A preview of a classic

I went with my family to a job site (deconstructing a torn barn) when we came to an estate sale. Of course, the one thing that got my attention were the books. I wasn't sure there would be anything getting my attention (the person that passed away was an elderly woman), surprisingly, there were 3 books (all classics). I'd like to talk about one in particular.

I once heard that this is the original Christian horror story (it first came out even before Stephen King's debut novel Carrie). In today's standards (which are faulty and subjective at best), this would NOT be Christian in any regards.
You seen the movie? Besides the notoriously frightening head-twisting scene and the girl's transformation, there was a whole lot of graphic language, disturbing violent content, and even graphic sexual material (such as the possessed girl actually slamming a crucifix into her vagina and screaming out "F*** ME! F*** ME! F***ME!" and letting the blood fly).
I decided to skim parts of it and, it turns out, it's far more deprived, and, honestly, I found myself actually wanting to really get into the story.
One particular part that really sent chills down my spine (or close to it) was the girl looking at her mom and, by the control of the demon, told her religious mom that she "should let Jesus f*** you."
No, the book doesn't censor it, but it got me thinking two things:
1. The movie must have had to take some seriously heavy liberties to not seriously upset the religious community, lest the Catholic Church grade the movie "C" for condemned (like they did with the book-based movie "A Clockwork Orange").
2. The author did not let any barriers get in the way of portraying a demon realistically, graphically, and seriously.
When I read Ted Dekker's demon-possession-based horror story Adam (the first horror story to really give me the chills, ever), the demon in the story, because of the CBA (those that deem a Christian book to really be "Christian"), had to refrain from swearing at all and spoke euphemisms. The demon in The Exorcist took no such softening- it cussed, profaned, blasphemed, and even spoke sexual sacrileges. With the realism put into how the demon spoke (and yes, in the book, the demon did force the girl to masturbate with a crucifix, and the detail was quite vivid), it really impressed me.
Today, if Christian wrote something like this, they'd have to use a pseudonym and publish either through a secular channel or independently because of all the all-too-easily offended nature of today's church ("You can not believe in demons today!"), yet this reminds me of the offensive nature of the Bible- revealing the ways of the natural and spiritual worlds without barriers, without a care about how the populace would react, its purpose is to reveal the truth, not appeal to people's wishes about who they are (or it'd be far thinner). It also made me wish the CBA wouldn't exist so Christian authors could write the way they feel they could (like Dracula, which has no swearing, but is considered too "horrific" by the church to be "Christian", ridiculously enough).
If anyone should feel the entitlement to be offended at all, it should be God, not us humans who are filled with offensive sins anyway. So, I don't care about the language usage or the bizarre sexual/violent content, I can see this being the original CHRISTIAN horror story since it deals with the graphic, grotesque, disgusting, aberrant, dark, and ultimately twisted nature of pure evil... and how God Himself is the only to deal with evil itself, it doesn't provide alternative "humanist" methods, it presents a HARDCORE battle between pure good and pure evil and that relentless battle for each soul, no matter what it takes.
The next blog I write about this book will be a full review. Yes, I'm excitedly looking forward to it in the near future.

Understanding Gandalf now

There is a scene in Fellowship of the Rings where, during the talk Gandalf has about responsibility and the dangers of carrying the One Ring to Frodo, after some thought, Frodo exclaims that he will do what's been asked of him, and not solemnly either. Rather, with some enthusiasm. In both book and film, Gandalf's reply is pretty much verbatim- "No matter how long I'm around your kind, you hobbits always manage to surprise me!"
When news hit about the bombing in Boston, there was one thing I was expecting all day, all night, all next day, and all next night to hear... yet I didn't hear it. People shaking verbal fists at God, demanding that He show Himself. For once, I heard nothing like that. What actually happened was something I rarely see during a tragedy on American soil- the community acting as one living, communicating, interacting body.
Sure, there's already a number of conspiracy theories flying around, everything from the predictable "Muslim terrorists" to "American government" being behind it, this happening, that happening, yet I haven't heard word of anyone chewing God out (or cussing Him out) for the three people who died and the couple dozen injured to any degree. Instead, I saw pictures and videos of people running right into the epicenter of the danger zone (without a second thought, it seemed) to help others out. Runners who griped that they weren't doing as good as they expected their selves to be found theirselves thankful that they had a chance to do something more meaningful and impacting than proving theirselves race-worthy. Restaurants opened to help the starving without charging anyone, volunteers freely gave blood (far more than the Red Cross had asked for), tents got set up for people to recover under and get looked at. Even atheist comedian Patton Oswalt never said anything denigrating God, but gave a word of inspiration (yep, that shows God can even use an atheist as a source of hope), and a memorable quote from Mr. Rogers became an instant viral pic on facebook to be shared, helping us through yet another dark time.
Yet, for once that I can recall, no one showed doubt against God, everyone was actually being God-like in character, helping people, encouraging one another, nothing negative (aside from the 3 casualties) showed up to show the ugly side of human nature.
Who knew my own home nation could do something to surprise this jaded American? Now I know how Gandalf the Gray felt when he told Frodo his surprise.

