Vegas Hiatus

Some people have weird jobs

On Thursday I wing off for sunny Las Vegas, Nevada with several dudes from the greater Austin area. We plan to meet up with dudes from the Pacific Northwest. Some of you may know The My and Manzo.

I do not return until Sunday, so you're going to have to bear with a bit of radio silence from LoM for a few days while we bury a few bodies in the desert.

I am not really sure what to expect, to the point where I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to pack. Honestly, part of me knows that if I need a tie to go anywhere, its somewhere I can't afford enough to be there in the first place.


Pretty much what happens the minute you step foot off the plane in Vegas.

And, yeah, its sort of canned and cliche to head to Vegas with your male buddies as you try to deny that you're all entering "that point" in your life, but, what the hell... If I didn't go, I'd regret it forever.

I've been to Vegas enough times to know that while movies like "The Hangover" are cute, my experience has been far from "anything can happen", but much more of a "wow, it sure cost a lot for anything to happen and somehow the most fun was that Star Trek exhibit thing". Also to know that mega-conventions are fun on Day 1, and each day afterward is progressively more depressing.


May the spirit of Goulet guide me in Vegas, as he does every day

Also, on my first trip out, Columbine happened. On the next trip, I was there on 9/11/2001. So, you know, not all great memories.

If anyone is going to be in the area, Leaguers, let me know. I'd love to see you and have a soda with you at Circus Circus.

The Wall

I was in 9th grade when The Wall came down. A lot of people are going to have something much more intelligent to say about the fall of the Berlin Wall. I see no reason for that to happen here, but I'd hate to let the moment of the 20th Anniversary fall by the wayside without mention.

To some extent, as memory serves, I was born and raised and nurtured on such a steady diet of NATO and America being Awesome and Communism being Evil that there was a hint of inevitability to the wall eventually coming down, but nobody thought it was going to happen when and how it did. At least in the group of 14 year old boys I talked to. We mostly believed it would be in 250 years after a fierce laser-pistol and Commie-Robot-Army battle.

The climate prior to the Fall of the Wall, and the domino effects in Eastern Europe, meant I was used to regular patrols of my neighborhood by F4's from the local Air Force base, and mutually assured destruction as routine a thought as if I wanted Coke or Pepsi, but there you have it.

In a way, losing The Wall was a bit of a bummer. The Wall was this big, obvious metaphor that we got cool movies based upon where democracy-loving spies, Germans, etc... got to cross the wall and shoot the bird at Evil Communists as they snuck past them in the night.

Mr. White, my 9th grade geography teacher, made sure we watched video of Germans partying along the wall as it was being destroyed by hand. A bit of a former hippy and amazingly socially conscious for a high school geography teacher, Mr. White saw to it that the import of the moment was not lost upon us. Although he did not include in his lesson that it was President Reagan's magic fairy dust that brought The Wall down, as the story has now been written.

For a bunch of kids raised to believe that sooner or later, we were going to be going bayonet-to-bayonet with some Godless Commie (most likely right there on top of The Wall), suddenly realizing Glasnost was sort of working out came as a total @#$%ing shock. Hating Commies was just part of every day life, and with The Wall coming down, it was now just... over.

I really have no idea how German reunification went. Fine, I suppose. I don't remember nearly as many stories about East Germany as I've seen on Russia and the legacy of 5 Year Plans and factory cities being shuttered.

I've now met more people from East Germany and Russia than I have from Delaware or Maine. My colleague is married to party official's daughter. My pal Dan is married to a Russian molecular biologist. Its a crazy world.

Sure, in the ensuing years we ignored the lessons of Rambo III and Nostradamus and found all new people to pick a fight with, but its just not the same. Back then it felt a bit more like "my local sports franchise is better than your local sports franchise". The Russians and East Germans were jerks who would nationalize your lemonade stand, but they didn't live in caves and declare 1000 year jihads upon you. Building better jets to keep up with your enemy used to mean something, dammit.

It wasn't until later in high school and certainly in college where I began to understand why Russia didn't exactly spruce up East Germany, and hadn't taken to cuddling the Germans like best buddies. It's still amazing that Berlin managed to exist in its split island state as long as it did. In many ways, that's something that I believe future generations simply will refuse to believe existed, when nobody remembers Checkpoint Charlie.

