Would he think about this?

     It is one of those moments when I am unable to find a video game to hold my attention, nor am I willing to brows Netflix long enough to find something worth watching,  So I am just going to write out my thoughts while drinking coffee and listening to music.  This particular moment what I am thinking about is about something I remember reading about or hearing about on something I was watching, probably a combination of both.  Having evolutionary and physiological effects on our feeling or what we perceive as scary.
   While flipping through the images on Imgur, I came across some one who posted a bunch of "scary" gifs.  This has become common to do in the evening and is referred to as Late Night Imgur or LNI.  It is when people post the most creepy looking kind of images or animated gifs, in attempts to give the people up this late a fright. Personally I don't find them creepy I just find them amusing.  Though I was thinking about one image that many people said they found scary.  I started to look at it and analyse it.  The image is that of what appears to be a woman sitting in a bed,  She is wearing a white gown, her skin is pale and sickly looking, her face and jaw are stretched longer than humanly possible, in her mouth are long fangs that would not allow her to close her mouth properly.  She has no eyes, instead they are just black empty sockets.  The gif is animated and she appears to be screaming.  This image has been posted several times and every time some one mentions that is scary.  Even with a large gallery of other images this one seems to be singled out quite a bit.  Lets look that the parts of the image that add to this value of terror. Why each part is contributing to the whole image to make it as unnerving as possible.
     First off, she is wearing a white gown.
 White is traditionally thought of as pure and innocent, something that a pure clean and good person wears.  Which is why brides are often wearing white in western culture.  It shows purity.  Angels and saints are often depicted wearing white garments. So maybe it add that this might at one time been a nice person that has gone bad.  People fear corruption.  The blouse appears to be some what like a hospital gown.  This could infer that she had taken ill with an unknown disease and is in a hospital to recover.  This leads directly into the second and third features.
    Second, she is sitting in a bed, this may be that she has taken ill and is trying to recover from an illness, this could also play on the viewer as something they see when they enter their bedroom,  A bedroom is something people usually feel safe in.  It is comforting to be tucked into a warm bed.  Though it is also a place where you experience nightmares.  Late at night when it is dark and you hear a strange noise that wakes you, you experience the adrenaline response of flight or fight.  Your imagination conjures all kinds of scenarios.
    The third thing is that this lady's complexion is very pale, very sickly looking, this plays into the fear of illness.   We are driven away instinctually to avoid the sick,  because we have a drive to stay healthy and avoid illness.  This is why Zombie films are so popular in the horror genre.

What can be more scary than an illness that kills you but makes you continue to spread that illness even though you are dead?  Pale skin and sores on the body suggest a state of illness that you want to avoid.  You'll never fear a zombie with a healthy glow or bronze tan.

     The next part of this image is they stretched face, and open mouth bearing teeth. Many animals view the showing of teeth as a sight of aggression, it is threatening to bare teeth to a dog, they will growl or bark at you if you do this, smaller animals will cower, a large animal baring their teeth might show that the plan on having them as a meal.  The human animal though is different, we bare our teeth as a sign of affection from one another, this is what we call a smile.  That is why if you're going to make the showing to teeth feel threatening you have to make them as inhuman as possible.
The jaw opening impossibly wide gives the snake like appearance to the image.  There is a deep rooted fear in the image of a snake that plays into this aspect of the image. This lady has something you would not see in a normal set of teeth, long sharp fangs that would be better suited inside the mouth of a snake.  Since they are far from human in appearance we perceive them as a threat instead of a smile. There is another way to provide them as threatening yet maintain their human appearance.  Missing or rotten teeth are yet another perception of disease and to be avoided.  This could be seen in films where the threatening role is played by a man of poor hygiene, there is a very good example of this in the film Willow.  When the character of Madmartigan is introduced he is disheveled and this teeth are yellow green in appearance.  The heroes see him as dangerous and scary.  The next morning he is cleaning his teeth and they appear white and straight.  Suddenly the character still feels less scary, maybe not to be completely trusted but not dangerous.  Something as simple as they appearance of teeth effect the perception of fear.
   Lastly the missing eyes, this is something that plays quite highly in the psychological aspect of fear.  Now something that is missing eyes, is commonly perceived as blind.  Yet in horror films something missing eyes acts nothing like a creature that is blind.  They appear to be able to see perfectly well.  What plays on this as a fear feature is.  There is no way to tell were this creature is looking,  how it is able to perceive you even though you can't tell how it is seeing you.
  They Xenomorph created by H. R. Giger played this aspect of fear well.  It had no visible eyes but it knows right were its victims are.  The idea of sight where it is perceived as blind causes feeling of uneasiness in people.

