Calvin

I like this. The writer requested to remain anonymous.

Calvin stared at the clock. Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock...it would never end. That last five minutes of school every single day.....Nerve-racking. Calvin would swear that highschools existed outside of time and space. Tick....tock....tick...Calvin snuck a glance to his right. Vanessa Hutchins was staring blankly at the chalk board as the teacher explained some property of physics or another. Calvin hated physics. He loathed them with a passion that he lacked for anything else besides Joe. He loathed Joe too. As his mind wandered, he wondered if somehow Joe was the bastard son of the God of physics. If there was a god of physics. The Greeks believed in Logic as a divine concept, so maybe physics was the son of Logic. That would make Joe the illegitimate grandson of Logic. How would that be possible, though? Joe was stupider than a retarded colobus monkey. Calvin shook his head and the tangent fled from his mind. Damn. He liked tangents. They kept him sane. Which was funny, because they were always so insane. He snuck a glance to his left. Susie Derkins was staring at the clock. Susie. Damn life had changed since first grade. Calvin remembered a time when he and Susie couldn’t stand the thought of being around each other. Susie still liked to shove the messy scrawl of a contract that a six year old Calvin had written demanding that she never talk to him again. Strange choice for a girlfriend. Two minutes....Calvin reached under his desk to his backpack. School was hard for him, but today was Friday, blessed Friday, when he would have an entire weekend to be shiftless. One minute....there was a rustling behind him. Joe. Crap. Calvin had forgotten that Joe planned to get back at him today. Sneaking into science class early and sticking a picture of Joe on the “Evolution Billboard” right behind a monkey hadn’t been Calvin’s brightest idea. He hadn’t gotten a detention, but with what Joe was going to do to him, detention was probably preferable. Joe would kill him. Ah well, had to die for something. Ten seconds...nine...eight....seven...six....five...four...three...two...DIIIIIIINNNGNGGG!!!!! The bell went off as if it were the trumpet of every angel in heaven. Calvin sprang up, swung his backpack onto his back, zipped up his hoodie, and took off for the door. The teacher was mumbling something about a test on Monday. But tests did not matter. It was Friday, it was spring, and Calvin’s life was in peril. He brushed past Susie, kissed her cheek, quickly blurting out that he was about to run for his life, and took off out of the hall. Classes were letting out everywhere, but Calvin didn’t care. He had nothing he needed in his locker, he had a good head start, and the flood of people coming out of their classrooms would slow Joe down. Life might not have been good, but at least it was. He reached the front doors as a horde of kids pushed them open, and, seeing a break in the crowd, he took off like a comet. Glancing behind him, he saw Joe exit the school and take off after him. Calvin grinned, made a rude hand gesture, and continued running. Joe might have been a good sprinter on the baseball team, but it was cross country skills that mattered. Calvin thought to himself that he had done himself a disservice by not trying out for the cross country team. Thomp. Thomp. His hightops were not made for running, and they made a loud noise as they hit the pavement. As he reached Maple Street, a stitch formed in his side. Suddenly, from behind him, he heard a yell
“Stop runnin’ you punk! I’m coming for you, you...” Calvin didn’t hang around to pay attention to Joe’s string of expletives. Time was of the essence. Tearing down Maple, Calvin looked for the street sign....Elm. Home stretch. He could hear Joe and his gang of thugs behind him. He estimated that they were maybe fifty yards behind him. He better hurry. If he didn’t, he’d be killed. Green house...red house...blue house...brown house....there it was! White house! His house! Calvin tore up the front stairs, noting the distinct lack of cars in the driveway. His parents weren’t home. He fumbled for his key. Joe and his pals were probably at thirty yards. The key slipped into the lock. Twenty. He turned it, and slipped inside, pulling the key out of the lock and slamming the door, locking it as he did so. He made it. He breathed a sigh of relief. Home. Where nothing would hurt him.
POW!!!!!! Calvin was thrown off his balance as a mass of orange and white collided with him. He wrestled with the figure, but it was no use. He lay on his back, pinned, as Hobbes glared down into his eyes.
“And what did we do today that pissed of Joe?” The tiger’s voice carried an air of disapproval. It occurred to Calvin that it had been eleven years and the tiger could still down him. The tiger’s glare intensified. Calvin realized he hadn’t answered Hobbes’s question.
“I...might have stuck a picture of him behind Australopithicus on the Evolution scale.” Hobbes pulled his paws off Calvin’s shoulders and let Calvin up. Calvin rubbed his shoulders and examined his hoody. A hint of his white t-shirt showed through his red and black-striped hoodie. “Your claws put holes in my favorite hoodie!” Calvin complained. Hobbes gave Calvin a dignified look.
“I most certainly did not. I can’t be accountable for you wearing a hoodie that has holes. Maybe you should get a new one.” Calvin got up and dusted himself off. Ah well, Susie could mend the hoodie.
“Where’s mom?” Calvin followed Hobbes, who was padding into the kitchen. Hobbes opened the fridge and pulled out a plate on which sat two sandwiches. Placing these on the table, Hobbes took out the milk. He closed the fridge door and sat down at the table.
“I believe she went to visit your grandmother at the zoo. Do try the tunafish sandwich, I found a new recipe.” Calvin sat down and took his sandwich. He didn’t take milk, as the combination of flavors wasn’t something he liked. Hobbes downed his tunafish sandwich and drank a tall glass of milk. Calvin took a bite of his sandwich.
“It’s not a zoo, it’s called a retirement community.” Hobbes reached for a magazine and shot Calvin a glance. “Zoo, retirement community....all the same. Old people in homes where people come and look at them.” Calvin sighed in exasperation. The older Calvin got, the grumpier Hobbes became. Finishing his sandwich, Calvin took out his phone. Hobbes glared at the phone. He didn’t like cell phones. Calvin poked his tongue at Hobbes and flipped the phone open. He texted Susie to come over at about six. “I assume you were texting Susie?” Hobbes asked, a sly look in his eye. Calvin rolled his eyes. Since he had first started dating Susie last year, Hobbes had never let up about it, claiming prophetic status since he had predicted the union since Calvin was four.
“As a matter of fact, I was, she and I are going to a movie tonight.” Hobbes raised his eyebrows, putting his paw to his forehead.
“The scandal! The scandal! The dictator-for-life of G.R.O.S.S. DATING a GIRL!!!! WOOHOOOHOOOHOOO!!!!” Calvin rolled his eyes, refusing to take the bait. Having amused himself, the tiger wiped his eyes and hopped down from the chair. “Shall we go and engage in the ritual of de-education?” Calvin snickered.
“To the television!”

Elementary my dear

I went to see Sherlock Holmes yesterday. Being a huge Conan-Doyle fan, having read each and every one of his published works and quite a few of the "continuations" of Sherlock Holmes, I fully expected it to be a typical Hollywood massacre (think The Two Towers.) However, I was pleasantly surprised. Was it as faithful to the original works as Jeremy Brett's "Holmes" series of the late 80s-early 90s? No. Was it still a fun movie that was not completely unfaithful to the spirit of Holmes? Yes.

Without spoiling too much, the movie started with severe occult content. I myself was not bothered by the occult content (I've been to Wiccan and Luciferian Covens for crying out loud) but rather that it was present in Holmes. Holmes stories do NOT have the occult in them. However, this concern was addressed wonderfully at the end of the movie with a typical Holmesian explanation-complicated and far fetched, but wonderfully conclusive. Every single bit of "magic" is nicely addressed and attributed to science. A couple of the scientific devices border on Steam Punk, but not badly enough to draw a sneer.

Also impressive to me was the characterization of Holmes himself. Unlike any other portrayal except Jeremy Brett, Robert Downey Jr. pulls of the Holmes of the books and not of the movies-an ass. Holmes is completely self-centered ass. While his Cocaine addiction is not addressed in this movie (that would be *gasp* a negative role model) he is still shown abusing substances in typical Holmes fashion. His fighting skill is also shown in a light that no Holmes adaptation has done justice to yet. In the books, Holmes lived a rockstar lifestyle, drugs, fights, and women only for sex. The latter is not blatantly addressed, but there are a few nods to it. His fighting style brings out the Wing Chun Kung Fu that Downey practices (the same style I practice) as well as some good old bar room brawling. The lively Dubliners' "Rocky Road to Dublin" accompanies the fight scene. Holmes assinine tendencies are demonstrated quite nicely, showing his almost homophobic relationship with Watson, unable to show affection, and unable to cope with the idea of Watson having a relationship with anyone else. One criticism I have of this is its resemblance to House. True enough House is based on Holmes, and the relationship of House to Wilson is based off of Holmes to Watson, but the particular relationship of House to Wilson is reflected too clearly in Holmes to Watson. Yes House comes from Holmes, but it is still unique enough and "Sherlock Holmes" seems to be drawing some inspiration from it.