Germany has experienced a reunification that most didn't expect, and it makes one wonder if, cooler heads prevailing, the DMZ couldn't disintegrate and Korea become a single state in my lifetime.

I don't really miss the Red Menace, I suppose. Not when we've managed to find so many other threats to worry about. I do miss sexy East German double-agents and movies depicting heroics done in the name of democracy.

So long, Wall. We don't miss you all that much.

Showcase Presents

Last night I went to an after-hours event at Austin Books with a special display of what they term "Showcase Comics". These are comics that are not in the plentiful back-issue bins, but which the good folks at Austin Books have recognized of being of exceptional quality either through what state they are in or because of their value to fans.

What made last night particularly interesting was that it was spotlighting some new comics that Austin Books had recently acquired, including a large Golden Age collection, all held by the same person since they were bought off the rack. I saw Superman and Batman comics (and had one in my hand) that I assumed I could easily have never seen in person.



For good or ill, I brought my personal financial consultant with me (Jamie) to ensure I did nothing rash, and while I very much wanted to bring home Bob Oksner-covered Superman issues in the #20-50 range, I decided it was okay to have just had the good fortune to see them.

There's an amazing amount of history to those comics, and to know that they have been in a single person's possession all these years is astonishing. Many valuable comics are bought and sold as a commodity, and its not hard to believe you're the third or fourth person whose owned the comic when you're looking at the more valuable stuff. But seeing a kid's signature get neater on covers as the years progress gives you a moment of pause. Let alone that the kid hung onto these comics for so many years.

There are the War Bond ads on some covers, and Superman beating up Hermann Goering on others. They're not just Superman collectibles, but a slice of the zeitgeist of the era (as comics so often are. Someday, you need to Google "Prez, the Teenage President").

Anyhow, I had opportunity to consider my own fandom and chat with the hardcore collectors who were there (and absolutely know that angle of the comic collectible market). It was reassuring to see that they're still picking these comics up out of love, not as investors. One gentlemen mentioned to me that he'd never actually resold a comic, which, considering what he was buying, sort of blew my mind.

It was fun.

Rather than sulk, I did manage to grab a Jimmy Olsen issue and a great Kubert-drawn Enemy Ace comic.

Poor Little Lu (I broke my dog)

Last night I was playing with Lucy (our beloved little black lab) and picked her up.

She let out a yelp, which Lucy has only ever done once before when I was playing with her roughly.

Well, we left for a little while and came back to find Lucy was not willing to climb up on the couch (which you would think I'd be happy about, but...), and was just not terribly mobile.

I was going to just keep an eye on her, because with dogs half the time this stuff just passes. But the last time she yelped, we wound up with a trip to the vet and learned she has hip dysplacia, a fairly common problem in large-breed thorough-breds (part of why we went for 100% American Mutt when we adopted Scout).

Anyhow, at 2:30 AM I was walking into the emergency vet.

Lucy received a narcotic of some sort and... high animals are a really weird thing to deal with. She's also got some pills for the issue. She's resting next to Jamie on the couch, but we had to get her up there.

Because I'd stayed up late to keep an eye on her, and then missed sleep from about 2:00 - 4:30 AM, I'm a little punchy today.

I am most sad that it was my fault. Very Jack Torrance of me.

Lucy used to bounce all over the place and "delicate" was not a word I would have associated with her physique. But I need to adjust when we're playing, and not do anything as simple as lift her anywhere except onto the bed or into the car. And not take it as a sign that her jumping all over creation is the same thing as her getting picked up.

The League Sings

photo courtesy Mr. Harms

Yes, We Are Still Shutting Down/ Future Plans

I am flattered that Leaguers are asking about whether or not we're still shutting down, whether we'll continue on, if there aren't possibilities for other outlets, etc...

Its always been a shock to me that so few have written in asking me to please, please just stop it seemed nice enough. Knowing that anyone gives a darn enough to ask that we should continue is a bit overwhelming.

To cut to the chase, here's the game plan.

1) December 20th, in the PM, I will have up the final post. It's done already.
2) We will continue to maintain a presence on Facebook at facebook.com/melbotis. A lot of the smaller items you'd find here are what you'll find there. We're also on Twitter, but that's a repost of Facebook, so there you go. twitter.com/melbotis
3) April 21st, 2010, I will make a statement on Facebook in regards to any future plans for more blogging activity.

