Fiction vs. Reality

I was so bothered by that movie Patriot's Day which showed the Islamist terrorists doing their dirty deeds. But my own book, The Vase has Islamic terrorists, too. But The Vase is fiction. The terrorists in The Vase are fictitious. All deaths that occur in The Vase are fictitious deaths. And because it's all fictitious, it's entertainment. That was one of my points in yesterday's post. Fiction vs. reality.

Sometimes fiction represents reality. Like the movie Patriot's Day. It represented real events. Those deaths and maiming really did happen. Sure war movies that depict real battles could be considered representations of reality. Like the movies that are about real battles. The movie Zulu, starring Michael Caine is one of those. I mention that one because that movie is about the battle at Rorke's Drift, which took place during the Anglo Zulu War. It really happened.

So those actors in the movie Zulu did represent real people, and many of those people did get killed. But that was like a hundred and fifty years ago. And my soon to be released book John Dunn; Heart of a Zulu will have not just the battle at Rorke's Drift in it, but three other battles from that war, too. And all were real battles and the people who fought those battles were real people. I included real English soldiers and real Zulu warriors in the book. And of course, John Dunn was real.

So what is entertainment? When it comes to books, a good plot with action, conflict, humor, and good writing is necessary to be good. What I don't like is something too outlandish, or too far-fetched. I've complained often that a female fighter beating up every male fighter she comes across is a little too far-fetched. I still don't accept the premise of these super female fighters wholeheartedly. It's too far-fetched. I still believe a woman can be a strong character without resorting to fighting and killing. To me, fighting and killing is a male thing. Using your head intelligently, however, to solve problems in ways that don't involve violence is not just a male thing. It is also a female thing. And I might wager it's the superior way.

So why wouldn't a story feature a strong woman who solves problems with her intelligence rather than with guns? In my book, John Dunn, Catherine Pierce is such a woman. Why does Hollywood seem to think women have to be violent? I say women don't have to be violent. And I say I'm right. Is there anyone who disagrees with me? I didn't think so.

Patriot's Day - Sad Movie

I took my son to see Patriot's Day, the new movie with Mark Wahlberg starring as the real life Sgt. Saunders in the Boston Police Department. It was about the horrible experience the people of Boston had to live through due to the despicable Islamist terrorists who detonated bombs at the Boston Marathon. Three people lost their lives, including a small boy, and many people lost one or even both of their legs.

Just what kind of evil person could do that to someone? I mean even their worst enemy? How could a small boy and two obscure women, and the many people crippled by the blast even be considered enemies? I guess if you have evil in your heart, like those two brothers did, and the one brother's wife, then you can consider anyone an enemy.

As far as movies go, the movie was well done. It's not a movie I would have chosen to see if there were any of the movies that I would have preferred. But John Wick 2, XXX 3, and Jack Reacher 2 aren't out yet. And it was a night that I was supposed to take my son to a movie. I had promised my son I'd take him so we decided on being patriotic, and we chose Patriot's Day. The movie turned out to be a sad reminder of the scumbags out there who want to kill us. They twist their reasoning, I suppose to warrant such vile acts, and then go through with it.

What's worse, these twisted-minded murderers come from other countries to enjoy American freedoms and then they go about trying to destroy the lives of the Americans who are here. We have all of our agencies who are supposed to prevent that, but they don't. San Bernardino happened after the Boston horror. And the Orlando massacre happened even more recently. There wasn't much protection if you would ask any of them. At least the San Bernardino murderers were killed by police. And the Orlando murderer was killed by police. And the people in Boston came together to catch one and kill the other who did it in Boston. And thankfully the one they caught is on death row.

So I would like to know what is going to happen next? Who will be killed next? In what state, what city, and how many people will be murdered next? What will our government do to protect the American people next? What they've been doing so far sure hasn't worked. Not if you ask the people in Boston, or San Bernardino, or Orlando. Or Fort Hood.