My only other major complaint is Irene Addler's presence. Irene Addler in Conan Doyle appeared only once, and was not a criminal, but rather a simple woman trying to undo a mess she had found herself in. She was a woman seeking marriage, not a criminal. The re-imagining her for the film, while it works in the plot of the film, annoys the heck out of those of us who enjoy the original Conan Doyle. However, at least the "faux-Adler" is used to good effect. The surprise injection of Professor Moriarty was enough to shock even me, simply because I would have assumed Moriarty long dead by the time of this movie's setting, yet seemingly he and Holmes have not met. Moriarty is not seen fully, only a faceless figure and pair of hands, but still enough to amuse us.

So "Sherlock Holmes" is not true Conan Doyle. Oh, it amuses, but it lacks the real meat of the real thing. However, for anyone looking to see an amusing detective flick, or even Conan Doyle fans who wish to see a well-done characterization of Holmes, the movie will entertain, and after all, that is the primary purpose of movies. If you wish to see more accurate representations of Conan Doyle's characters, I'd advise looking up Jeremy Brett's "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" and the subsequent series "The Return of Sherlock Holmes." If you want a good movie, just go to the theater.

Defense of Darkness

So I heard a couple of months ago that I could be best described as a "homeschool anti-christ." When I enquired as to why exactly I would qualify, I was told that "How I dress, what I listen to, How I conduct myself, pretty much everything I do is anti-Christian." My first response was a vulgarity that, while I do not regret in the slightest, I will not write here.

Ok yes, I'll admit, I don't listen to "christian" bands and am not a "typical Christian," especially not for the homeschool communities I belong to. Thank God for that. Honestly, my response to you people is to get your heads on straight and realize that there's more to life than your stupid restricted view of it. I'll admit I've got my problems. However, I'm not going to admit that my problems are what a lot of people think they are. What especially pisses me off is a general insistence that I live my life in "darkness." If you're going to accuse me of that, I want a more concrete definition of it. I have a few Christian friends who live in "darkness," and I'll say that one of the most honest, faithful Christians I've met was a Goth. Most "Christians" seem to think that the two concepts are incompatible. Well, they're not.

For starters, what is darkness? True, Jesus said that "I am the light of the world" and that we are charged not to love darkness. I'd agree 100% with those verses, I disagree with what modern Christians consider "dark." What they tend to consider "dark" is not only irrational, it's actually hypocritical. Take, for example, the entire condemnation of the Goth/Emo subculture. The first argument that tends to be advanced always involves Marilyn Manson or Alice Cooper. Alice Cooper is a Christian now, with quite a firm faith, and as for Manson-I concede. Yeah, I like some of his music, but some of it is blatantly anti-Christian and Satanist. I won't listen to it. But then, let's look at what Christians accept. They accept "A Wrinkle in Time" series-pseudo biblical gnostic crap. Or they let their daughters read Twilight. See my previous posts for my thoughts on that. So yes, the first argument might seem to have a little merit, but in reality it has none.

The second argument these idiots will grasp for is the "appearance of evil." This is relating more to an actual action than to mere physical appearance. No serial killer has dressed wearing mascara and eyeliner. Abortionists tend to be suit and tie people, actually. Mussolini had a killer dress sense. Hitler, ok, not so much, but the other two Axis powers were quite snazzy. If "appearance of evil" relates simply to how people can construe your actions....well, can I help how people might interpret my actions? Nope. Not my problem.

Popular argument three: culture of death and darkness/anti-joy. People with eyeliner are not trying to make themselves look like corpses, it's simply a fashion statement. It's a part of goth/emo/punk culture, the same way those ridiculous napkins you people like to call "ties" are a part of your wonderful "Leave it to Beaver" culture. When the Bible speaks of "darkness," it is referring to evil. I have yet to be convinced that one can just look evil, or that "scary" equates with evil. Nowhere does the Bible say "thou shalt not look scary" or "thou shalt not defy the status quo of fashion, for indeed, I ordained mine apostles to wear business suits." There is a difference between the darkness of evil and the darkness of nature. A person can enjoy twilight (the time of day) or night and not be inhumanly evil. If you enjoy Twilight the books...I'm not so sure. The same principle applies. Does reading and enjoying Edgar Allen Poe or Flannery O'Conner make one evil or "dark?" No it does not. Their works are dark, grim, and rather dismal. One can enjoy such things without being evil. There is a beauty outside the everyday "light" that not everyone can see. Some of us prefer Mozart's Requiems to his "Magic Flute." Such is the way of life. The band "The Cure" has long been upheld as the epitome of Goth subculture, yet their songs, like "Friday I'm in Love", "Mint Car," and "Why Can't I Be You?" are some of the happiest songs I know of. Most of the Cure's songs are happy. Then there are Goth artists like Voltaire, who's upbeatly macabre ballads call to mind Tom Lehrer more than Marilyn Manson. I guess Lehrer was more acceptable though, seeing as he wore a suit. Everyone ought, after reading this, to look up "I hold your hand in mine" by Tom Lehrer. Pretty Gothy for a "normal" guy.

Yet another popular bullcrap argument is the "suicide/cutting" argument. This is so stupid on so many levels. Alright, yes, some emos cut. So do a lot of normal people. All the hardcore cutters I've known have been "normal." As for suicide, more normal people do that then emos/goths. I've buried five friends, none of them were goth or emo. As for the culture supporting it, that's again a stereotype. Good Charlotte, Blink-182, Alice Cooper, My Chemical Romance, Senses Fail, even Marilyn Manson, all, fairly or no, associated with punk/goth/emo subculture, have all released songs/statements very much against suicide. One cannot pin individual wrongs on the whole culture.

Christians, especially "homeschoolers" are so stupidly xenophobic it's not even funny. Anything different or independent needs to be quashed or killed quickly. Well, unfortunately for them, and fortunately for those of us who laugh at or defy the status quo, the goth/emo/punk subculture has infiltrated Christianity. A man considered on of Punk's best bassists, John Maurer, formerly of Social Distortion, is a Christian. The father of Shock Rock, Alice Cooper, is also an open Christian. Cooper remains as interesting and Vaudevillian as ever he was, and Maurer retired from Social D only after family matters called him away. One of my favorite metalcore bands, Deathcore band Demon Hunter, is Christian. Christian metal band "The Showdown" plays Ozzfest beside Marilyn Manson, Korn, and Drowning Pool. Christianity is not incompatible with those subcultures. I can't help it if you morons are so closed-minded, xenophobic, and just plain ignorant as to write me or anyone else "different" off. You should be ashamed of yourself, because we may be guilty of the sin of being "different," but you're all guilty of the much more heinous sins of being hypocritical, and worse, boring.

"I'm the first one to rock as loud as I can, but when it comes to what I believe, I'm the first one to defend it too. It has also gotten me in trouble with the staunch Christians who believe that in order to be a Christian you have to be on your knees 24 hours a day in a closet somewhere. Hey, maybe some people can live like that, but I don't think that's the way God expected us to live. When Christ came back, He hung out with the whores, the drunks and miscreants because they were people that needed Him. Christ never spent His time with the Pharisees."-Alice Cooper (pictured)

Favorite Female Vocalists

These are my favorite female vocalists, even if you disagree, the list is based purely on my opinions.

1. Enya
Ok, yes, not many people would EVER expect me to like Enya, especially because a lot of her music is New-Agey and peaceful, but her voice is absolutely astonishing. Yes, she often cheats in live performances, but her voice is probably the most amazing voice I've ever heard from a female singer
Fave song: Book of Days

2. Natalie Merchant
Ignoring her album "The Carpenter's Daughter" where she tried too hard, every other song she's performed has been amazing. Her voice is perfectly controlled, and combines forcefulness with gentleness to produce a beautiful sound.
Fave song: A Campfire Song

3. Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh
I do happen to listen to Irish music beyond the pub songs everyone knows, and anyone who has a true love for Irish folk will be familiar with the folk band Altan. Mairéad's voice is beatifully musical, and the words (often in Gaelic) just flow out, with only the softest of emphases on certain words or phrases
Fave song: Stor a Stor a Ghra

4. Amy Lee
Say whatever you want about Evanescence, that they sold out, that they're not metal...whatever. Amy Lee's voice still stands as one of my favorites.
Fave song: My Immortal

5. Avril Lavigne
Fast paced and forceful, yeah, she may be pop-punk, and yes, her last album was so girly it was disgusting, and yes, this probably means I'm gay for liking her, but I like her voice. Avril has a good range, and changes her range in mid song quite nicely.
Fave song: Take Me Away (and yes, it's cause I sang it once as a duet. so what?)