I need to give myself hard deadlines on this stuff as it will force decisions one way or another. I was a PM for a while.



Anyway, it's been suggested I talk about favorite posts.

Rather than do that (because I've got 3,300+ posts) I welcome you guys to guest-post on any particular League-related topic, post, etc... that caught your fancy. You can contact me via e-mail. We'll run those right up until that last week.

I will, I believe, have some sort of series of "before we go" posts to wrap things up. So, if you have any requests, send them in. We live to serve, and I'll be looking for ideas for generating content. And, no, I have no idea what I mean by "if you have any requests".

The League Reads/ Listens to: Dracula

On Thursday morning I finished a 12-hour audio book of the original novel of "Dracula".



If you've grown up in the US, you're familiar with Dracula via Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, Gary Oldman or any of the other innumerable TV or film versions of the character. And, most likely, you've seen one of those History Channel specials on "The Real Dracula" about the Romanian count who is rumored to have killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people on the end of a pike.

I've seen the Browning directed, Lugosi starring "Dracula" at least five times, seen the Coppola directed, Oldman-starring "Dracula" two or three times, seen a few other versions, at least two plays of Dracula (one of which was a musical), odd sequels to Dracula from "Dracula 2000" to "Monster Squad" (which gave us the phrase "The Wolfman has Nards!", for which I am eternally grateful).

But I'd never read the book.


Drac didn't get to tidy up before you popped by.

For today's reader who picks up the book for the first time, unfortunately, "Dracula" has two things going against it.

1) It definitely works in that "paid by the word" mode of its contemporaries, where characters are likely to have long, unimportant asides and speeches that go nowhere. By today's standards of narrative economy, its hard-going at times.
2) It more or less defined a tradition and formula, based upon folklore and tradition, that has become so completely ingrained in the popular psyche that you already know what is coming through 99% of the book. Especially if you were familiar with the book from other sources.

That said...

Its not a bad listen or read. Even scenes which we've all witnessed on screen becoming far more chilling as described in the course of the book and with Stoker's ability to deliver this information as fresh and revelatory.

What struck me most is that, while Stoker does make a 4th quarter play to recognize that his Count was also once a human and therefore should get some measure of pity, this is not the "oh, I'm really just a stand in for those broody guys from high school" Dracula which we've come to know over the years. My guess is that the Lugosi (who, apparently, the ladies quite liked), and the lack of gore and general ickiness described in the book, makes becoming a vampire seem not all that bad. You stay good-looking, you never die or get sick, you get your way all the time, and have an array of super powers that would make Martian Manhunter jealous.


got... got a little something... right there. on your chin. there. you're gonna want a napkin.

But Stoker's Dracula and vampires are drawn from the tradition of demons and monsters, not GQ models. Dracula himself is horrible to behold before Harker even figures out there's anything amiss. Drawing blood isn't an exaggerated hicky, but something Drac and his lady-friends do by stealing peasant children in sacks and then going family-style on them. Turning into a vampire isn't waking up with superpowers, as if one were accidentally bathed in cosmic rays, but a weeks-long process of slow death with the knowledge that one is becoming a hellspawn, but cannot even tell anyone else to kill them, because that will just turn you into the hellspawn directly.

It's a bad scene, and when pop culture critics look with crooked eye at the post-Anne Rice foppish-emo take on vampires, there's a reason for it. The horror of being one of the undead is not an inconvenience, which is more or less how Rice and the post-Rice followers portrayed their vampires. There is no choice to live well by raiding blood supplies or hunting deer or whatever modern creators have decided is an acceptable substitute, because becoming a vampire means loss of self, and what replaces you (whether you or a demon substitute) is not particularly interested in the ethics of the living.

Being a vampire is not all that different from modern images of zombie-ism, in that the zombies (and in many cases, werewolves) obviously have no choice about their motivations. Oddly, one of the more popular visions which seemed to match up was how vampires were portrayed in the first season or two of Buffy (which I didn't watch after season two or so. Sue me.).


Dracula enjoys the great taste of Keanu.

I tip my hat to Stoker's depiction of Mina, a character who is portrayed often as a damsel in distress, and unconvincingly as a character at all by Winona Ryder. Stoker celebrates "the modern woman" who was still 30 years off from the vote, but who men were surprised to learn could type, understand science and math, etc... And which Madam Mina seems to exemplify (and is far, far more interesting a character than the character of Lucy, who mostly swoons and feels pretty, then sick).

