have a lot of customer service type interactions. Our office manages a couple of initiatives that are rather unpopular to certain populations of students, i.e. students with low grades or who don't want to take math. Consequently, we often times have to listen to the hard luck stories of students, or try to defuse their anger. As one of the presenters mentioned, we are communicating constantly, particularly when we don't say anything. Regardless of what we do we are sending a message. Even if you are wearing a "blank" facial expression your body is sending messages.

Both presentations brought up the extend of non-verbal communication. Most people just think of body language (kinesics) and voice intonation (vocalics), but the list also includes: appearance and adornment (what you look like and wear), use of space (proxermics), touch (haptics), eye contact and facial expressions, environment and artifacts, and even your use of time (chronemics). One of the things that both presentations brought up, and something that many people are aware of if they've traveled, is that different cultures have different standards and customs that. Things you may suspect to be universal are not. With that said, their are seven universal facial expressions. You'll notice that most of them are differentiated by specific but limited attributes. There are lots of ways you can embellish those expressions, but it's clear when the prime attributes are absent.

I am all for people being individuals. I like to be myself and afford others the same opportunity. With that said, often people are communicating one thing while their words say something else. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying." When we consider that our appearance and what we choose to wear (or not wear) is a very real part of what we communicate, I wonder why people get such elaborate facial tattoos. Also, consider what Howard Tayler pointed out in his wonderful "Charisma is not a dump stat" blog post from several years ago. To quote the gist of the post (you should read the whole thing):

If you want to be a professional writer, illustrator, or other creator, you may be enticed into believing that your dress, demeanor, and interpersonal skills are less important than they are in other fields. This is patently false. ... If you're trying to...get an editor to read that 200,000 word manuscript, you cannot afford to be anything other than easy to get along with and inoffensive to the other senses. 

The importance of appearance, proxermics, and chronemics are often missed. The presenter of one session played a clip showing the impact of the "close talker" on people. How close you stand to people says something, as does if you are on time or late whenever you meet with them. Do you have a friend that is "flaky," a person who makes plans but consistently falls through? That says something about them.

I need to note the importance of intent vs. impact, which I've usually heard in regards to sexual harassment prevention workshops. What you intend to say with your body language is can be misunderstood by the person "listening" to you. In the end, it doesn't matter what you intend because what is important to the other person is how it affects them - the impact of your non-verbal communication. While we can never have complete control over how our language is interpreted, it is important to make sure that the non-verbal communication we are sending is purposeful. Be mindful that you are communicating, particularly when you are not talking. 

This is going to hurt. A lot.

If you've been reading my other blog, Grandfather's Wish, you'd have seen a post on my latest past time - World War Wasp. The short of it that I got stung and decided it was time to get rid of the nest that they built in my shed. Since then I've been musing about the fact that wasps don't just sting you but actually inject a venom into you as well. At the moment venom is really on my mind as I have a face full of it. I tried going after the wasps again and in an effort not to get stung, dressed in a heavy leather coat, brimmed hat and even worn gloves. They responded to by investigation with extreme prejudice by stinging me on the only spot I hadn't covered - my face. I'm fine and despite a pretty harrowing experience in the past with wasps I have a pretty good tolerance for their stings. I still don't like to be stung. I just try to cope as best I can. I must say that getting stung in the face is madding because it itches and I don't want to tear my face off for a stupid wasp sting. Luckily the local pharmacist gave me some stuff to try that works really well. Anyway, back to venom.

As I was researching wasps in particular, I learned that their venom is designed to cause pain. They use it for a variety of things, but the bottom line result of having wasp venom injected into you is to put the hurt on you. This is because wasp stingers are very small - wasps are very small and they have to defend themselves from creatures much bigger them themselves. So the venom in a wasp is a psychological biological weapon. It destroys cell ways, particularly neurons, which cause the victim to register pain. It has additional things that stop the flow of blood in the area (so the venom can hang around as much as it likes) and others that enable it to move from cell to cell, hunting out neurons. The idea is to make the victim look at the wasp and feel a strong pain and say, "Holy Crap! That little bug just put a big hurt on me. I don't want any more of this!" and leave. Now of course there can be other side effects of wasp venom: swelling, infection, and even life-threatening anaphylactic reactions for those with an allergy to the venom. Because wasps, and their cousins bees, are so common and the chance of being stung likely treatments are pretty standard and those with allergies can get an Epi-Pen for quick treatment.

There are many other types of venom out there, however. Remember that venomous creatures are those that inject a dangerous substance into their victims. In order to be hurt by poisonous creatures you have to eat them. The list of venomous animals on Wikipedia needs some better organization, but it shows that you have all different kinds of animals: mammals, fish, reptiles, insects and arachnids, just about every kind of animal will have one that venomous. The actual process of having venom injected into you is called envenomation and that is not a word you want to see by "cause of death." Snakes tend to be be the most known venomous animals. Many know about rattlesnakes, cobras, and vipers. I would put spiders and scorpions as the runners up. Not just because they're venomous but also because they're creeping looking. Beyond those, I would imagine that many people don't think about other creatures being venomous, but be careful, because there are still quite a few you wouldn't think of.

Venom can be injected a number of ways. The most commonly thought of are fangs and stingers. This is probably because they just scream, "INJECTION!" They are designed to force venom into a victim in the most direct way possible. They are not the only ones. Many lizards, like the gila monster and the komoto dragon, have venomous saliva that they chew into their victims, saturating the wound with the toxins. Others, such as the male platypus, other mammals and many fish, have a spur or spine that either secretes or is covered in the venom and is then stab it into the victim. What is also interesting is that the creature can often choose whether to inject the venom or not. Wasps, apparently, do it every time. But snakes, particularly adult snakes will often bite without releasing the venom - as a way of warning off someone or something. This is why child or adolescent venomous creatures tend to be deadlier than their parents. Every situation is a dire one and so they will often inject as much venom as possible into everything that bothers them.

Granted, just because a creature can choose to inject venom doesn't mean it's worth the risk of getting bit. Venom can kill in so many different ways, and even the ones that don't kill can maim, blind, debilitate, or just flat out hurt like the devil. Some venom effect the blood, either causing it to clot and producing strokes or blockages, or letting it run freely which also causes problems. Often times venom contains a neuro-toxin which will interrupt the signals from the brain, often resulting in a victim muscles to seize up killing them by suffocation or cardiac arrest. What is truly interesting is that scientists can now deconstruct a creatures venom just from a DNA sample and use it to treat dangerous medical conditions. This article from National Geographic back in February talks about the research being done in venom studies and what potential cures are being discovered. It is a fascinating read and explains the strides being made much better than I can.

So, World War Wasp is still one, but I think their down to their last survivors. I'm just glad that I'm not allergic to wasp venom or that would be making my life very difficult right now.