6. Leslie Carter
I may hate the Backstreet Boys and Nick Carter's annoying little brother with whom I unfortunately share a name, but I won't deny their talent, and their sister has even more than them. Screwed over by Dreamworks, her album was never released, but you can listen to the whole thing online. While the voice may be higher pitched than I generally enjoy, but I thought it was a completely enjoyable pop voice, and beats the crap out of most popular female vocalists today.
Fave song: Like Wow

7. Tarja Turunen
The first vocalist from Nightwish, her voice may not be the most "feminine" but her powerful, operatic voice (I guess trained opera singers DO have operatic voices :P) made Nightwish's first albums more than just another Norse metal band with fancy shredding. Despite what some idiots with no knowledge of music may claim, Tarja is anything but an Amy Lee wannabe. She's the polar opposite of Lee's romantic voice. Tarja has a powerful, commanding voice that doesn't cross over to masculine, but doesn't join the ranks of most female singers who have romantic, lilting voices.
Fave song: Wishmaster

8. Courtney Love
The best way to describe Love would probably be the female Johnny Rotten. Sneering and powerful, her voice is positively dripping with attitude, and is pretty much incapable of being soft and docile. It's not particularly "sexy" either, which has become almost requisite for a female vocalist to succeed now, instead opting to be spunky and defiant.
Fave song: Playing Your Song

9. Kelly Clarkson
Sometimes pop singers actually succeed because they're good. Yes, Clarkson is a bit of a crowd pleaser, and yes a lot of her music is for female audiences, but her voice is quite enchanting. Combining softness with power, and having just the hint of gravel, I personally think Clarkson deserves a lot more serious recognition than she gets.
Fave song: Breakaway

10. Shirley Manson
Manson is restricted by what she can sing, but what she sings is, in my not so humble opinion, amazing. Rather than being "sexy" like so many female singers, her voice is more seductive, slow and deliberate, and her range is quite impressive too. True, she'll never be much of a folk or pop singer, but for a rock singer, I'd say she's quite impressive
Fave song: The World is Not Enough

The Passion of the Christ

I recently rewatched "The Passion of the Christ." I first saw it three years ago, and this last time I saw it marks the third time. First of, as a Protestant who actually seems to give a crap about their theology and the teachings of the bible rather than what my self-induced schizophrenic ideas of God "talking" to me, or my feelings, dictate, I would condemn the movie for breaking the 2nd Commandment. As Catholics, and some Lutherans and Episcopalians quite illogically do not count the 2nd Commandment as a commandment, the movie would not be seen as such by those denominations. However, that is my only condemnation of what is otherwise one of the most powerful and moving films I have ever seen. Unlike many films, such as the famous "Jesus" movie which, despite Gary Oldman's performance as Pilate, can best be described as pathetic, the film realistically depicts Christ through the three days of his torture and death, and some of what he taught beforehand. Unlike "Jesus" which depicts Satan as something resembling a lawyer (ironically funny as that is) and shows the Christ on the Cross as someone who has come down with severe diarrhea, not someone experiencing possibly one of the worst deaths ever conceived.

The story itself is rather simple. Christ is arrested, beaten, tortured, condemned, tortured again, and finally crucified. The film is entirely in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin, there is no English spoken. This, and the costumes and casting, gives a more realistic feel to the movie, lending it authenticity instead of feeling like you're at a Bible-themed Disney World (again, a complaint I have about most movies depicting Christ.)Instead of Satan the lawyer, Satan is a sexually ambiguous figure, depicted by a woman and voiced by a man. While he does not look feminine, he does not look masculine either. The end effect of Satan, especially in his temptation of Christ, is to instill a sense of dread and terror into the viewers. Christ is played by James Caviezel, and is not some gentle voiced surfer dude, nor some nice man telling us all to be nice, but is a relatively ordinary man, throughout the movie becoming more and more beaten until by the crucifixion there is more skin off his body than on it. Mel Gibson being Catholic, there is a bit of Catholicism throughout the movie, with Veronica's veil and attention given to Mary the Mother of Christ. The Catholicism is not over the top however, which is more than I can say for the "castrated Christianity" put forth in most movies about Christ.

There are two popular criticisms of the movie; violence and anti-Semitism. The first is easily addressed. The movie is about Christ's death. It is His death that saved His people, not his life and teachings. His death, bloody, painful, and cruel, was necessary for their to be Salvation. The movie is called "The PASSION of the Christ." If you are going to see a movie about Christ's passion and death, shut up about it being violent. The Romans were not nice people, they did not kill cleanly. Christ was not spanked, he was scourged, and that would have flayed him. It was unheard of for a man to survive a Roman flogging. He was not duct-taped to the cross, despite what I saw in a pentecostal church's "Good Friday Service," IE, Passion Play, he was nailed to the cross. That would make you bleed. The thorns on Christ's brow would have made him bloody as anything. Christ's death was violent and bloody, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5) Not "by his moderate discomfort." Christians too often think that their faith is sanitized, and that God is "nice." The Passion does a good job of reminding us that God is not "nice," he is not "safe" and the price of our salvation was bloody death and suffering. It is not a "2-hour snuff film" as David Edelstein of "Slate Magazine" accused it of being. It is simply an accurate representation of what Christ physically went through. The only "problem" I have is that it does not depict the true agony of Christ's sacrifice, the separation Christ suffered from God the Father and the Spirit. However, no film could actually depict this agony, as film is a visual medium, and no human can even begin to fathom the true suffering of Christ in that way. I would praise it for not showing "the Harrowing of Hell" or of Christ literally descending into hell, which slightly satisfies the part of me that doesn't rely on 8th Century Catholic teaching for my doctrine.

The second accusation is that the movie is anti-Semitic. That argument is, with all disrespect meant, bollocks. Yes, the Romans did the actual act of crucifying Christ. Everything else falls on the heads of the Jews. The Priests and the Pharisees killed Christ. To say anything else, to represent anything else, would be a lie. The High Priest Caiaphas admitted as much, and called judgement on himself, calling "His blood be upon us and our children." Throughout Biblical history, the Jews had broken Covenant with God again, and again, and again. The murder of Christ was the final straw, the disbanding of their Covenant. They DID commit Deicide. True enough, Christ died for all our sins, but that doesn't mean that all the guilt is equal. Indeed, the guilt of the Jews is more, because they broke Covenant, they KNEW who Christ was, and they were too blind and too proud to admit it, thinking it better to have him murdered. Anti-Semitism as a result of the Jewish murder of Christ is not fair, right, or merited. However, it is wrong to contradict truth for the sake of political correctness. The movie does not rely on Jewish stereotypes, it simply depicts the Jews as they were; evil, power hungry, conniving, and corrupt. If you didn't get that impression based on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, than go back and actually read your Bible. The Priests and Pharisees were slime, and the movie depicts that simply and accurately.

The Passion is indeed a violent movie. It is bloody and cruel. Honestly, it made me cry, especially in the knowledge that it was my, as well as every Christian's, sin that sent Christ to the cross. It is humbling, if that modest word can accurately describe it, to realize that Christ went through such physical torture, and worse spiritual torture, to save His people. Of course, the Protestant in me objects to any depiction of God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, but if that is laid aside, then the film is almost flawless. I give it five stars out of five.

A Dark and a Hungry God-Sweeney Todd

Well, I've done a couple of music and movie reviews, I wrote this literary review for a school project, but I quite like it, so I'm gonna publish it.