We've got enough nut-jobs of our own to worry about. Oklahoma, Sandy Hook, and the high school and theater in Colorado are plenty proof of that. And the murder rates in every major city are more proof of that. Especially Chicago. We have enough of our own murderers to worry about. We don't need murderers from other countries coming here and adding to that.

How can it stop? Don't ask me. I'm not a politician. If I were, I'd be the most hated politician who ever existed in America. Why? Because I'd get rid of every gun in the country. Except for those belonging to the police and the military. It's weird if you think about it. I'd be hated for trying to save lives by getting rid of every gun that doesn't belong to someone who's job description requires it.

So I guess it's a good thing I'm not a politician. Because as far as I know, that's the only thing that would work. And if that could somehow be accomplished, no more people would be murdered by guns. But my tenure in politics would be short. I wouldn't get re-elected. They'll tell me the scum can still make their pressure bombs. Like the brothers did in Boston. But the cop they ambushed would not have been shot. I'm sure his family would be happy for that.

The movie Patriot's Day was realistic. It was a good movie. But I wouldn't have gone to see it if there were some action movies out to see. Let me make something clear. Movies are the only place I want to see guns and shooting. Because in the movies, it's all fake. It's all just acting. Those people are just pretending to shoot people and they're pretending to get shot. They get up after taking their falls, and they collect a paycheck. And those paychecks are for a lot more than what I make as a school teacher. So good for them. But it wasn't good for the real people they depicted in Patriot's Day. Those people stayed dead.

In my books, Killer of Killer and Killer Eyes, it's all fiction. Sure, there's killing. But no one really dies. It's entertainment. Like when I was a kid. The neighborhood kids would come over, and we'd play with toy guns. We'd pretend to shoot each other, and we'd pretend to get shot, and we'd pretend to get killed. Sometimes we played games like who could enact the best at getting shot and killed. It was all fake. That's the difference.

My son said after the movie, "What a sad movie." And I thought to myself he was right. I want to be entertained when I see a movie. Not saddened. And entertainment means knowing that the people in the movie didn't really get hurt and they didn't really die. But in Boston, they really did.

Women are strong, but do they really want to fight?

I've been watching on Netflix an action show called Arrow. He's a vigilante and a great fighter. So is his sidekick Roy Harper. But the badass fighters aren't limited to the men. Arrow's ex-girl friend Sara is also a badass fighter. And a Chinese gangster girl. And an Italian mobster's daughter. And then Sara's sister, Laurel becomes a badass fighter. And now I'm finding out that Arrow's little sister, the sweet and dainty Thea, is going to be a badass fighter. I mean, come on. I was okay with Sara. I was even okay with the Italian mobster's daughter. And I was okay with the Chinese gangster chick. But Laurel? And now Thea? Come on.

Sure, Women are Strong, but do they really want to fight people? Of course, you want your wife, your daughters, or your sisters to be able to defend themselves if need be, but do you really want to see them duke it out with someone? I am amazed how so many shows on TV and movies feature badass chicks who punch, clobber, and straight up kick everyone's ass. It's sensationalized, and I don't think I agree with that.

Why? Because let's face it people, fighting is an ugly thing. It's not something to glorify. Fighting gets people hurt. Sometimes really bad. Sometimes it gets people killed. Is that something women really want? Think about it. Have you ever been in a situation where you really had to fight someone? I mean really punch them, and try to hurt them? Is that what you want? If you're a man or a woman. Is it?

Sure, if you're being attacked, or sexually assaulted, you should know how to defend yourself, but that often leads to a worsening of the situation. Better you just run! Yeah, even if you're a man. Get out of there. Too often men think they're tough guys, and they have to prove their manhood by fighting. But where a woman gets off proving her 'womanhood' by fighting is beyond me. I thought they were smarter than that. Aren't they? I would think a woman would be better off if she could use her brains and avoid a fight. A man, too, btw.