  Now, I've said this before that I don't typically get scared at images of scary things, but that will not mean I won't jump at a startling noise or scream.  That's an inherent reflex action that is hard if not impossible to control.  The things that scare me are the things that cause my mind to make up the menace.  This little short story caused me to get scared.

   


   


        You are upstairs in your room on the computer.  You hear your mother call you down stairs.  As you get up and head out of your room you feel a hand grab your shoulder, it is your mother she's pale and scared. She says to you, "Shh, don't go down there baby.  I heard it too."













                                   

I would still enjoy the Man of Steel.

    I'm writing this as a reply to all the film critics out there that are saying less than stellar things about the new film Man of Steel.  I'll have to admit that I do have a bit of a bias when it comes to enjoying all things Superman.  Though as a faithful fan of the "Boy Scout" I should probably dislike this film.  Some Superman fans have been angry at the changes made to Superman with this new film.  I think this film is a nice change of pace to all previous incarnations of the Blue Bird.  Though the critics seem to think, that he's been made into just another brooding outsider.

   This is my take away from watching the film.  There was very little strong character development in this first film.  I am sure that can be said about lots of films that were made with hopes for squeals to follow.  The character development of the first Star Wars film was very lacking.  How can you criticize something like character development when you've been living with the culture of Superman for years and years before.  Saying that there isn't any character development to the film like this one is like saying, you upset with the fact that you ordered a pizza, but were not told that there was cheese and tomato sauce along with the toppings you ordered for it.  There are things that you should know as a given when going to see a film that already has a history to it.   I actually found more character development in this film for the villain, General Zod, than in Superman 2.  Both characters I found have their place in the stories they are in, but I found there to be much more depth in this Zod, than in the one from the 80s.  There is more of a focus on what the world of Krypton was really like, and a little less of what earth is like.  Which is something all the previous Superman films lacked severely.  This film did an excellent job of bringing to light the world that Krypton was, and how it crumbled. Giving an important lesson in it that power and decadence will ultimately destroy a civilization.  The current quotes I am reading seem to skip over that aspect and focus mainly on how they think this is some kind of "The Dark Knight" clone.

Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly:"'Dark Knight'-style makeover never quite comes together. Sure, Superman is still faster than a speeding bullet and more powerful than a locomotive. ... But he's been transformed into the latest in a long line of soul-searching super-brooders, trapped between his devastated birth planet of Krypton and his adopted new home on Earth. He's just another haunted outsider grappling with issues."

    This kind of view in that quote is kind of a "I want my cake and to eat it too."  All my life I have been laughed at for being a bigger fan of Superman and not Batman.  Batman is the dark brooding mysterious hero.  So much depth so much struggle with his emotions and moral code.  Where all I hear about Superman is, he's boring.  He's good, he never dose anything bad he just  has no depth like Batman.  So when I see a film that gives that similar dark moral struggle that Batman has, given to Superman, people complain that it isn't like Superman.  Well you can't have it both ways people.  You want Superman to stay Superman "boring" as many have said?  Would you like him to be given a bit of depth and focus on his own moral struggle, which is that he could just as easily become the planet's ruler instead of its protector.  You can't have both, so when you go with one people complain about the lack of the other. If you put out the stigma that no one likes Superman because he's too goody of a good guy, you can't complain when some one tries to tarnish the sparkling image to give him some depth.  There is even more depth given to Kal El at the very start of the film.  His birth, it was very different from all the other living Kryptonians.  I'm not sure if anyone else really thought of that aspect of it.  If you're confused, I suggest you watching the film it is subtle if you're not really thinking about it.

  Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: "Given the 'Dark Knight' trilogy's Nolan and Goyer's involvement, it's no surprise that 'Man of Steel' is conceptualized in the Batman mold, a dark end of the street extravaganza where, theoretically at least, epic vision would be joined with dramatic heft. It hasn't worked out quite that way.