In 1979, Stephen Sondheim, a relatively unknown lyricist from Manhattan, composed a score and lyrics to an adaption of the Victorian penny dreadful, The String of Pearls, which he entitle Sweeney Todd; The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Though an adaptation of a popular London urban legend, Sondheim took the relatively simple story of The String of Pearls and altered and enriched it, turning it into an epic of morality and conflict. The shallow and two-dimensional characters of the penny dreadful came alive under Sondheim’s pen, bringing Sweeney Todd to life and making it one of the most popular musicals in modern history, with two revivals and a feature film coming from it.
The play opens with pale-faced Victorians attending a cremation. As the body is thrust into the oven, the players open into a haunting dirge, recounting the tale of Sweeney Todd, and accounting what is about to be seen. Sweeney Todd is immediately set up as a murderer, a barber who cuts people’s throats, especially of “those who moralize.” Sweeney is described as “smooth, subtle” and “quick and quiet and clean,” portraying him in terms more mechanical than human. As the introduction draws to a close, a ghostly figure steps onto the stage, Sweeney himself, and the introduction draws to a close. From the chilled, haunting introduction, the play begins in earnest with a young sailor, Anthony Hope, drawing into London harbor with Sweeney Todd in tow. Hope is glad to see London, claiming “I have sailed the world and seen its wonders, from the Dardanelles to the mountains of Peru, but there’s no place like London.” Hope is immediately set up as young and optimistic, seeing the lighter side of London. Todd soon cuts off the aptly-named Hope with his own views on London. Todd, much older and more acclimated to the ways of the world, sees London as “A hole in the world,” a place of evil and corruption. Throughout the scene, Todd’s cynicism is shown more and more prevalently. It draws to its climax as Todd explains his hatred of London. Through the tale of “a barber,” obviously the younger Todd, Todd reveals that he has been imprisoned for unjust reasons, having a beautiful wife coveted by a “pious vulture of the law.” Todd has no respect for the law, it seems, his language here betraying his view that piety is merely a sham, as he does earlier in the scene saying that many a Christian would have seen Todd drowning at sea “and not lost a wink’s sleep for it neither.” Todd hates the law and the ideal behind it, seeing it used only for cruelty and personal gain of its executors. Todd then goes on to broaden his disdain to the whole of humanity, crying as the scene ends “There’s a hole in the world like a great black pit, and it’s full of people who are full of shit, and the vermin of the world inhabit it.”
Immediately in the next scene, Todd goes to his old dwelling-place, and the pie-shop underneath it, and learns from its proprietress, Mrs. Lovett, what has happened in his absence. While Todd learns what has happened, we, the audience, learn more about Todd and his motivation for hatred. His real name was Benjamin Barker, and we learn that not only did Judge Turpin (also a name revealed during the tale’s recounting) have Todd shipped off to Australia, but Turpin raped Lucy Barker publicly, and then, after Lucy’s suicide, took the daughter Johanna as his ward. Told in the form of a song, it ends with Todd shrieking his protest at what has happened. Mrs. Lovett addresses him by his old name of Barker, and he rounds on her angrily, telling her “Not Barker. That man is dead. It’s Todd now, Sweeney Todd, and he will have his revenge.” Todd’s character now develops a more dark tone, not just cynical and misanthropic, but something more dangerous as he swears revenge on those who have wronged him. Certainly, the most significant part of his development in this scene is that darkening of his motive. However, another subtle metamorphosis is brought to the surface here. Todd swears his revenge for the wrongdoings done against him and his family, but he also denies being Barker. He claims that Barker is dead. Todd is trying to distance himself from Barker, trying to make it seem as though what has happened has happened to another person. On the other hand, Todd is still going to claim vengeance for Barker, as an interested party. Perhaps this is a “safety mechanism” for Todd, to cope with the 15 years of torment that he has endured and remain sane. Another motivation behind his insistence on taking a new identity might be to count Barker dead with his wife. Todd then turns into a specter of revenge for not only Turpin’s driving Lucy Barker to suicide, but also for killing Benjamin Barker in Botany Bay simply to sate Turpin’s own lusts. Whatever his motivation, this scene is where Todd finds his purpose; to kill Turpin in repayment for the wrongdoings Turpin has done.
Todd’s purpose set, he prepares to leave to fulfill the same purpose. However, Mrs. Lovett, known by the audience, though not Todd, to desire him, offers Todd his old razors, which she has kept all these years. Todd takes the razors and sings his first full length song of the play, “My Friends.” As Mrs. Lovett fawns on him suggestively throughout the song, Todd sees only his razors, and addresses them more tenderly than anything else he has or will refer to in the play. He does more than merely anthropomorphize his razors, taking it further and crooning to them just as if they truly were his children or brothers. He feels a kinship with them that is more than just a workman and his tools, likening their sojourn inside their box to his confinement in Australia. Todd’s reuniting with his friends gives him the ability to wreak his revenge, as he finishes the song with the promise “you shall drip rubies, you’ll soon drip precious rubies.” Todd is now even more single-minded than ever. Not only has he shut up everything he once was as Benjamin Barker, but he is now becoming oblivious to everything else around him, eyes set only on his task. This is shown plainly through the excellently executed duet of Mrs. Lovett and Todd, as she offers him “splendors you never could dream all your days,” while Todd makes the same offer to the blades in front of him. With an exuberant crow of “At last! My arm is complete again!” Todd ends the scene, an exasperated Mrs. Lovett behind him.
As the scene changes, the same chorus from the beginning of the play sounds, with different words. “Swing your razor wide, Sweeney, hear it singing, yes. Sink it in the rosy skin of righteousness!” Todd’s misanthropy and hate of the law is degenerating. Instead of merely hating those who claim to do good and instead do evil, he is actually hating good itself, and good and evil are beginning to blend in his mind. “He’d seen how ‘civilized men’ behaved, he never forgot and he never forgave.” Todd, in trying to distance himself from evil, is distancing himself from good and becoming something apart from the two of them, and yet also a part of the two of them.
Todd is conspicuously absent from the next few scenes, which instead focus on the budding romance between Johanna, now being raised by Turpin, and Anthony Hope, who catches a glimpse of her at a window. Turpin has his lackey, Beadle Bamford, drive Hope off, but his protection of Johanna comes not from any fatherly desire, but of selfishness, and a desire, seen as Johanna steps off stage, to possess Johanna sexually. Turpin’s character, while not the focal point of this essay, bears some examination here, as it is his action that spurns on Todd. Turpin is not Claudius of Hamlet; he does not struggle with his conscience in the memory of what he has done. His terrible deeds do not weigh on him. He leaves the stage chuckling evilly, and very much confirmed to the audience to remain as vile as he ever was.
Todd reappears soon, in a bustling marketplace, with Mrs. Lovett by his side. He has come to reclaim his place as the most prominent barber in London. Apparently, as revealed by Lovett, an Italian has become “all the rage.” Todd, reading from the Italian’s wagon, scoffs at the credentials of having served royalty, claiming “By Monday they’ll all be flocking to me like sheep to be shorn.” As the Italian’s lad-servant comes out to sell Pirelli’s Miracle Elixir (a baldness cure), Todd loudly scoffs at it saying “what is this? Smells like piss. Looks like piss. This is piss! Piss with ink!” The crowd sways to Todd’s side, and Pirelli himself comes out to defend his product, when Todd challenges him to a shaving contest. Todd wagers his razors against 5 pounds, and Pirelli accepts. Todd calls for Beadle Bamford, Turpin’s lackey, to be the judge, confidently believing the beadle will not recognize Todd to be the same Barker who Bamford helped bring to demise years ago. Todd lets Pirelli enter into a loud, bombastic rant about his credentials. Pirelli performs quite garishly, while shaving, insulting Todd throughout and also injuring his client, apparently not noticing. Pirelli even claims his ability to shave is a divine gift. Todd ignores Pirelli and spends the entire song stropping and sharpening his razor. During the final, high, sopranic note of Pirelli, Todd shaves his client, finishing in but a few seconds and being declared the winner. The Beadle accosts Todd, claiming his face familiar, but Todd distracts the Beadle saying that Bamford is spoken of with great respect, and that Todd would, free of charge, give the Beadle “the closest shave he will ever know.” Todd manages to make the corny line so full of malice that the hokeyness is forgotten.
Todd has, in the time he has not been seen by the audience, lost none of his resolve. He is set on revenge, but also convinced of his own superiority. Even without an actor speaking the lines, one can see the gleam in Todd’s eye as Pirelli claims to be the best in the world. Todd is convinced that nothing can thwart him, or he does not care. If the Beadle were to recognize Todd to be Barker, Todd would be done, but he does not care. His revenge is clearly now obsession, trumping not just his sexual/social desires, but even his desire to safety and life. He may die; he doesn’t care, he will continue to seek his revenge.
Scene to scene, Todd’s depression and obsession grow stronger and stronger, with Mrs. Lovett encouraging him to give up the crusade and Todd brooding more and more on his wrongs. As Signor Pirelli, the barber who Todd publicly disgraced, reveals himself to know Todd’s true identity, having worked for Todd before his exile, Todd quickly kills him. Pirelli’s threat of blackmail does not intimidate Todd in the least, he simply knocks him unconscious, stuffs his body in a trunk, and slits Pirelli’s throat without so much as a thought. Todd’s obsession has grown out of control, he will kill any who stand in his way and hinder his ability to take revenge. The scene cuts with Todd holding his bloody razor and rejoicing over his enemy’s downfall.
The next scenes reveal that Turpin intends to indulge his lechery of Johanna by forcing her into marrying him. Meanwhile Johanna and Anthony Hope intend to elope. Turpin, now very firmly confirmed to the audience as nothing short of evil, decides to go to the Barber to make himself appear more attractive. When consulting the Beadle, he learns of Todd’s establishment, and goes to Fleet Street.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Lovett is fretting over what to do with Pirelli’s body. Typically, Todd is not overly concerned, and he returns to brooding over his wrongs. However, as the Judge arrives at the shop, Todd sees the end of his problems at hand. As Turpin enters the shop, Todd seems to take the persona of a cat playing with a mouse. He quickly gets Turpin into the chair, but he doesn’t slit his throat immediately, deciding to actually shave Turpin first. Todd whistles and sings as Turpin and he enter a merry duet singing of love and the titular “Pretty Women.” Todd sings to his “friend,” instructing it to be patient, for “revenge can’t be taken in haste.” As Todd shaves the Judge, Turpin reveals his plan to marry Johanna, and this only strengthens Todd’s resolve. As Todd draws the razor back to end his troubles forever, Anthony comes to the barber shop and reveals his plans to marry Johanna. Turpin storms out of Todd’s shop, leaving Todd distraught, and the first act reaches its climax in the aptly-named “Epiphany.” Todd screams his frustrations to the world, claiming that the world is inhabited only by evil men, and that “We all deserve to die.” Traditionally, Todd leaves the stage in this part, running among the audience and pointing his razor at individuals and inviting them to his chair. He yells his frustrations amongst these “deluded” ravings, mourning his loss of his wife and daughter, and screaming “I will have vengeance! I will have salvation!” Todd’s vengeance has finally driven him beyond sanity, and his true desires are brought to light in his madness. Todd does not simply wish to kill Turpin for mere vengeance; he wishes to kill Turpin because he believes it will save him. Barker became Todd in order to “save” Barker through death. Much like the Christian teachings of the time, Barker cannot save himself. Barker’s redemption can only be bought with someone else’s blood. However, it is not his messiah’s blood that will free him, but his messiah, Todd, will spill the redeeming blood. Todd serves, as said in the play’s introduction, a dark and a hungry god. If that god cannot have the blood of the guilty, it will have everyone’s blood, as Todd says “Not one man, no not ten men, not a hundred can assuage me!” Todd is his own god, the perfect humanist. Almost a sufferer of Multiple Personality Disorder, Benjamin Barker feels the deep need for salvation and redemption, so he turns to a god of his own making, and he ends up becoming that god, in the form of Sweeney, and when the god is denied its sacrifice, it turns to devour others. Barker dies in “Epiphany,” and becomes completely replaced by the vengeful deity of Sweeney Todd, a self-fulfilling prophecy first made in Mrs. Lovetty’s parlor before the “My Friends” sequence.
