Top ten blogs of all time (2020)

Once upon a time, I used to do this every hundred posts or so. But last year, I was busy with the books, and remembering to do a mailing list when I  could, and self-publishing novels. 

These are the most popular blogs of all time. I can't even tell you how most people found them. But people have liked them. A lot. 

And if you're new here, this will give you a sample of what it's like to be here on a regular basis.

Here we go.



10) The Story of Moira Greyland continues

If you don't know who Moira Greyland is, you will soon. All this blog post was about was simply a discussion of Moira's largely biographical work The Last Closet -- I say largely because she bounces from her life to various and sundry issues behind and around her life.

9) Building Catholic Vampire Lore (Honor At Stake)

This was basically how I built my vampire universe for the Love at First Bite series. Elements I've stolen from philosophy, theology, a Star Wars video game called Knights of the Old Republic. There was a lot of miscellaneous theft going on that tied together in a nice neat little deranged bow.

8) Newsflash: Hugo Awards Swamped by Crap

The 2017 Hugo Awards were about as bad as you'd expect. I think that was the last time I paid them even a modicum of attention.

7) A Short Biography of a Catholic Vampire

Another Love at First Bite post. As a historian, I do so enjoy the hidden world genre. It gives me an excuse to get creative with history -- all of the fun of alternate history, without having to write a full butterfly effect of what happens next.

6) Sex, DC Comics, and ... wtf?

2011 is when DC Comics unveiled their New 52 lineup of comic books ... and stopping just short of an R-rating,. with bad character design, bad artwork, and bad choices.

5) Sad Puppies Bite Back

The fever dream that started it all. 

Take a fracas going on in fandom, a rash of SWATting happening in the real world, and throw it in for mental processing when someone can't sleep at two in the morning.

4) Who would Captain America vote for? An election special

I posted a few days before Election 2012. So I can guess why this made it so high.


3) Disasters to Marvel At: A Comic Discussion.

This was the day I got fed up with Marvel comics going to pot. It had less to politics at the time and more to do with really terrible decisions by the writers. This included all of Civil War and One more Day.

2) A Review of Death Note (Anime)
This is exactly what it says in the title. 

This one also came out of no where. Posted in 2017, it only picked up steam last year. Every day between April and July, it maintained hundreds of hits PER DAY. There was no particular place it came from or reasons for it. It just was.

1) Politics Kills Mercedes Grabowski (August Ames)

This is the story of a woman in pornography, bullied to death by leftist douche bags of Twitter. And it pissed me off because she was only 23.

I can guess how this made the #1 spot. I mentioned porn. Apparently, it's popular, even when people are reading about non-sexual content. Who knew?

Anyway. I hope you find them enjoyable. 

You can check out any and all of my latest books here. 

If you like, you can sign up for my mailing list here. 

Sex, what is it good for (in novels)?

[PG-13/ R. And, for the record, this is a completely amoral blog post—preaching morals gives me a headache and upsets my ulcer.]

I did this post once upon a time. And while I've even reposted it once (I think), I was skimming through it the other day and contemplating some of the points I made. I've considered that I do need to expand on them. There are even one or two additional points I should focus on, especially now that I've had at least one major series where a substantial subplot was a romance story.... yes, while Love at First Bite is listed under the vampire romance genre, I don't really consider it vampire romance. Why? Too many explosions and Vatican ninjas for that.

1. Sex. What is it good for (in fiction)?

Were this a song parody, the next line would be “absolutely nothing.” But, given that I've had bad experiences with song parodies, I will forgo that.

But, seriously, sex... why bother?  In the context of literature, almost any novel with a sex scene in it has been, in my opinion, a horrid waste of time, energy, and irritates, at least, this reader.

To date, none of my books have sex scenes. Even though every single story has a married couple, or a dating couple, even the "vampire romance" novels have no sex.

Why is that?

Because I find them boring.

No, seriously. They're boring. If I'm in the mood for sex .... well, I'm married now, so that's not an issue. Why the Hell would I want to read about it? If I'm reading an urban fantasy or a thriller, I'm interesting in magic duels, shootouts, or high adventure. Not porn.

I am not certain how much of this is my own personal opinion and how much of it is a critique of how sex scenes tend to be inflicted on the reader.

The primary offender in this is the OSS, or the Obligatory Sex Scene.

My favorite example of this is from a 20 year old book called Mount Dragon, by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. Our protagonists have been chased through a desert, dying of thirst and heat, chased by a deranged gunman.  But they have finally found water and shelter from the sun
.... they are so happy they start having sex...

Blink. What?

The OSS I just mentioned is quick. It may have been a paragraph. It was unnecessary, came out of nowhere, and if it hadn't happened, not a single thing would have changed in the book.
Looking at it objectively, what is the point of an OSS?