   I feel that critics of this film seem to focus mainly on the films they know of Superman and not the depth he is given in his comics.  They complain that this isn't the same kind of light heated silly Superman that it was in previous films.  Which is almost laughable to say.  What do they think a "re-boot" "re-imagining" is suppose to be?  Just spit shine Superman and Superman 2, and put them back in theaters if that is what they were hoping for? No wonder they dislike this film.  What happened to the Superman films is the same thing that happened to the Batman films, the first two that Tim Burton released were fairly Gothic and dark in nature, but gradually they got more and more cartoon like and silly, until Batman Begins.  I'm sure if the Man of Steel was just as lighthearted and silly as the previous Superman films, the critics would complain that nothing about the concept of Superman has changed.  This film had everything I was hoping for the film to be.

Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian: "This is a great, big, meaty, chewy superhero adventure, which broadly does what it sets out to do, though at excessive length. What I missed were the gentle, innocent pleasures of Superman's day-to-day crimefighting existence.... Due to the cataclysmic battle in this film, much of the Man of Steel's mystery and novelty have been used up. Subsequent adventures may lose altitude."

 I think the grand scale of this is prefect for Superman.  The massive cataclysmic fighting and events unfolding in this film are the same kind that took place in the first two films.  The splintering of the North American continent in the first film and the attack of the 3 Kryptonian criminals in the second film. In fact it is both of them combined if you look at it. I'm not sure where this, not enough day to day crime fighting, is coming from that this critic is pointing out.  There are a few places where Superman is simply rescuing innocents.  If you where hoping to see him to rescue a cat from a tree for a little girl, that is probably why it isn't in the film, because it was something you were expecting, clearly they were trying to avoid that kind of silly lighthearted heroics.  Maybe they will give that more of a focus in the next film before the main threat arrives.  Given the way critics are treating this film thought I don't know how likely there will be a second film.

Stephanie Zacharek, the Village Voice: "'Man of Steel' is a movie event with an actual movie inside, crying to get out. Despite its preposterous self-seriousness, its overblown, CGI'ed-to-death climax, and its desperate efforts to depict the destruction of, well, everything on Earth, there's greatness in this retelling of the origin of Superman, moments of intimate grandeur, some marvelous, subtle acting, and a superhero costume that's a feat of mad mod genius."

The massive threat to the Earth and the grandeur of the fighting at the films ending is necessary, how else is this alien suppose to gain the trust, all be it shaky, of the planet, if he hasn't saved it from utter destruction?  If the final fight looked more like a boxing match; than two beings with unimaginable strength fighting at the end of the film, it would be very Super would it?  Saying that there is too much Super Power fighting and effects in this film is like saying, There are to many cowboy hats in a Clint Eastwood western.  I didn't see this kind of criticism pop up in the Avengers Assemble film.  There was just as much CGI fighting and effects in that film as this one.

 Lisa Kennedy, Denver Post: "The chief problem here is one of rhythm and balance in the storytelling and directing. The movie swings between destructive overstatement and flat-footed homilies."

I'll have to agree with some of this, the pace of the film was a bit off.  There were events in the film that, rather being a slow build up to a grand action scene, it was inter mixed in with flash backs of story development.  This caused the tempo of the film to feel choppy and a bit melodramatic when it should be moving at a faster pace to keep up with the action it was just displaying.  That aside think the breaks in the film added a moment of reflection to think about what exactly was happening, and why it was happening.  For me it was a moment to think about the perspective of General Zod,  I found myself looking at him as less of a villain and more of just some determined to see his race survive.  This was the same dream that Jor El had for this people, but unlike Zod he understood that due to the nature of their lives, they could not be a part of that new world.  I found this to be the most tragic and sad thing about Zod, he just couldn't see past his given destiny.  Unlike Kal El, he was a slave to the Kryptonian past. Something that Jor El knew and was a well placed plot device to explain why he did not escape Krypton with his son.