Todd collapses after his revelation, and as Mrs. Lovett escorts him downstairs, and the two begin to worry what will be done with Signor Pirelli’s remains. The first thing that comes into Mrs. Lovett’s mind is the use of the bodies Todd will harvest for her meat pies. The song “A Little Priest,” while quite macabrely cheery and laced with some genuinely good puns, also shows the next stage of Todd’s development. As Todd leaves “Epiphany,” now fully become the god he serves, he finds a worshipper very quickly. Mrs. Lovett quickly thinks of a solution to the problem of corpse disposal that will mutually beneficial. Mrs. Lovett will be able to serve meat pies with plenty of real meat (a rarity in the economically depressed England of the time) and Todd will have his sacrifices. The business of one will attract customers for the other. Likewise, “Priest” reveals the fully humanist views of Todd and Lovett. “For what’s the sound of the world out there? Those crunching noises pervading the air? It’s man devouring man my dear, and who are we to deny it in here?” The England at the time, about to plunge into the heart of the Victorian era, was placing a man’s value on how much power/influence he had. Todd and Lovett are merely taking this to its logical conclusion. Todd is stronger than other men, and can kill them. He can exercise his power as he pleases, and so he can therefore devour them, or allow them to be devoured. Once a God of absolute ethics has been taken out of the equation, how can anyone argue that what Todd is doing is wrong? It is his right as the stronger man to do what he might with his victims.
After the intermission Toby, Pirelli’s old assistant now in the employ of Todd and Lovett, sing about the succulence of Mrs. Lovett’s meat pies. Everyone in London is eating Mrs. Lovett’s pies, much to the humor and disgust of the audience. Todd receives another “friend,” the only other thing in the play he addresses as such besides his razors, a mechanical chair that will deliver his victims to Mrs. Lovett’s basement. After the festivities are over, the screen goes dark, and Westminster Chimes are heard. Anthony Hope walks through London, singing for his beloved Johanna. As he does so, Todd welcomes customers to his shop. As Anthony sings about the Johanna he knows while searching for her, Todd sings to the daughter he will never know, while simultaneously cutting his customer’s throats. Throughout the song, Todd speculates as to what his daughter looks like, wondering if she looks like his departed wife. As it progresses, Todd seems to decide that he does not miss Johanna so much, and will be able to say farewell to her, possibly meaning allowing Johanna to run away with Anthony. Critics have debated the meaning of this scene since the play’s inception. Depending on actor, the meaning of this song can change. However, with the original lyrics and actors picked by the author, it would seem that Todd is genuine in his desire to let Johanna go. However the reason is not as “nice” as it might seem. Todd is not allowing her to marry Anthony out of affection, but because his god has provided him with another means of satisfying his revenge. Instead of wanting to try to pick up the pieces of his life and take Johanna back, or even to allow her to start her own life, Todd simply does not care because his satisfaction comes through the blood of his victims. The logic and planning of Todd’s original vengeance is giving way to a simple thirst for blood. There is no hypostatic union in Todd’s becoming one with his god. Todd is not fully god and fully man, like the Christian savior, his human emotion and feeling are gone, replaced only by the hunger and vengefulness of his god. As Anthony finds Johanna, Todd bids her a final unheard farewell over the dead body of one of his victims, and Todd disappears from the stage.
After the scene of Anthony’s discovery, Todd reappears in Mrs. Lovett’s parlor, looking quite incredibly bored as Mrs. Lovett plays her harmonium and sings along. She sings of the future she sees for herself and Todd, a marriage and a life down by the seaside. Todd only looks up occasionally and mutters “Anything you say.” He is still brooding on the wrongs done to him. Mrs. Lovett seeks to dissuade him, though not for the obvious reason. She doesn’t care about Todd’s murderous rampage; in fact she prefers it. She simply doesn’t want him to do it for his wife, she wants Todd for herself. Todd however, will not be dissuaded. Anthony bursts in on the scene, revealing his having discovered Johanna in the local madhouse. Todd immediately figures a way to gain his revenge through the situation. He sets Anthony up as a wigmaker, making him able to infiltrate the asylum and rescue Johanna. Meanwhile, Todd writes a letter to Turpin, telling Turpin what is going to occur, and telling him to come to Todd’s shop, where Todd will keep Johanna. Once more Todd’s god comes to the surface, unable to do anything without personal gain towards vengeance. Todd delivers the letter and the scene closes. Meanwhile Toby, the assistant, is beginning to suspect Todd’s murderous ways. He does not suspect Mrs. Lovett, who he loves as his own mother, and confesses his doubts to her. She locks him in the cellar, tricking him into believing he will be helping her in making the pies. As Mrs. Lovett goes upstairs, Beadle Bamford has come around to inspect Mrs. Lovett’s bakehouse, due to public complaints of the stink of the smoke from it. Todd walks in to hear this, and he offers Bamford a free shave, haircut, and facial rub. Meanwhile, Toby in the bakehouse discovers a hair and a fingernail in the pie he is eating, and it even more alarmed as the beadle’s body falls into the cellar, throat slashed. He escapes into the sewers, and Mrs. Lovett and Todd go after him, fully intent to kill him, despite Mrs. Lovett’s promise in the previous song “Nothing’s gonna harm you, not while I’m around.” As Anthony successfully rescues Johanna, Todd and Lovett search all over for Toby in the sewers. Anthony brings Johanna to Todd’s shop as a beggar woman who has made appearances throughout the play sings for Beadle Bamford, whom she saw enter Todd’s shop, to beware Mrs. Lovett. Johanna, now disguised as a sailor, enters the shop. However, the beggar woman is in pursuit, singing for the beadle. Johanna hides in a trunk in the corner of Todd’s shop as the beggar woman enters the shop. Singing to herself, the woman reveals herself to be quite insane, scrabbling about and singing to the air. Todd enters the shop and tries to get the woman to leave. She will not, and as the judge outside calls for Todd, Todd pushes the woman into the chair and cuts her throat. The Judge comes in and Todd once more pampers him, telling the judge that Johanna has seen the error of her ways and no longer seeks to marry Anthony, only to be with Turpin. Turpin and Todd sing “Pretty Women” once more. Turpin admits that he considers Todd to be a “fellow spirit” and Todd replies “With fellow taste in women.” Turpin is made uneasy, and looks to Todd in bemusment. Todd snarls out the truth about himself. “No doubt the years have changed me. But then again I suppose the face of a barber, the face of a prisoner on the dock, is not particularly memorable.” As the judge screams Todd’s real name in horror, Todd replies in kind. Yelling his true name as a war cry, Todd slashes Turpin’s throat and drops his body into the cellar. Todd then croons to his razor, telling it to rest and “sleep,” the god of vengeance finally sated with the deaths of those responsible for Barker’s misfortune. However, he glimpses Johanna peeking out of the chest. He quickly takes up the razor and quips “Everyone needs a good shave.” About to cut Johanna’s throat, Mrs. Lovett screams from the cellars, and Todd is distracted, giving Johanna time to escape. Todd races downstairs to find the dying Turpin clutching onto Mrs. Lovett’s skirts. Turpin expires and Todd laughs. Todd tells Mrs. Lovett to open the doors of her huge bake oven, where they will incinerate the bodies. As she does so, Todd looks over the corpse of the beggar woman he killed. As the firelight hits her face, he drops his razor and shrieks in horror, ironically, “Oh my god!” One wonders which god he might be calling on. The beggar woman is Lucy Barker. Todd falls to his knees and cradles his wife’s body, sobbing apologies to Lucy and screaming to Mrs. Lovett that she has deceived and betrayed him from the beginning. Mrs. Lovett denies this, saying she never lied, merely withheld some of the truth. Lucy Barker did poison herself, but the poison only drove her mad, it did not kill her. Mrs. Lovett claims she refrained from telling Todd this because she loves him and “[Mrs. Lovett] would be twice the wife she was, I love you, could that thing have cared for you like me?” Todd suddenly calms and rises to his feet. He assures Mrs. Lovett “The history of the world, my pet, is learning forgiveness and try to forget. And life is for the alive my dear, so let’s keep living it, just keep living it, really living it!” He waltzes her along and then suddenly hurls her into the fire of the oven, ignoring her screaming and slamming the doors. He goes over to Lucy’s body and cradles it once more in his arms, singing the same lines from the beginning of the play. “There was a barber and his wife, and she was beautiful. A foolish barber and his wife, she was his reason and his life, and she was beautiful, and she was virtuous, and he was.” He loses the rest of his verse in tears. The deity of Sweeney Todd has failed to give Barker what he truly desired, even if it did give him what he wanted. The thirst of that god was all-encompassing, and turned Todd’s words from “Epiphany” into prophecy, and turning Todd into the exact thing he sought to destroy. Toby enters the room, having been driven mad by the realization of what has occurred. Todd unbuttons his collar and leans back, exposing his throat. Toby picks up Todd’s discarded razor and slashes Todd’s throat with it. Todd bleeds to death quietly, still holding the body of his dead wife in his arms. Todd has been betrayed by everyone. He was betrayed by the law he believed in, he was betrayed by Mrs. Lovett, he was betrayed by the god he created to serve, and now even his “friend” is betraying him in the hands of Toby by taking Todd’s life. The play concludes with Toby going into delirium as Anthony, Johanna, and two constables enter the room, recoiling in horror at what they see. A final rendition of “The Ballad of Sweeney Todd,” heard throughout the play, begins, finishing with the ghosts of Todd and Lovett arising from the floor and warning the audience “Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a hungry god. To seek revenge may lead to hell but everyone does it and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.”
The character of Sweeney Todd is hard to define in classical terms. He is certainly tragic, calling to mind such characters as Edmond Dantes or Ben Hur. He stands alongside the tragic hero in his circumstance and his desire to seek justice against those who put him in those circumstances. However, Todd would also seem to bear a kinship with Hamlet, seeking revenge to the point of self-destruction. Unlike Dantes or Ben-Hur, however, Todd has no mercy, and does not finish his story a hero. He finds no redemption, and he kills more than “the bad guys,” quite intentionally. He is a mass-murderer and a psychopath. He is an anti-hero, who we hope to succeed and yet also criticize and are meant to despise. Todd is not an allegory, but rather a type for what is found in the heart of every man. He is a personification of the human desire for revenge. He cannot fulfill his desires on his own, and he needs the help of another. Rather than seek actual help, Barker creates his own deity in the form of Sweeney Todd, a demon who destroys all indiscriminately, not discerning the difference between friend and foe, and abandoning reason and logic for instinctual revenge. The play as a whole stands as much a tragedy as Hamlet, with as much wit and skill as ever Shakespeare invented, and characters more complex than ever came from the Bard’s pen, and none more complex than the titular anti-hero, Sweeney Todd.