Yeah, in my Killer books, my main character, Trent Smith, is a fighter. But he was a professional fighter in Japan. He had made a lot of money doing that because he had trained for over twenty years in the world's most renowned martial arts academy. He was the world's greatest martial artist. Events led him to his road of justice in America, and it's the story that's important, not the fighting. But the fact remains. When you're face to face with someone, getting ready to 'throw down', do you think that's a pleasant thing? To all the women out there, is that what you want? Is that what you want to see other women do? Is that the way you want women to convey strength? That they can beat someone up? Does that prove they're strong? Does it?

I say again fighting is an ugly thing. As a teacher in a Middle School, I've seen girls going at it in an all out brawl. More than once. Punching, kicking, scratching, pulling hair, gouging eyes, tearing clothes. I've had to break up a girl fight in my own classroom. I couldn't do it by myself, they were so vicious. It was the definition of ugly. Something I would never want to see again. Two fourteen year old girls trying to kill each other. And you want to see that in the movies and on TV? Do you?

The movies and the TV shows glorify it. They make it as if you are not a strong person if you can't fight. Sure, as a youth I had some scraps with other boys. I'm not proud of it. Yeah, I was glad I was trained in the martial arts, specifically Ju Jitsu, like Trent Smith in Killer of Killers and Killer Eyes. But I didn't go looking for a fight. And I'm glad (and proud) to say that as an adult, I actually did use my brains to avoid escalation in situations that might have resulted in violence.

So what about all these badass, kickass women? You see them in almost every TV show, almost every movie. Even my books, The Vase and Killer Eyes had a couple women who were fighters. In The Vase, Mary Levin is a trained IDF captain. (Most women in Israel are trained in the IDF. It's a national requirement.) In Killer Eyes, the antagonist, Ming Sang is a highly trained martial artist. But neither one goes out looking to fight. Not even Ming Sang. And she's the villain.

So I would like to know. If you are a woman, do you really want to go out there and punch someone? If you do, do you realize that you might get punched back? I'm betting that will take the fight out of you. And I'm betting it will make you think twice about wanting to be a badass.

TV Series - Banshee - Wow

I've been catching up on some of these Premium Channel TV Series, and the one I'm watching right now is Banshee. It's on Cinemax, and like the other Cinemax show, Strike Back, which I just finished watching through season three, it's full of action. But I like Banshee better. In fact, I'm thinking that I like Banshee better than any other TV show I've ever watched. It's that good.

What I like about these Premium Channel shows is that they don't have to worry about Network TV censorship. Foul language, nudity, sex, and over the top violence is all allowed. And how. It really makes a show better. A lot better. And I'm on season three of Banshee right now. Last night I just saw episode three of season three, and all I've got to say is "Wow."
'
Well, I can say more than that. Episode three of season three was one of the best episodes of any TV show I've ever seen. Ever. It was up there with my favorite movies even. Like the Transporter movies, or Jason Bourne. It was that good. After it finished, I was like..."Wow." I'm sold on Banshee. I have no problem with saying it's one of my all time favorite TV shows.

Since, "Rome" a few years ago on HBO, I was sold on these Premium channel series. I talked about Spartacus a lot, because I liked that one too, although I did have some problems with the writing. Some I didn't watch but I heard about them, like Sopranos and The Wire, but I've caught up on them now. I thought they were both good, but they don't match Banshee in original premise, writing and directing.

When I watch these shows, one of the things that goes through my mind is which actors might have a role in my Killer of Killers story. Dustin Clare was from Spartacus, and he's still the leading candidate for my main character Trent Smith in KOK. Antony Starr from Banshee might be a good option for Trent Smith, too. He's still a distant second, though. Dustin Clare remains number one in regards to what I've envisioned Trent Smith to look like.

No show can be good without good writing. And the writing on Banshee has been top notch. The characters are great, the villains are great, and subplots are great. Each episode is contained, although they do have a story arc flowing through the entire season, even throughout the entire series. That's instrumental in keeping a viewer interested. And I am.