This is my conclusion, this film was a perfect start to a re-imagining of the character of Superman,  one that struggles with his morality, who is more human than Kryptonian, which being raised as a human would have the same emotional traits as one.   Although he is Kryptonian physically his heart and soul are rested in the love of his adopted planet.  The feats he preforms in this film to save the planet are what earn the trust of the American government to not be consider a out right enemy of the state.  Though it is clear that they still hold their complete trust back, at the end of the film.  I would hope and love to see more of this story unfold,  I think it is being misjudged by critics, and I normally find most of their opinions to be agreeable.  My advice would be to go see this film, it is very good,  I found myself weeping, laughing and even silently cheering to myself through out the film.  I'm normally one for the evil side of a story,  I've constantly find myself cheering for a villain over a hero, and quietly sad when I see them fail.  Though I have always found Superman to be my most revered of super heroes.  This is because he has the ability to take over the planet on a whim, yet he instead defends and protects the planet as if he were the same as its inhabitants.  The restraint in that power has always fascinated me.  Love it or hate it, go see it and judge for yourself. This is just my perspective and concepts of this film, I'm just a scoundrel.

Ian

I might find the means to do this.

     This is probably the worst time to really make a post like this.  I'm going to end up on a list for saying this.  The ability for Congress to make progressive and beneficial decisions for this country seems to be becoming more and more of a exercise in futility.  The idea of causing and effecting mass hysteria in order to change things seems the only way they get anything done, yet with the events of something that caused a new debate on gun control ended in no change, it seems like mass murder of children can't change the minds of how much the Congress likes to get re-elected.  This now makes me think that we should just change the way our elected officials are elected.  In other words, why have we not just made seats in congress only 2 terms?  If people lose focus of what they are there for and just simply want to get re-elected. Why not just eliminate the thing that is distracting them?

     Lobbyists are paying out for agendas, corporations are paying for campaigns anonymously.  It has already gotten way out of hand. I feel an anger and frustration at the way I see our government making no real changes to the way it is.  It is ineffective in making changes, and the "people" of this country don't know what they want either. I watched as the media asked people picketing for change, and were asked what changes did they want?  The couldn't agree on any changes, they just wanted to see change.  This is like asking a 3 year old why they are crying and they respond with "NO!" It isn't helpful it isn't progressive it is just stressful.  The ones that have the best idea of what they want changed are the ones with the funds to make that change.  "What do you want changed?"  "I don't want gun control to change, here is 5 million for your next re-election campaign."

     If there is going to be any change in the current state, there needs to be aggressive and decisive change.  Congress seems to think, that by holding their ideas as rigidly and uncompromising as possible they will stay in office, because by holding true to the people paying for their elections they will in turn be re-elected.  So this polarization is happening.  No one is compromising, no one is listening to the other side.  Congress might as well just be dissolved and just let the richest corporations run that branch of the government,  Just cut out the middle man.  I want to see the money make the choices without the smiling puppet telling me that it has my best interests in mind. 

     This county seems to be again in the grips of a less obvious civil war.  The sides are the screaming, kicking, biting, crying idiots, vs the stubborn, apathetic, lazy, unthinking idiots.  It is doing nothing but spend money. I am sick of hearing people say we should nuke other countries, we should nuke this country.  Then maybe we'll get a reaction that is progressive.  Threaten this countries existence is a more obvious way than they way it is already being threatened.  It seems like the peaceful occupy movement did nothing to change anything.  In fact I am still unclear as to what the hell the occupy movement was suppose to be doing besides making the homeless people in those areas look like not such a bad thing.  Did all these unwashed ineffective activists go out and vote?  Or did that just sit around smoking pot, and playing hacky sack?

     I think doing something as radical as repealing the 2nd amendment would probably work to give Americans something to think about.   It seems to me that Congress wants to do something about gun control but it doesn't want to appear anti gun, so they can become re-elected.  So it will say they will do something be in reality it will just make a lot of long drawn out gestures and in the end do nothing.  I really don't know how long this has been going on.  I've never paid much attention to government for the first couple of decades in my life. I honestly think that most of the country is the same way.  They don't care, they just want to go to work, make money, and not be hassled with the idea of making changes to a system that seems to run fine.  Except it isn't running fine at all.  The younger generation the 20 somethings, seem to point this out like "Hey this isn't working."  They are not active about it and don't care to change anything.  They'd rather just drink and get high, play video games and ignore it.  Until it effects something that they have an interest in.  If a bill came across that would make having cellular phones illegal, suddenly you'd see a huge out cry from these coddled privileged children.  No one in congress will make that kind of move, because they want to get re-elected.  