Christians suck

I did not write this, but I find it hysterical nonetheless. Especially considering that a lot of people give me bullcrap excuses like this, and I've heard these excuses used after knifing people in the back since I was...maybe four? Enjoy

It is 2020 and America has fallen to the secularists. The government comes to the Christian church and says that they will be allowed to function virtually unhindered. All they have to be willing to do is hand over one member of their congregation periodically. You are a member of the church, how are you going to respond?

a. you are going to suggest the “angry member” because we all know that his sin could contaminate you. Since you decided this many years ago, and have rarely talked to him since, you barely know him anyway.

b. you will pray and God will answer letting you know which members of the church are least worthy. You have practiced this for years, already have the ethics of a New Jersey politician (jobs for family and friends), and have come to believe your own BS, so what's one more thing to blame on God? In fact, you are so practiced in this technique, that you are able to blame the victim, as well, when they don’t buy your excuse. So, you will be able to blame the people who are taken away and still sleep easy at night.

c. perhaps suggest the weird, strange, scary, (or whatever sorry excuse you have) member because they are not truly a Christian. I mean, look at the music they listen to, how they dress, or what they talk about. Well, no, you can't actually point to any particular sin as defined by scripture, but they make you feel uncomfortable. And, you know, somebody important complained against them, or doesn’t like them, so they really aren’t needed here.

d. Well, there is this family, you know. And when you occasionally bother to say hi to them, I mean, they're ok. You know they're new to the church and everything, but Jesus didn't really mean that we had to show love to people we don't really, you know, get on with that well. So no, we've never had them in our home. They’re nobody important, so you think they can go.

e. Can’t we just all get along? I know, people have been disappearing from the church lately, but we really don’t know what’s been going on. And, how can you accuse somebody of cooperating with the state in persecuting Christians? What proof do you have? Sorry, I don’t have time at the present to listen to you - and aren’t you a little angry?

f. I really think that you need to work on your own sanctification. Oops, used a theological term there, so sorry. Theological terms show how little people love the Lord. I mean, you need to work on change. I’m already working on it and more than willing to help you.

g. you are ready to lay down your life for the church. NB This is the most dangerous Christian of all, even beating out the one to whom God talks directly, though there is some overlap between the two. They have no idea of the sin in their hearts and believe they have got it altogether.

h. you have apostatized. After all the sorry excuses above for all the sin in which Christians indulged over your entire life time you finally decided one day that you had had enough. You applied the test given in John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. The Christian church had failed using its own standards, so you went looking elsewhere.

Porn and Romance-The Twilight Saga

Unfortunately, guys have it tough. We have a double standard put upon us by girls that is impossible to meet. The culmination of that standard would be the Twilight Saga.

First, let me state, I am single. I had a girlfriend a long time ago, that went FUBAR, and so single I've remained, mostly due to cowardice and being pathetic. But still, I am not speaking as someone with no knowledge of women. Nor am I saying that every girl is like I'm about to describe. In fact, most of my female friends hate Twilight, so these generalizations hold exceptions. That being said-Romance is porn. Oh, not all romance is porn, certainly not. True romance is not porn, but the modern idea of it, the type put forth in most movies and television is porn. Sometimes, it's literally porn (I SAW Titanic, and while I'll admit I enjoyed the nude scene, it was still wrong)and other times it is merely what I like to call "girl-porn." Guys look at porn (generally) to look at the ultimate sexual ideal. We LIKE to see Madame Boing-Boing doing things to the faceless guy on the screen that we know will never be done to us. Porn, besides being pathetic, is also WRONG. Once more, our girlfriends will NEVER let us look at it. Heck, I have friends whose girlfriends don't even like them going to a Meghan Fox movie because "they know why guys see those movies." Fair enough. I concede. Guys like to ogle hot chicks, and we like even more to see hot chicks having sex. I'm not saying it's right. It's wrong. And guys, we should control it. However, I think girls should control their desires too. Just as guys look at porn for the ultimate sexual ideal, girls like modern romances because they are looking for the ultimate ROMANTIC ideal. Don't ask me why Cullen qualifies. I've read all four twilight books (I know. I know. Stop looking at me like that!) and I can tell you, the only thing I think Cullen proved himself to be was a melodramatic douche. My friend Nick Taylor published a good literary critique of the books (look in the blogs I follow to find his) so I'm not gonna bother doing that here. However, Cullen is still portrayed as the ultimate romantic ideal.