The belief in science and reason by the heroes is never questioned, superstition is puzzled out, and even the supernatural is more or less suggested to be just one more mystery of science. This current is occasionally explicitly addressed, but is certainly evident in how Stoker's characters grapple with the dilemma's surrounding them and give way from from what they know as gentlemen, to what they eventually open their minds to via observation and experience (which, honestly, takes up a huge portion of the book, and often seems to be the exact point of the book).

I confess to a particular affection for the character of Quincey Morris, who is often eliminated from the stage and screen versions, as his role is mostly to be The Manly Texan who is there to wield a Bowie knife and be happy to tackle some vampires while the Englishmen are grieving, swooning, etc...

And, of course, its easy to see why so many versions (particularly Coppola's film) become enamored with the wily genius of Van Helsing (whose name but nothing else is lifted for the Hugh Jackman movie of a few years back then seemed hellbent on ruining Universal's Monster Movie franchise). He's an interesting character, a man of science who openly recognizes that perhaps the age of reason and scientific investigation have led to people not looking at the sources of folklore and myth.

Some of the "scientific" discussion doesn't make a load of sense (I never got the "child-brain vs. man-brain" thing), but Van Helsing really sells it.

Dracula himself becomes somewhat lost as a character after the first quarter of the book. Only Harker has direct conversations with Dracula, while still in Transylvania. The polite foreigner who has moved into town of stage and screen is an invention intended to keep Drac on stage. But you kind of have to love how darned eeee-vil Dracula is when dealing with Harker, and what a clear picture is drawn of who the guys is, and that he is, in fact, struggling to get the hell out of the sticks and be a man of the world/ have a much bigger hunting ground.

If I've a complaint, its that Dracula's death is oddly ant-climatic both because (a) you know its coming, and (b) by today's standards, its not exactly a "Big Boss Fight". I found myself sort of rooting for the guy by the end, which I would guess is not an uncommon position.


Batman makes everything awesomer.

Regarding sex and the vampire:

There's absolutely no question where Stoker was going with his succubi-like "Brides of Dracula" (a term which doesn't actually appear in the book, if memory serves). Harker discusses what a big turn-on the women are, and when Van Helsing happens upon them, he's no less enchanted.

However, having had heard repeatedly how "sexy" we're to find the character od Dracula, and given the tone of the Frank Langella, Lugosi and Lee films, the eroticism of Dracula himself is a bit non-existent. The source I figured I was counting on for the lustiness of Dracula was Coppola's presentation, which he were told was a faithful adaptation, but that's fairly iffy. Given that the book is written in the form of various journals and diaries, it's possible, one supposes, that Mina and Lucy simply do not discuss the sexual aspects of vampirism, but the scenes I recall from the Coppolla film in which Mina is wooed just aren't there.

I'm of a mind that Stoker intended for Dracula himself to be deriving some sort of pleasure from taking his female victims (which is very different from how one assumes Dracula dealt with the all-male crew of the ship which brought him to England, who seem to have been roughly dispatched), as he returns to them night after night, and the book does suggest that Vampirism may spread by lovers willingly being turned to spend eternity with their partners.

But as for a suave gentlemen who maybe nibbles a little to hard on the neck? That seems to be derived from plays and movies, as neither Mina or Lucy ever really actually meet Dracula outside of when he comes to them at night.

On the whole, yes, the book could be a bit of a struggle to get through if you're not one for the flowery and often purple prose of the time period. But as vampires have become such a hot topic of books, TV and film of late, its worth going back to the original material and trying to understand how we got to the point where vampires are hanging out in the deep south and ordering blood at bars, and it's probably worth considering why we try, quite literally, to defang them.

The book, be forewarned, was unusual for its day. Vampires were not dominating the sales charts, and every school kid probably didn't know how two or three ways in which you could bump off the undead. So the book spends no small amount of time basically explaining what the heck is going on and setting up the various rules and roles of vampires which our vampire media of today still at least acknowledges.

I did enjoy the book, and if you were of a mind to get at the origin of vampire in the popular imagination, I'd say its an invaluable read. I do not believe I'll seek out Dracula's predecessors in literature and penny dreadfuls (I think I've actually seen a filmic adaptation of Carmilla back in college, but beer was involved, so...).