     Our government needs an inoculation, it needs to be rid of the idea that nothing that happens in the country if it causes it's members of congress to lose their seat.  It causes members of congress to act like spoiled children in order be re-elected.  I'm sick of the way things are, there needs to be a change, not the the people running the government, but in the way the structure is working itself.  The problem isn't the people, the problem is there is a flaw in that system that is corrupting the people.  That exploit needs to be fixed and changes will happen.  If the Government is unable to make this change with it's current elected officials, then they need to simply be removed and replaced with ones that will make this change. Your jobs are not to get re-elected your jobs are to make decisions about this country that effect change for the better of it's people not for the better of the highest bidder.

Maybe I wouldn't care enough to talk about this.

     This is a touchy subject and I'm sure there might be some people who read this and get angry.  Let me start by saying, I don't support rape, I'm not here to defend or justify the actions of people who commit such a crime.  I am only stating that I believe this case in Steubenville, Ohio, has more to it than evil boys raped and innocent girl.  

     This really isn't normaly something I feel I need to say anything about.  This case was highly publicized due to the social media involved with it.  Which goes to show that the stupidity of the actions of the parties involved was paramount. Right now the website I choose to frequent www.Imgur.com is all a buzz about how the media is showing that we live in a rape cultured society.  Like it or not, since evolution made man larger and stronger than women, there is going to be rape.  I'm not saying that I condone this behavior, I'm stating there are going to be men out there that use their superior size and strength to take advantage of women, and men in cases.  Rape was not invented yesterday.  I'm sure it has been around for a long time.  The way we handle these cases however is coming under much scrutiny.  I agree the system needs to be changed to reflect the severity of rape.  You see there are degrees of murder, because we all agree there are different levels of it. The same can pretty much be said for all criminal acts.  Rape, has the possibility to be very cut and dry.  Man invades a home, sees a woman, attacks that woman and rapes her.  That is easy.  Now same situation, Man invades a home, sees a woman, attacks that woman, woman stops the man and asks, would he wear a condom before he does this?  Man stops his actions and puts on a condom.  Now did she consent to sex by asking for him to use contraception?  Maybe not, it is still forced sexual contact, but since the woman was able to apply some terms to the act, it wasn't as simple as Rape. 

      It is difficult to litigate such a perspective driven crime.  Some times, men are accused of rape when what they thought they were doing was consensual.  There is suddenly two groups, people that believe the man was not aware he was committing and act of rape, and people that think he is lying and believe he attack the woman. With no witnesses in some cases, it comes down to her word against his.  Some times physical evidence can prove sexual contact, but not forced sexual contact.  Other times it is clear the woman was forced. Some times the accusation is completely unfounded.  I recount a case in which my ex-wife's uncle was in the military.  He hand been turning down the advances of a subordinate female, after turning her down for the last time.  He was called into his CO's office and told that he hand been accused of raping the woman he had turned down.  He knew this was untrue, and said to his CO's "That woman is lying, because I'm gay."   The CO believed him, because at the time being gay in the military was worse than rape.  Sorry to admit something like that, but it was.  The perspective of the people involved, and the factors in the situation surrounding the act are very important.

     In this case, in Steubenville, two teenage boys have been convicted of raping an unconscious drunk girl.  Which is quite disturbing, and wrong, and very sick of them to do that.  I agree that it was rape. Although, I believe that it is not just the boys that can be at fault here.  This is the point a view that I am taking that caused quite and uproar from the Imgur community.  This group of teenagers were supplied alcohol by whom I don't know. I can't seem to find that detail in the case. There were several girls and boys drinking this party.  The victim, as per testimony of her friend said that she had the reputation for getting too drunk.  After the girl had had more than enough to drink and was lying on the floor laughing,  Her friend left her at that party.  Suddenly a girl who was known to be a black out drunk was ditched by her friend.  Blame can be placed upon her friend for knowing she was in danger yet leaving her there anyway.  Blame can be given to the adults that provided this alcohol to these teenagers. Where were the parents for these kids?  I asked that to the Imgur community, and was told that parents can't hover over kids to protect them.  True, but their parents could tell their sons, don't touch a girl that is unconscious. Because it is called rape and rape is a very bad thing.  It may seem kind of condescending but at least they have they now knowledge that what is going on is wrong.  The girl's parents, did they ask the kinds of questions that really should be asked.  

