In honor of Short Story Month and Zombie Awareness Month, I decided to try my hand at some second person, present tense prose. I whipped it up quickly so it's raw and unpolished, but then again, it is a zombie story, so perhaps raw is appropriate . . .
You, Zombie
By Michael Rappa
The hunger. Oh god, the hunger. What is this compulsion to eat raw flesh? The taste—the foul, foul taste. You want to vomit but your body craves the blood, the sinew, the ligaments. You grow stronger with each bite of spongy muscle. You wish you could just starve yourself into oblivion but it seems the will to exist persists beyond death.
So you move on in search of your next meal—your next victim. You can't stop. When a human enters your line of site or wanders into the radius of your supernatural sense of smell, primal instinct takes over. You're a shark on feet . . . well, one foot and a stub (the zombie that turned you into this abomination ate most of your right foot for dinner). Last week you consumed your first child. You live every day with her screams in your head. The undead never sleep so the screams never stop.
You beg people for help but they don't seem to understand what you're saying. You try to let them kill you but your body fights back when they attack. You have no control. You're a slave to the affliction. You're terribly lonely. You can't even communicate with your fellow zombies. They're not kin; they're competition.
You just want to go home, to see a familiar face, to forget this hellish existence—even if only for a moment. So you hobble down a corpse-littered street to the crimson-colored cape cod of your youth. Surely your parents won't turn you away. You knock (bang) on the door and call (groan) their names (something unintelligible). Your father opens the door and points a shotgun at you.
"Go away!" he hollers as a tear rolls down his cheek.
You plead with him, but he only pumps the weapon in response.
"I said go! You're not my child! You're a monster! My child is dead!"
"Please, don't shoot!" you hear your mother cry from inside the house. She runs out to stand between you and your father. "Please don't shoot our baby!"
The gun shakes in your father's hand and he breaks out into a sob as he drops it to the ground. He slumps down beside it. Your mother turns and opens her arms. You rush to embrace her. She will make everything better; she always has.
You want to ask her why she's suddenly screaming but she always told you never to talk with your mouth full. Your father tries to pry your teeth away from her throat but you cling to her flesh like a ravenous animal. He reaches for the gun and points it at your head, but by this time the neighborhood zombies have been alerted to the commotion and he is overrun. The undead mob scratches and claws and you soon find yourself on the outside of the feeding frenzy that quickly turns your parents into mounds of meat.
So you begin to walk away. For a moment you pause and look back, overwhelmed by sadness and guilt—but only for a moment. Then you move on in search of your next meal. You can't stop.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The Man in Black fled across the desert, and Ron Howard directed...
Rejoice, Constant Readers. At long last, Stephen King’s epic saga, The Dark Tower, is making the leap to the big screen, directed by Opie Cunningham himself, Ron Howard. For those who don’t know, The Dark Tower is King’s magnum opus, the nexus of his entire body of work, with references to the Dark Tower sprinkled throughout the majority of his novels. The task of adapting this behemoth to the screen (seven books clocking in at over a million words, not to mention several ancillary stories that may become part of the films) is going to make The Lord of the Rings look like a one-act play.
Many fans have heaped scorn upon the choice of Howard to direct (I guess they were hoping for Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, or someone of that ilk). I, for one, will withhold judgment until I see the final product. Howard has made many solid films over the years, and for what it’s worth, he seems to have a deep passion for the project (he worked on it for a year before even presenting the idea to Stephen King)—and there is no way that King would let his baby go unless he was confident that Howard was going to do his books justice. This is not Maximum Overdrive or Christine—The Dark Tower is the center of King’s entire literary universe, and he would not hand over the rights lightly.
The doubters claim that Howard’s body of work leaves no indication that he is capable of taking on a project like this, but was Peter Jackson in a much different position before he began work on Lord of the Rings? And we all know how that turned out. I’m intrigued by the way Howard has chosen to approach the material: a movie trilogy sandwiched around two television series that bridge the three films. Such a concept is unprecedented in cinematic history; it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. It certainly gives the filmmakers latitude to flesh out more of the story than a strict film series would have provided. I wonder, though, how much of the source material will need to be censored in the television series. It would seem to be better suited for a premium channel, but then how many fans would follow it? On the other hand, there have been a few network television miniseries over the years that have done a credible job with King’s work, so perhaps this can work as well.