Just an Irish gamer

Immediately before all the controversy over gun control, there was major talks and debates over whether the mass shootings in America over the past 3-5 years were a byproduct of video game violence.
As an avid gamer since I was a young kid, I can officially tell you I don't find the logic behind the statement. Why? It's easy.
My brother, when I told him the government was trying to pass yet another law to prevent violent video games (if not video games overall) from being sold, let alone being put on shelves, he had a two-in-one response.
1. They won't be able to do it, not only because video games have one of the biggest and strongest fanbase industries in generations, but because they started using technology, in the first place, as a way to train soldiers in the army on how to shoot, react to situations, etc. They'd essentially have to also ban an effective method of training soldiers, especially those who've never used guns up to that point.
2. This one was more personal to both of us. We were both raised on video games, including violent ones. And, as kids, the most violent one we played is still, to this very day, on every list of top banned/controversial games list, is consistently at the very top of the list. We both played it frequently and turned out fine (don't look at me like that!). That game was Mortal Kombat. Known for its extreme, gratuitous, over-the-top hyperviolence, it was the reason a politician came up with the ESRB.
Granted, some people have psychological reasons that they shouldn't play games, the problem is that we would not know who they are unless they played a game.
Like in centuries past, when a person did something considered "strange" and were called "witch" out of ignorance and not looking into the evidence but, rather, going by personal bias, when mass shootings happen anywhere, or any other kind of shocking violence (and I have the sick feeling that, in due time, there will no longer be a thought of how "shocking" any kind of violence will be since we're getting desensitized), politicians immediately pipe up that it was because of violent video games, case closed, everyone back to your day job. If only life could be so easy, huh?
Not everyone who commits a crime has ever played a video game. A man stabbed another man over in Europe when a certain game was popular on the PS2, and when our government officials claimed the man just HAD to have had played the game, the man said, "I've never heard of Manhunt."
Can you say epic face palm moment?
Anyway, I'm not the only one who sees no logic in taking away violent video games from the shelves, as I saw an author, Bruce Hennigan, post a few articles on his site (brucehennigan.com) about his thoughts on the matter, including a response from his own gamer son (who's a little older than me) about the entire subject. It was well thought-out, balanced, provoking (in a very good way), and, if the government has its way in the future and reflects the book 1984, Bruce's son's response could either be considered invalid or just get taken down and he'd be forced to be quiet on the matter, anything just so the government can be made to look like it knows... "best"?
I admit, I do have a pretty bad temper at times, but it doesn't stem from playing violent games all my life (including the reboot Tomb Raider, the Dead Space series, the Assassin's Creed series, Gears of War, etc.), it actually comes from my Irish heritage, among other parts of my heritage. I do believe that even if I never once played a violent game, never watched anyone play a violent game, not even watched any video game walkthroughs on youtube, then I would still have this temper. Yes, it can be sharp (as some of my former co-workers at Wal-Mart in Alva can testify), but have I ever thought of gunning down the bullies at any of the schools I attended? Never once. If anything, I wondered what would happen if terrorists had tried to take over the school and I were stuck, not in a classroom, but in (get ready to laugh) the bathroom, having more free reign. I knew, even then, the mental scenarios were all implausible, but it was never about getting violent, it was about helping others (my schoolmates, even the ones that I couldn't stand with how much they picked on, ridiculed, and mocked me) survive.
That's something I look for in a game, no matter how family-friendly or violent. The positive aspects of the storyline.
Call of Duty series: no matter what tragedies happened, the good guys always looked for a contingency to save America. Yeah, a lot of headshots and explosions, but never a civilian to gun down (except in Modern Warfare 2, which the game allowed you the option to skip the entire level, and playing the level helped one understand all the angles of reasons behind the machinations of undercover warfare and foreign betrayals, but you don't have to play it if you felt like you'd be in the boots of a terrorist, something the news pundits seem to have purposely left out of their reports). In Black Ops 2, though it gets extremely graphic in both the past and the future, you do have important people to protect, and if they die at the hands of the enemies, it's game over, so you have to protect them, period.
Batman: Arkham series: Though the enemies may have guns and knives, make lewd comments about the women, and swear (nothing beyond PG-13 lingo, though), Batman doesn't use a single normal gun (just a shock gun that temporarily incapacitates an enemy), never kills, and doesn't use knives, and he's always trying to protect the innocent. In Arkham City, there's even an occasional side mission where you rescue "political prisoners" from being beaten up and killed by other inmates.
Sleeping Dogs: crippling moves, bone-breaking moves, heavy shoot-outs, a bloodied wedding, gang warfare, even fatal melee moves have nothing on the split-storyline of a man who's trying to be an undercover officer and get in with an old gang who believe above, all else, in respecting one another and having trust.
My brother has quite a collection of violent video games as well, yet some I would never have a copy of for my PS3 because they have no positive aspect in their storyline (biggest example, no reason to give society a reason to hope, only fame and fortune through very gratuitous means).
So, does violent video games cause people to commit extremely atrocious crimes? It depends on one's psychological status. If they know something has the potential to make them snap for whatever reason and they ignore that inner voice telling them they shouldn't play it, it's not the game developer's fault, not the video game industry's fault. It's the player's fault for not listening to inner caution. And to ban games is a sure way to take away games with a strong, solid hopeful storyline that transcends all the violence within.