"Where is this party?" "Who is going to be at this part?" "Is there going to be alcohol at this party?" "You call when you get there, and when you are leaving." 

These are the things all parents should be saying and asking their children.  

     Blame can be given to the victim.  This is what really sets people off.  I get "yelled" at by the Imgur community: 

"VICTIM BLAMER YOUR PIECE OF SHIT RAPIST! YOU ARE JUST AS BAD A THEM! VICTIM BLAMER!" "It is no one's job not go get raped." 

    

     This last statement I agree with.  Although putting yourself in a high probability situation and being shocked when it happens isn't smart either.  It is not anyone's job not to get hit by a drunk driver.  It happens though. You can take precautions to avoid it.  Not driving late at night, or during holidays. There is always the risk, and it happens. You can take precautions to avoid being raped.  She did not, no one forced this girl to get drunk; she had known previously that she had become black out drunk before.  She might have felt safe and comfortable with her friends there.  Though I don't think what she did was very wise, in fact what she did was down right stupid.  Rape is not her punishment, thought, it should never be. She should feel remorse for the actions she to that put here in that situation.  I used this analogy on the Imgur website which people misread into all up and down.  Of course I only have 140 characters per post to try and get my point across, so it is difficult to have some read your entire point before making a snap judgement.  

     The analogy is this:  This girl got black out drunk, in a room full of drunk teenage boys.  That is like walking into a cage full of hungry tigers and pushing a syringe full of morphine into your veins.  My point being that it is just an incredibly stupid situation to put yourself in.  Of course I get yelled at that, men aren't tigers, not all men are rape machines.  Yes that is true.  These are not men though they are teenage boys.  Horny as hell, drunk, teenage boys. They've already got hormones running rampant through their bodies.  Then they throw in alcohol, horny, impaired judgment, lack of inhibitions, teenage boys.  I don't know what you want to call their mental state at this point, but it isn't a grown man's.  Science has proven that the teenage brain is yet fully developed and their judgment is still impaired.  They might as well be hungry tigers.  Their baser drives is what was controlling their actions.  I doubt any teenager when drunk thinks rationally, or even about right and wrong.  Hell some adults have that difficulty.  What they did was not right, it was a horrible thing to do.  Weather they knew it at the time cannot be absolutely confirmed.  Their actions after the fact, proved that they didn't think what they did was horrible.  Bragging about it on the internet, posting tweets and pictures and even video of the act.  Just proves what idiotic mind frame these kids were in.  No doubt that what happened to this girl was awful.  It should never happen to anyone. 

      Though the situation I find troubling is the conviction itself.  These boys deserved to be punished, that is clear, severely punished.  Though, there should be a degree of rape taken into this case.  Drunk teens, in a group, would provide a mob mentality, the urge to appease the group you are in will influence your actions.  What these boys did was stupid and wrong, but I don't believe they understood what they did.  Their actions might have appeared dream like and unreal.  Their bragging and euphoria after the act prove that what they thought they did was thrilling did not understand that what they did was criminal. They should be charged as rapists, but given the alcohol, and age of them, I think there should be some stipulations place on this.  Rather that marking them for the rest of their lives with this act,  I think there should be some kind of probation that allows this to be set aside after enough time, by determination of a judge of course. The things you do as a teenager in this day in age, when they are given far to many privileges in my opinion, could really not be the person they are in 10 years or 15 years.  Living with the label of a sex offender for 15 years is awful, given that time to reflect and understand what they did could be enough.  After that time, it is left up to a judge to review their behavior over that time to see if they have changed their ways, and determine to extend it to another 15 years. After that time, the review of a judge can either remove the label, or set it pertinently.  That is just my opinion.  I felt the need to express it.  Thank you for reading.

Would it be normal Funny?

      Once again Wendy has inspired me to think about myself.  Pointing out something that is strange about me.  I don't think it is that strange.  I think it might be uncommon but I can't be the only one that has my perspective.