The most important element of the production is going be the selection of the actor to play series protagonist Roland Deschain, a gunslinger in much the same vein as Clint Eastwood’s character from Sergio Leone’s classic series of spaghetti westerns, with a little bit of Arthurian regalness mixed in. Howard has offered this critical part to Javier Bardem (I have to admit that I have trouble seeing him in this role, but he is an outstanding actor, so I will place my faith in Howard’s judgment). At this point Bardem has yet to accept and there’s no guarantee that he will, for he would be required to commit a huge chunk of the next decade of his life to a single character on both the big and small screen—how many A-list actors would be willing to do that? It could be that we end up with a relative unknown in the role, which might actually be preferable.
Regardless of the choices Howard makes as the project moves forward (and their inevitable dissection by the fan base), I look forward with great excitement to those first moments on the big screen when the Man in Black flees across the desert with the Gunslinger in hot pursuit. And to borrow a phrase from the High Speech of Roland’s hometown of Gilead, I say thankee-sai.
Many fans have heaped scorn upon the choice of Howard to direct (I guess they were hoping for Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, or someone of that ilk). I, for one, will withhold judgment until I see the final product. Howard has made many solid films over the years, and for what it’s worth, he seems to have a deep passion for the project (he worked on it for a year before even presenting the idea to Stephen King)—and there is no way that King would let his baby go unless he was confident that Howard was going to do his books justice. This is not Maximum Overdrive or Christine—The Dark Tower is the center of King’s entire literary universe, and he would not hand over the rights lightly.
The doubters claim that Howard’s body of work leaves no indication that he is capable of taking on a project like this, but was Peter Jackson in a much different position before he began work on Lord of the Rings? And we all know how that turned out. I’m intrigued by the way Howard has chosen to approach the material: a movie trilogy sandwiched around two television series that bridge the three films. Such a concept is unprecedented in cinematic history; it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. It certainly gives the filmmakers latitude to flesh out more of the story than a strict film series would have provided. I wonder, though, how much of the source material will need to be censored in the television series. It would seem to be better suited for a premium channel, but then how many fans would follow it? On the other hand, there have been a few network television miniseries over the years that have done a credible job with King’s work, so perhaps this can work as well.
The most important element of the production is going be the selection of the actor to play series protagonist Roland Deschain, a gunslinger in much the same vein as Clint Eastwood’s character from Sergio Leone’s classic series of spaghetti westerns, with a little bit of Arthurian regalness mixed in. Howard has offered this critical part to Javier Bardem (I have to admit that I have trouble seeing him in this role, but he is an outstanding actor, so I will place my faith in Howard’s judgment). At this point Bardem has yet to accept and there’s no guarantee that he will, for he would be required to commit a huge chunk of the next decade of his life to a single character on both the big and small screen—how many A-list actors would be willing to do that? It could be that we end up with a relative unknown in the role, which might actually be preferable.
Regardless of the choices Howard makes as the project moves forward (and their inevitable dissection by the fan base), I look forward with great excitement to those first moments on the big screen when the Man in Black flees across the desert with the Gunslinger in hot pursuit. And to borrow a phrase from the High Speech of Roland’s hometown of Gilead, I say thankee-sai.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
For the Birds
Well, it was bound to happen when the NFL decided to split the league into eight divisions; it was only a matter of time. And here we are, with the embarrassment of a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game while two 10-6 teams are sitting at home. Almost everyone outside of Seattle agrees that this is a travesty, and, unlike some arguments I have heard, this is not an aberration—it will happen again. When you have nearly as many divisions as playoff spots, you are practically begging for it to happen again.
Even if you want to make the argument that Seattle deserves to be in the playoffs because they won their division (not much of an accomplishment considering that my cousin's midget football team could win seven games in that division), you can't possibly believe that the Seahawks deserve to host a playoff game, that the 11-5 Saints should have to travel to Seattle to play this game. And consider this: if things had fallen a little differently in the last week of the season, it would have been the Falcons with a 12-4 record heading to 7-9 Seattle. Does anyone seriously think this is good for the NFL?