PRO: “Physical intimacy shows the the relationship involved has gone to another level and has thus impacted the characters.”

Objection: Perfectly true, but does that necessitate a five page sex scene? Or even a page? If one wanted to tell the reader that, yes, two people slept together, I can do that right now: “X and Y fell into bed, kissing passionately as they stripped each other's clothes. They then turned off the lights and hoped they wouldn't wake the neighbors.”

Done. Two lines and a bit of smart ass can carry something a long way. It's perfectly PG-13. 890s kids movies were more graphic.

PRO: “Things can happen during the scene that are relevant to the rest of the novel.”

OBJECTION: True, but rarely does it necessitate going into intimate details. In fact, I would suggest that anything relevant to the plot could be covered in the next chapter. “On reflection, s/he noticed something odd while lying on his/her back. S/he didn't really notice it at the time, but now that it's quiet.....”

Done.

Exceptions can be made to this rule, obviously. If the couple rolls off of the bed as someone walks into the room, be it with room service or with a gun, then that is a useful detail.

I will even admit that there are graphic sex scenes where one can reveal character. But those are so extremely rare I can name you one author who has pulled it off. With John Ringo's Ghost series, several of the sex scenes are necessary, and two are crucial to the stories they show up in. Nearly all of them impact the characters in some way. And almost all of these scenes can be entertaining for reasons that are anything but sexual. They can be funny.

Why Ghost does what he does (and I don't mean sexual maneuvers or positions) tells the reader more about the character than a hundred pages of sex scenes from any given novelist....

Which leads us to Laurell K. Hamilton. Her claim to fame is that she "invented urban fantasy."  Which is funny, since I thought Bram Stoker did that. For nine novels, her primary series went well. There was sexuality here and there (a major character was a French vampire, after all), but it never really got in the way of the story. By book seven and eight, the main character was sleeping with both a vampire and a werewolf, but the OSS's were few and far between, and they were easily skipped by turning a page. Quite painless, overall.

After book #9, Obsidian Butterfly, several novels contained a hundred pages of vampire rituals of who gets to have sex with who. I skipped them.  I went back for book #15, because it featured the return of Hamilton's best, scariest character: a mild mannered, white-bread fellow named Edward, a mercenary who started hunting vampires because humans were too easy.

However, I had to skip a hundred and fifty pages of the novel. It was one, long and drawn out OSS. Not a menage a trois, but a bisexual sextet among Vampires and were-creatures. Much of the rest of the book had pages of Anita Blake defending her sex life. “The lady dost protest too much.”

Years ago, when the author herself was asked about the overabundance of sex during a Barnes and Noble interview, Hamilton's best defense was that “I only get complaints from men. I had two reviewers tell me that they're disturbed that a woman is writing this sort of stuff. ”

Ahem...

Dear Madam Hamilton: I get disturbed with John Ringo writing about a man and two coeds on a boat with bondage gear. For the love of all that's Holy, what makes you think that a bi-sexual sextet with were-furries would go over any better, no matter who or what you were?  This strange faux-feminism you're using to deflect criticism is based off of an anecdotal incident with two reviewers?  How about "I want more plot than sex scene," are you going to blame that on me being male? Really?

Again, I'll go back to John Ringo, only a different series -- the Council Wars.  One short story is seriously NC-17, and reading through it, I would be hard-pressed to see how it could be written otherwise. With Hamilton's novels, I could skip over a hundred pages and not miss a single plot point. That's screwed up.

Make it sextets with were-furries, they're even worse.

2. “I want a Heroine not an excuse for sex.”

Can I write a sex scene? Sure, they're easy. I've gotten requests from lady friends of mine for erotica (don't ask, long story).

But are they necessary? No.

Did I need intimate details to add to the plot, the character, or anything related to the story? No.

Frankly, I think a PG-13 novel sometimes requires more skill than an NC-17 rated. I find that sex sequences are a cheat, sort of like premium cable—just because you can use four letter words doesn't mean you have to write them into every single line.

I have actually made my lack of OSS's in my novels work for me.

In Love at First Bite book one, Honor at Stake, I had a make out session in a graveyard. I had several women fans tell me that "if this is what making out was like, what happens when you do a sex scene?"

Now, to be fair, I am tempted to do one -- a, singular -- sex scene at some point, when I go back to the Love at First Bite universe. Mainly because there has been a ton of buildup of multiple books, and the last thing I want to do to my fans is to have the fruition of an entire relationship happen offscreen. I will probably end up finding a payoff that's somewhere between being rated R and happening entirely off the page.

But honestly .... having no sex in my books has worked for me. In the Pius books, I've used the lack of sex for jokes (a long-term couple has never had intercourse because every time they do, someone tries to kill them) or I can move somewhere else in the plot and leave a married couple alone, or I'm just developing a relationship.