      Last night I decided to watch a few Horror movies,  I like to do it by myself, because for some reason I find that watching them with other people is uncomfortable.  Mainly because of my reactions to them, as Wendy stated, "Ian funny." If you were to hear me watching a horror movie, you may mistake me as watching a comedy.   Since about the age of say 15 or 16 I rarely get scared at the films, I end up laughing most of the time.   I don't know why, but I've found horror flicks to be more laughable than scary. Might it be that I able to separate that fact that this is make believe, and not reality.  I think it might be that my commons stress reaction is to laugh or make a joke, and I am actually scared but I start to laugh instead.  I have felt scared a number of times, were my adrenaline is racing and I feel the flight or fight response pull at me, but those have been situations where I was not watching a film I was experiencing real life.  Each time I felt that, I knew I was going to fight.  The moment passed however, and nothing came of it.  I was expecting the worst and nothing happened.

       I remember being very young, and being scared of Gremlins.  I must have been around 4 or 5, they scared be because of their toothy appearance, and how in the film they seemed to be hiding everywhere.  As I got older I realized they were just puppets and nothing to be scared of.  Mostly because of the words of my father.  "That's not real, if you need to be scared of anything be scared of me, because I'm real and I'll beat your ass if you don't go to sleep."  My father was a loving and caring person.  He cut right through the bullshit and gave me the logical reasoning that made me realize, he was correct.  Since than I've not been scared at films.  That by no means I don't have a "Jump" response. I'm not a master of my autonomic nerves so when you make me jump it is a reaction that I have no control over.  Startling me is going to get the same reaction as anyone.  Except since I know my fight or flight response is fight, I might punch you.
   



      I told Wendy that I found something funny about the films I was watching last night.  Her response was "Is it normal person funny, or is it Ian funny."  I didn't know what she meant so I asked her to clarify.  "You're evil and so, what you find funny isn't what normal people find funny."  I'll give her that, I've been called evil be a lot of people.  I'm still really interested in what level definition of evil I am.  I try not to really think about it,  I can't say I don't feel a small amount of pride at being called evil.  I often have a bit of empathy for the villains in films.  I digress, I described the scene of the film and why I found it funny, she said it was 'Ian funny' and not normal person funny.  I didn't press the matter I simply thought about it.  Maybe I would look a little out of place in a theater if I was laughing out loud at the situation, as I was in the bedroom.
     The two films I watched were V/H/S and Paranormal Activity 3.  I had seen, the first two Paranormal Activities, so after watching V/H/S I watched the 3rd one.  V/H/S because of the recommendation of my friend Chris.  It was actually fairly amusing, instead of being a single film with a tired plot, it was a collection of short films all "found footage" of the events that happen to a group of different random young people.  The found footage has become kind of a popular medium for the horror film industry.  I suppose it is because it adds a little bit more believe-ability to the concept.  I've learned to ignore the shaky cam effects.  I spend more time trying to time when the "scares" are going to happen, and I try and look to where the directer is trying not to make you look. Not to avoid the scare, but to see something, I might have missed.  I know where the scare is coming from because every horror film forces your perspective.  I try to go against the perspective.  It is just some thing I've got into a habit of for most of my life.  Don't look at the picture in front of you look around or past it.
    I suppose that is something that keeps me from being normal.  I'm sure it is something that has helped me with the jobs that I go for.  I hope it keeps me looking for what isn't there and finding something that may not be normal but is still interesting.  Maybe I'm just talking myself up, and I'm just a freak.  Who cares, you like me because I'm a scoundrel.
      Ian Serna

I wouldn't have to think about my personality

     I was given a question to think about the other day.  I've thought a bit about it, but since I can't seem to quite place my finger on an exact reason I thought trying to work it out by writing it out my help.  I was asked, why happened to me that made me so mean, sarcastic, and selfish.  I thought about it for a while and my logic seemed rather secular.  I've been an internet "Troll" since before the term was even invented.  I would comment on forums, pointing out peoples mistakes not in spelling or grammar which I myself and horrible at.  More like flawed ideas or logical thinking.  I would also go into chat rooms and make sarcastic remarks to people.  Which is hard to understand because unlike vocal communication sarcastic resonance is not registered in text.   I've been this way for as long as I can remember, I would crack wise to adults, and other kids.  I'm not sure what the adults thought of it.  I am sure the kids didn't quite understand what I was saying.  I would either have to explain it, or they would just not like me for being strange.  I try and think about what made me like this.  Maybe it was the Calvin and Hobbes books I read as child.  The wise cracking child intelligent beyond his years but still lacking in wisdom to understand make believe is not without its consequences when applied to real life applications.  Those books might have been a factor.  I have this strange habit of adopting the characteristics of people a admire. People can always tell when I am reading Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy again, because my writing style becomes that of many non sequitur tangents and strange sentence flow,  just like the writing style of Douglas Adams. A similar effect happens with much House MD, currently I am exposing myself, probably too much, to The Big Bang Theory and have started pointing out flawed logic and simple mistakes.  Normal people would either not notice them, or wouldn't bother pointing them out. The mistakes essentially don't affect the outcome of the message.