To girls with boyfriends: Why the hell are you reading crap like this? Love your boyfriend, don't read this bull and get these ideas of what your boyfriend "should" be, but love your boyfriend and learn what real guys are like. And don't bother to say "I can distinguish the boy in the book from reality, I just read/watch Twilight for fun." Bull. You don't do that anymore than I could (could meaning I don't actually do it) watch Girls Gone Wild "Just for fun and distinguish it from reality." Be realistic.

As for girls who don't have boyfriends: seriously, don't set yourself up for disappointment. Just like no guy is going to find a woman as well-endowed, flexible, and willing as some Porno actress, no guy is ever going to be as "perfect" as Cullen, Jacob Black, or any other Romance character. Consciously or not, I guarantee you that it will subconsciously affect you, the same way porn affects guys.

Plus, just to prove a point. Girls, please do not insult our intelligence and tell us that one of the reasons you're seeing Twilight and New Moon is not to see things like this


because all guys know you are. You're only fooling yourselves, and sometimes not even that.

This is terribly, terribly unfair to us guys. I can't watch Buffy without every girl I know pitching a fit (that's hyperbolic. If you're one of my female friends who DIDN'T pitch a fit, don't worry.) Everytime a guy watches a movie with a hot chick, it either gets written off as "a guy thing" or girls freak because we must be mentally cheating on them. Girls, you have a right to worry. Guys should be careful of what we watch and why. I don't watch Braveheart for the ONE scene of nudity in it. I always skip it, and I know a lot of guys who do the same. There's a difference between that and watching, say, "Life of a Pornstar" on HBO. Guys have absolutely no business watching that crap. And neither do girls have any business watching or reading Twilight. It's the same basic principle as pornography, except the ideal is different. As Billy Connolly once said "Women need to feel loved to have sex; Guys have to have sex to feel loved." Our ideals are different. We are practically different species. So it's not fair for you to claim that just because you're idealizing romance where we idealize sex, it's somehow "better." Don't condescend to guys as if we're stupid, or somehow can't see the difference. Don't tell us "it's just a story," because it's no more "just a story," than Debbie Does Dallas is "just a movie." It's the same thing in essence.

That's not to say I'm anti-romance per se. True, I hate Romanticism, and a lot of modern romance strikes me as silly and fake. I had a friend who was always romantic with his girlfriend. True, it was about...maybe a month? before he'd get a new one, but he was always ROMANTIC with her, whoever she was. To me, a lot of modern romance is just a justification for premarital sex, so that the woman can feel loved and the guy feel like he's not using her. My half-genetic half-trained cynicism tells me, quite rightly, that that view of romance is (to use a british/aussie term) bollocks. However, my view of romance is that it is the icing on the cake, where most people seem to think it's the cake itself. If you eat too much icing, you'll throw it up. I've done that, by the way, and it is absolutely revolting, to this day I'm not an icing fan. I think that if you love someone, you'll be romantic, in your own way, to them. Romance, real romance, is not chocolates and flowers. Neither is it defying death to save your loved one. It most certainly is NOT trying to kill yourself because of a girl/boy. I've had two friends kill themselves over their girlfriends/boyfriends leaving them. That is the most stupid, immature, F***ed-up thing you can do, and I'll admit, it's one of the points of New Moon I hate the most. Don't give me the bullshit about Edward "loving Bella so much he couldn't live without her." Trust me, go to the funeral of a friend who did that, you won't be singing that tune. Romance is different to every person. Some people are very romantic by nature (by romantic, I mean the good kind.) Some people are more down to earth about it. I would say therefore, that I am very much a believer in love, and not very much at all in romance. If you want a good example of what teenage love tends to be, I'd read Harry Potter. Love is awkward, and full of mistakes. I find myself more "touched" by what I see in "Everybody Loves Raymond" between Ray and Debra than anything I saw in Titanic or The Notebook (I saw those back to back. Let it never be said I never did anything for love.) I consider the "love" you see between married couples like Ray and Debra infinitely more realistic than the romantic bullcrap you see in Twilight.

To sum up. Twilight and indeed, most romance, is simply girls' version of porn. Girls, if you want to be able to indulge in that, then your boyfriend should be able to watch Girls Gone Wild without any complaint or resentment from you. Stop living in this dream world and looking for the ultimate romantic ideal in a creepy 100-something vampire loving a girl less than 1/10 his age, and learn to be content with what guys are really like. Just like no guy is ever gonna find a girl like he'll see in a porno, you are NEVER EVER going to find a boy actually as perfect as Cullen. Welcome to reality.

Most Influential Rock Bands

I keep reading, and Time and Rolling Stone are always so &^%$ political when they choose the most influential bands. Race and personal taste should have nothing to do with it, it should be based on their actual influence and talent. Thus, I have assembled my own list of the ten most influential rock bands.

1. The Beatles
As much as I loathe them, and think that they suck to the highest heaven, it must be admitted that the Beatles influenced and continue to influence thousands of musicians, from Alice Cooper to Blink-182, and this far reaching influence demands that they receive the first place.

2. The Ramones
I am not going to say that they were talented. I'm outraged that Johnny Ramone was above Angus Young on Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time." However, the Ramones pre-punk sound, which not only started the Punk movement, but much of the 80's New Wave and hardcore movements. The Ramones influence is still very much alive today in bands like Green Day, Blink-182, Socratic, in more popular bands like The All American Rejects and Avril Lavigne, and in more surprising bands like Children of Bodom

3. Black Sabbath/Ozzy Osbourne
Basically, Ozbourne started metal as we know it. Though Tony Ioammi certainly deserves a high rating as an excellent and inventive guitarist, it is Osbourne's voice and composing that truly made metal. Everyone from Nightwish to Dragonforce owe Ozzy Osbourne, and "the prince of darkness" is responsible not just for the many varieties of metal, but also a lot of hardocre, post-hardcore, and even emo music.

4. The Rolling Stones
Screw Led Zeppelin. The Stones started Rock, plain and simple. They were there first. Everyone else on this list owes their existence to the influence of the Stones. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards may look like walking corpses, and I personally don't care for a lot of their songs, but if Led Zeppelin are the "godfathers of rock" than The Stones are definitely the daddies.

5. The Sex Pistols
Noone ever remembers them, but these guys made punk what we know it to be today. Yeah, alright, the Ramones started it, but the Pistols gave it attitude. Johnny Rotten's distinctive voice coupled with Steve Jones's catchy guitar riffs set the stage not only for musical political activism beyond "peace is nice," but also injected the harshness and attitude now seen throughout a lot of punk and hardcore worlds. Every 80's punk band draws inspiration from the Sex Pistols, and so do the more modern bands. Spiking your hair? Yeah, you can thank the Pistols for that. And unlike the Clash, the Pistols never lost their attitude or spunk.

6. AC/DC
Again, magazines seemed to have conspired to have stolen the glory from where it belongs. The real hard rock tycoons are famous for their ill-will against the magazine "Rolling Stone," who decided to give the glory to Aerosmith instead. Unlike Steve Tyler's ridiculous stage antics that call to mind homosexual stereotypes, and the band's famous bad attitude, AC/DC is known for it's more professional demeanor, coupled with the wild showmanship. Plus, Angus Young could take on Joe Perry and Brad Whitford with one of his hands behind his back. AC/DC started the Hard Rock revolution that produced such artists as Guns and Roses and Motley Crue, and and they deserve a helluva lot more recognition than anyone ever gives them.

7. Pearl Jam
Another band that was given the short end of the stick. While not completely screwed over, Pearl Jam definitely deserves the place in the sun that was given to Nirvana. They not only had the grunge drive that people loved so much in Cobain, but possessed infinitely more talent and variety, and were just as influential as Nirvana in the Grunge movement. Unfortunately, none of their members committed suicide, so they do not have the advantage of a "dead rock god" such as Nirvana does. Even so, they deserve a place amongst the greatest, and history will hopefully vindicate them.