So what should they do about it? They'll never go back to six divisions, so that's not an option. Ideally, only the top three division winners in each conference should be guaranteed playoff spots, but the owners would never go for that, either. At the very least, the owners should agree that winning your division should not guarantee you a home playoff game. The playoffs should be seeded according to record. Not only is this the fair thing to do, but it would also make the final games of the regular season more interesting. Think about how many teams rest players during the last two weeks because their seeding is locked up. For example, the Eagles would not have been able to rest their starters in last week's Dallas game under this proposed format because they would have fallen behind Green Bay in the seedings and lost their chance to host a playoff game. Also, the Bears would have had more to play for in the final week because a loss would have meant falling behind the Saints and losing their first-round bye. In fact, every playoff team in the league except for the Patriots would have had something to play for in the final week.
The NFL has been searching for ways to make that final week more interesting and this seems like a perfect solution. Not only would fewer teams be resting players at the end of the season, but the playoff seeding would be much more equitable. Yeah, you would still have crappy 7-9 Seattle in the playoffs, but at least they wouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game against a much better team. They would be the 6th seed, where they belong.
But I didn't come here to talk about that :-)
Time for this week's picks. Might as well start with the team in question...
New Orleans at Seattle
Seattle might actually have a chance to win this game . . . if a wormhole swallows up the Saints' plane on the way to Seattle. I'm feeling generous, so I'll give the home team a special teams TD to go with a couple of field goals. Saints: 31, Seahawks 13.
Baltimore at Kansas City
Kansas City has had an admirable season, but they're not ready for a game like this against a team of this caliber. Ravens 23, Chiefs 14.
New York at Indianapolis
This is my slight upset pick of the week. Manning just doesn't have the weapons this year and I think the Jets will win the battle up front. Jets 24, Colts 21.
Green Bay at Philadelphia
This should be the game of the week between two teams with explosive offenses. Green Bay seems to be the popular pick around the country, but I'm going to be a homer here and pick the Birds to eke one out. Eagles 28, Packers 24.
Even if you want to make the argument that Seattle deserves to be in the playoffs because they won their division (not much of an accomplishment considering that my cousin's midget football team could win seven games in that division), you can't possibly believe that the Seahawks deserve to host a playoff game, that the 11-5 Saints should have to travel to Seattle to play this game. And consider this: if things had fallen a little differently in the last week of the season, it would have been the Falcons with a 12-4 record heading to 7-9 Seattle. Does anyone seriously think this is good for the NFL?
So what should they do about it? They'll never go back to six divisions, so that's not an option. Ideally, only the top three division winners in each conference should be guaranteed playoff spots, but the owners would never go for that, either. At the very least, the owners should agree that winning your division should not guarantee you a home playoff game. The playoffs should be seeded according to record. Not only is this the fair thing to do, but it would also make the final games of the regular season more interesting. Think about how many teams rest players during the last two weeks because their seeding is locked up. For example, the Eagles would not have been able to rest their starters in last week's Dallas game under this proposed format because they would have fallen behind Green Bay in the seedings and lost their chance to host a playoff game. Also, the Bears would have had more to play for in the final week because a loss would have meant falling behind the Saints and losing their first-round bye. In fact, every playoff team in the league except for the Patriots would have had something to play for in the final week.
The NFL has been searching for ways to make that final week more interesting and this seems like a perfect solution. Not only would fewer teams be resting players at the end of the season, but the playoff seeding would be much more equitable. Yeah, you would still have crappy 7-9 Seattle in the playoffs, but at least they wouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game against a much better team. They would be the 6th seed, where they belong.
But I didn't come here to talk about that :-)
Time for this week's picks. Might as well start with the team in question...
New Orleans at Seattle
Seattle might actually have a chance to win this game . . . if a wormhole swallows up the Saints' plane on the way to Seattle. I'm feeling generous, so I'll give the home team a special teams TD to go with a couple of field goals. Saints: 31, Seahawks 13.
Baltimore at Kansas City
Kansas City has had an admirable season, but they're not ready for a game like this against a team of this caliber. Ravens 23, Chiefs 14.
New York at Indianapolis
This is my slight upset pick of the week. Manning just doesn't have the weapons this year and I think the Jets will win the battle up front. Jets 24, Colts 21.
Green Bay at Philadelphia
This should be the game of the week between two teams with explosive offenses. Green Bay seems to be the popular pick around the country, but I'm going to be a homer here and pick the Birds to eke one out. Eagles 28, Packers 24.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