    It maybe that I have a desire to be liked, but the things that I find to be likable in a character such as Gregory House, or Sheldon Cooper, are in a sense likable because their actions are scripted with peoples reactions in a universe that finds them to be tolerable people.  If I treated people that way all the time in real life, I would soon find myself without many friends.  Which has happened before.  The problem with this is I was acting this way before those characters were known to me.  Their presents merely enhanced the actions.

 Maybe it has to do further back in my childhood.  I was the middle child of a family of 5.  Feeling so invisible as to this day my mom thinks my younger sister was the middle child.  Which is not true, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  4 is not in the middle of this, granted she likes to point out that their first born was 8 years apart from their second child, but that makes little difference to me.  If anything my older brother took even more attention away from me than  if he were only 4 years older than me.  His actions to this day are still given prime attention by my mother.  It baffles me that some one could be so much like that, even as old as he is he still seems to be acting like he was only 18.  The point here is that I found that staying quite would allow me to avoid being scolded for misbehavior, and that making jokes would get me attention by laughter.  Even if they were cruel jokes, the subject would not find it funny but the rest of my family would.  Here in lies what I think to be the catalyst to my behavior. I've been told that I can't act like that.  I need to be nice and polite and respectful to others.  The truth of the matter is, I have the great feeling of insincerity when I offer a compliment to people, especially people I already care for.   I feel as if I am forced to say it. I will have no problem offering a compliment some one I don't know, because I am trying to gain their friendship.  I tend to be very quite among people I need to get to know.  It has been that way for a very long time,  Once I feel comfortable around a new person I am able to talk.  Once that I am comfortable and I will make jokes, that are sarcastic, or mean.  I don't know why, I have no reason to be mean to them but that is how I feel my way to express my feelings toward that person.  Much like the little boy hitting the girl that he likes on the playground.  I seem to have modified that from being a physical act to a verbal act.  I'm sure a psychologist would give me a more detailed analysis of that act.  That still leaves me with why I am the way I am.  It is hard to change that fact about me.  I have tried to improve my actions by saying "Thank You" to people.  It is forced, each time I have to go through a mental process of, "This person did something for your, the appropriate way to act is gratitude,  look at them and smile.  Now say Thank you."  All social niceties for me are difficult to express, I am often seen as rude or a snob.  This may sound strange, but it is exactly what I have to think about before I am able to express them.  Nearly every time.  I'm not intentionally rude, I just don't seem to have automated manor.  I know my mom and dad taught us manors.  Though even as a child I didn't look as adult as superiors I thought of them more as equals.  What would be considered being disrespectful to my teachers would be when I would call them by their first name.  The only teacher that explained that to me, suddenly had my most respect.  Robert Denison, said "I am Mr. Denison, my first name is Robert, which adults can use.  Until that time that you graduate, and you become an adult, you call me Mr. Denison, as soon as you graduate you can call me Robert.   It made sense to be, I respected that wish.  I've called other teachers by their first names, not out of disrespect but it simply grabs their attention faster than calling them Mr. or Mrs. whatever, maybe it was disrespectful I'm really bad a judging that kind of thing.  I've even called aunts and uncles by their fist names, removing the aunt and uncle title.  I always get odd looks when I do that.  

   I think this helped me understand a little better the way I act.  It really didn't give me any epiphanies as to how to change that behavior or why I act that way.  It would be nice to be a regular polite person.  Than again my personality is what makes me, me.  If I were a nicer guy and didn't use humor, satire and sarcasm to express my emotions I wouldn't be Ian.  I certainly would be a scoundrel.  You like me because I'm a scoundrel.


Ian Serna