8. The Cure
It has always puzzled me, even when I was hard into my Goth phase (thank god no pictures exist of me from then) why The Cure is considered the ultimate Goth band. Alright, sure, Robert Smith is a Goth by dress, but The Cure's lyrics are always so happy. That's not to say they don't have their depressing songs, almost the whole album "Bloodflowers" is sad, but generally The Cure are a relatively happy sound, even if that happiness is a thoughtful kind of happiness. A lot of modern Indie and alternative pop draw influence from the Cure, in musical style if not in fashion sense.

9. Blink-182
Credit where credit is due. Blink are the "godfathers" of pop-punk. The funny thing is, they're pretty good. Their distinctive mix of immaturity and potty humor with a little hint of the serious is what has made every one of their albums strong. Everyone from Good Charlotte to the All American Rejects to the Jonas Brothers are tied to Blink-182. That may not be a good legacy, but it still counts for something, and to be fair, its not their fault. For starting a movement that now dominates the music charts and radio, Blink deserves recognition.

10. U2
I don't like them. At all. Oh true, some of their songs are catchy, and I even enjoy "40," "Vertigo," and "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me." However, generally, their lyrics are complete nonsense and Bono's voice makes Axl Rose sound like a baritone. The Edge is an amazing guitarist, but still. However, their influence and greatness cannot be denied, and U2 are still major players in the Rock world, known for their lighter, faster sound and more upbeat feel.

I confess, this list wasn't easy. I wanted to put more artists I love and listen on here, but that would make me as bad as Rolling Stone. Certainly other bands should be recognized, like Queen (who I hate), Aerosmith (eh), Smashing Pumpkins (awesome), Metallica (which true enough is metal, but still...), Social Distortion (best band ever),...the list goes on and on. But that's my top ten.

Defense of the Saints

"And Shepherds we shall be, For Thee, My Lord, For Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patri, Et Filli, Et Spiritus Sancti, Amen"

Over the last two months, I have discovered a new thing for me to obsess over; the Boondock Saints movies. On October 31st, the most impressive fan-based movie was released since 2005s Serenity, which I also loved. However, instead of being a follow-up to a popular sci-fi tv show that Fox screwed over, "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" was the follow up to a barely-released 1999 movie which was in theaters for a grand total of 4 days. Over the next ten years, "The Boondock Saints" has made millions of dollars and as many fans from dvd and video sales. The new movie is drawing out both the fans and the critics.

Myself, I definitely qualify for the first category. I saw the first movie at the end of September, and have watched in almost 30 times since. I downloaded the soundtrack of the first movie and saw the second movie twice in theaters. Why is it that Boondock Saints is so appealing? Is it perhaps the violence or the language? Certainly, with 246 uses of the "F-word" in the first film, it has plenty of language. There's also certainly no shortage of violence in both movies. That can't be it, though, because if one simply wants violence and language, there have been no shortage of movies that possess ample amounts of both. Boondock Saints contains just the right amount of violence, levity, thoughtfulness, and plain wackiness to attract people from all walks of life.

Myself, I find the premise of the movies interesting. The two McManus brothers, Connor and Murphy (Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus) receive a vision from God telling them to "destroy that which is evil, so that which is good may flourish." I don't believe in Divine visions, or at least, that they occur anymore, but I do believe that if God talked to people today, it is more likely that his message would be more along those lines than simply "I'm coming again soon, I'll protect the church" and every other thing he's already said in the scripture. I also am, as a libertarian, quite open to the idea of vigilantism in certain instances. The brothers' primary targets are mafiosos and other prominent, rich criminals who, due to their money and charisma, effectively are untouchable by the law. The entire idea of killing slime like this off, slime who are all-too-real, quite appeals to someone who believes vigilantism a form of civil rebellion when the government is being derelict in its duty.

The actors are also quite a varied lot. Neither Flannery or Reedus are particularly well known, Flannery's most prominent role being that of Young Indiana Jones and Reedus's most prominant role being Murphy McManus. Balancing these two relative unknowns are British comedy giant Billy Connolly as their father and Willem Dafoe, of "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Clear and Present Danger" fame. Connolly's role as their father is minimal in the first one, restricted mostly to quotations of both scripture and vengenace-themed prayers. In the second, Connolly becomes more involved, cementing his character as the ultimate "old-dude" badass. His six-gun holster is probably one of the most realistic, yet inventive, movie props that I've seen in a while. Dafoe's character is simply genius. A homophobic homosexual FBI agent, Dafoe brings the right mix of genius, arrogance, and neurosis to his character, enough to steal the show from the Irish twins. Comedian David Dela Rocco plays a version of himself that is essentially a stereotypical buffoon-with-a-good-heart, but he brings such a flair to the character to make it believable and simultaneously amusing. His charisma is such that I remember his two minute cameo in the second movie more vividly than the rest of the nearly two-hour film. Other relatively minor characters, like the three Irish cops who assist Dafoe's character, or the Mafia boss Joe Yakavetta are plaid with enough flair to make you remember them despite their lack of screentime.

The action is, quite simply, over the top. This is why I like it. Being a weapons aficionado, I have not yet seen a realistic action movie. The movie is almost a homage to Tarantino and John Wu, but contains enough originality to make it unique. True, the famous "firefight" scene is ridiculous, but did not defy the suspension of disbelief I bring to any action movie, unlike Reservoir Dogs or Grindhouse did. The violence is satisfying without being gratuitous, humorous, or "artsy." The one exception to the humor rule would be the death of Rocco's girlfriend's cat, which was so hysterical I had to pause the movie to laugh.

The dialogue is also one of the strong points of the movie. Most of it is believable, but contains enough wacky moments to raise an eyebrow. A good example would be the bartender from the beginning of the film's mixing popular proverbs together; "people in glass houses sink ships." The only downfall of the dialogue is a use of the f-word which outdoes even mine, and I have a mouth like a sailor. Though not quite as strong in the second, the f-word is present, which doesn't offend me due to my frequent use of it, but might bother people of a more sensitive nature. The strong point of the dialogue is that almost every part of it is quotable. It's a giant quotes movie, where most of the quotes are original, which is refreshing after Tarantino's pop-culture ridden movies like Kill Bill. Especially epic is the prayer of the saints, which I quoted at the top, and Connolly's pseudo-religious snippets heard throughout the movie.

To sum it up: I was entertained. Movies are not there to be an "artform," but to entertain us. I was entertained, I was amused, I wished to see the movies again. True, the movies have their downsides, as does every other movie, but all in all, I would rate both Boondock Saints movies A+, for the dialogue, premise, and characterization.

This is an awesome video especially for those who like the Legend of Zelda series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8dQhyJRBs&feature=related

Welcome

I had a blog, long ago, before the dark times :P. Now I have another. I'll pretty much just post whatever the heck I want, whenever I want. I figured a good thing to start with would be a list of bands I think everyone should check out.

1 Social Distortion. Onetimes a punk band, now more blues and rock 'n roll with a solid punk edge. Fave album: Sex, Love, and Rock 'n Roll
2 Blink-182. Pop-punk, they just got back together. Fave album: Enema of the State
3 Senses Fail-Emo-Hardcore. Decent edge, nice harmony. Fave album: Let it Enfold You
4 Demon Hunter- Metalcore. Decent screaming, some Christian themes throughout, but nothing in your face, and very harmonic. favorite album: The Triptych
5 Dropkick Murphys: Celt-Punk, very in your face, loud, very Irish in feel. Fave album: The Warrior's Code
6 The Pogues: Irish folk. Sometimes very happy sounding, sometimes very sad. Lead singer Shane McGowan's voice conveys emotion well, though they don't sound as good live due to McGowan's constantly being drunk.
7 Good Charlotte-Pop Punk. Heartfelt, Pop-ish music, very individualistic, though their last album wasn't as good. Fave Album: The Young and the Hopeless
8 Fall Out Boy-An interesting mix of emo, pop, and punk, some of their lyrics are....interesting, and their titles are about a paragraph long, but they make for fun listening. Fave album: Take This to Your Grave
9 Sinergy-Power Metal. from Finland, their lyrics are in English. Their guitarists are unbelievable, and they sound just as good live. Without cursing, they manage to communicate a surprising amount of rage. Fave album: I Spit on Your Grave
10 3 Doors Down-Rock. Of "Kryptonite" fame, a more folky style of hard rock, very heartfelt lyrics and well executed music. Fave album: Seventeen Days