What really sets Banshee apart is the directing. Again, wow. Some of the best directing I've ever seen anywhere. And the fight scenes? They're so good they even rival the best of Corey Yuen. In fact, the fight scene I just saw last night was one of the best fight scenes of all time, imo. And it was between a man and a woman! I've already made my opinion known about "tough chicks" but heck, I must say it was simply one of the best ever!

Yeah, Banshee wins on all fronts. It's one of the best shows ever made.

Never Saw Fury

As it turned out, I never saw the movie Fury. I wanted to. But I can't seem to get my family all on the same page when it comes to going to a movie. My wife doesn't like war movies. My sons are split on them, and I've always liked them. The most recent war movie that I can think of, Private Ryan, to me, was only okay. Yeah it had some gory moments to it, which is one of the many things war is, but it just wasn't a good story line, imo. I didn't buy into it because I had too many problems with it.

I didn't really like Full Metal Jacket either. I had too many problems with that one too. Ditto with Apocalypse Now. Way too flawed of a movie. Which makes me wonder what the heck these movie makers are thinking. Just put out a war movie without much thought for the story line? I guess.

I think the most recent war movie I thought was a good war movie was Cross of Iron. Of course, having such great actors in it, like James Coburn, James Mason, Maximillian Schell, and David Warner made it even better. All were perfectly cast.

Violence equals tension. It's one of the reasons Killer of Killers is such a good book. And what kind of movie will have more violence than a war movie? But violence alone cannot make a good movie.  You have to have a good story line. That's what makes it a good movie. That and good characters, good events, and a good plot. Apolcalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket didn't have good plots, didn't have good characters, and for me, that's why they had problems.

As for Fury? Well, I'll let you know when I see it. But who knows when that will be. I think it's already gone from the theaters. I'll have to wait until it comes to Netflix.

KILLER OF KILLERS, Coming Soon

KILLER OF KILLERS will be a great debut novel. I mean for my first book published, it's going to be an intense read. But it's not for everyone. It's not for kids, that's for sure. There is violence, but not over the top violence. There is killing, obviously, but not over the top killing. And there is sex, but not over the top sex.

So what do I mean by over the top violence, over the top killing, and over the top sex? Well has anyone out there seen the Starz TV series called Spartacus? There have been three seasons of it now. Well, if you have seen it, then you know what I mean by "over the top." In those Spartacus shows, there is over the top violence, killing, and sex. I mean the first thing they show as the credits begin is a spattering of blood across the screen with the title.

And that's what you get throughout the show. Blood spurting, pouring, drenching everywhere. Limbs hacked off, heads rolling, and it's consistent throughout all three seasons. But hey, I'm not criticizing it. I actually like it. I like all shows about the Roman Empire. I liked the old movies from the 50s and 60s, like Cleopatra, Ben Hur, and, yeah, Spartacus with Kirk Douglas.

But those movies are for kiddies compared to Starz' Spartacus. And the sex? Well, let's just say it's borderline pornographic. I'm no prude, and I know sex is a part of life. But to show it as much as Starz does in Spartacus? Well, it's over the top.

And Killer of Killers has it all. But again, it's not over the top. Not like Spartacus.

Violence in Kid's Literature

Many blogs have been talking about violence in kid's literature, and if it affects them somehow. I don't think it does. I actually remember being a kid, and I was upset when my favorite TV show was cancelled because someone said it was too violent. When I watch DVDs of that show now, The Wild Wild West, with Robert Conrad, is hardly violent compared with what's on TV these days. That show did not impact me in any way as far as violence is concerned. It didn't make me a violent kid. It didn't desensitize me to violence, and it didn't impact me psychologically.

I have two sons, both young still, and they have watched a lot of movies that have violence, and neither have become violent or psychologically bothered.

I haven't read a lot of YA books, but the fact that kids are reading is a good thing. As a teacher, I can say that violence in the school setting is not caused by any violence in literature. Peer pressure is the leading cause, and it has been that way since I was a kid, and it will be that way forever.

Bottom line, be glad kids are reading. It's a much better option to video games and the overt violence there. Leave literature alone.