And hell, Tommy Nolan is married and has sex ... but he's married with one kid in book one, and his wife is pregnant in book three. I don't think I need to spell out what happens in between.

Just because an author can throw in a sex scene doesn't mean s/he must do so. Doing sex scenes well takes skill, and making them relevant takes talent; most people don't have it.

Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer had several moments where our heroine's sex life really was going to get people killed (think back to the killer frat house dorm room). Or one solid comedy routine (that poor, poor house in season 6...).

Sherrilyn Kenyon, a ROMANCE NOVELIST, wrote at least one book where the LACK of sex was a key plot point, and another where intimacy between the hero and heroine was surprisingly crucial to the story.

Ringo was mentioned above.

So, it has been done well. Just not very often.

To answer the opening question: Sex, what is it good for?

In novels... it can be good for something. It just rarely is.

You can check out the series mentioned below.

The Pius Trilogy    

 Love at First Bite

        

Hell Spawn

#GunnControl

Every time I want to do my "Social Media Whining" article, five new things come up that I should probably discuss.

For example....

James Gunn was fired from Guardians of the Galaxy 3 last week after someone pointed out his "jokes" that were fairly ... pedophilic in nature. Gunn would be caught deleting over 10,000 tweets going back years.

Normally, I would say "Eh. We don't have any evidence of him going near kids".... except, let's go back to those TEN THOUSAND TWEETS. And given that the news out of Hollywood West these days is all sexual deviancy all the time (between the rapist Harvey Weinstein, the sex cult of Allison Mack, Kevin Spacey as child molestor), even the whiff of scandal makes me suspicious that we're barely seeing the tip of the iceberg, and Hollywood looks like the Titanic.

Is it possible Gunn isn't a pedo of some sort? It's not impossible. After all, his sense of humor does skew to the squicky, even in his movies ... though I'm not sure that's evidence in his favor.

However, I do note that Chris Pratt is on Gunn's side, and Pratt has made a name for himself as a genuinely good guy.

... Which doesn't matter if the scumbag in question is good at manipulating people.

Though at the end of the day? Frankly, Gunn was the guy who said that Roseanne Barr -- whose entire schtick is that she's offensive -- should be fired for telling an offensive joke. Gunn tells dozens -- probably tens of thousands -- of "jokes," and the same people who wanted to lynch Roseanne are defending Gunn.

Welcome to Hollywood. your defense is based solely on who you are, if you belong to the right clubs, and who you're f***ing.

So, screw Gunn. He wants to lead a lynch mob over one joke, he shouldn't be surprised when the committee of public safety can't protect his ass in the end.

Why do I bring it up?

Because Rian Johnson, the director of the travesty that was The Last Jedi, has just deleted TWENTY THOUSAND TWEETS.

Hmm, gee whiz, the guy who wanted to interject nihilism, moral relativity, and sexual deviancy into Star Wars (seriously, tell me Holdo didn't give you a Dolores Umbrage vibe), is purging his Twitter page like their's no tomorrow. I wonder if he figures Disney will throw him under the bus as well. And Johnson is the dick (pun intended) who has been fighting the fans, telling them they're all scum for not "properly appreciating his masterpiece."

There is a policy in certain circles of business where everyone is fired, and then "reinterviewed" before being taken back into the company. It's a way to screen out trouble makers, people they don't like, that sort of thing.

I think it's time to take Hollywood out, fire them all, and screen all of them for crimes and misdemeanors. Granted, that would probably take the form of an FBI investigation, if we had an FBI worth a damn. Maybe if started by arresting everyone in Hollywood, doing a thorough background check, then letting them go. We can file it under RICO, where guilt by association is allowed. I'm sure the innocent (all five of them) would happily act as informants, and wear wires.

Then we take all of the beautiful people, guilty of sex trafficking (like Mack) or rape, or molesting children, and then we throw them into general population for ten years. When they come out, maybe they aren't so pretty any more.

And, since, under RICO, we can confiscate proceeds from criminal activity, the Hollyweirdoes would pay for their own incarceration. Maybe they can even afford extra protection by the prison guards from their fellow inmates.

Sound harsh? Maybe. But I've known too many victims of child molestation and rape to find anything that Gunn said funny, even if he meant them as a joke. I've known too many occasions where rapists like Weinstein get away Scott free. My personal belief is that all of these people are caught, tried, and be set on fire, or buried alive in lye.

Non Illegitimi Carborundum.

Honor at Stake & Demons are Forever

Live and Let Bite

Murphy's Law of Vampires is OUT TODAY

I am happy to announce that Murphy's Law of Vampires, the sequel to the Dragon Award nominated novel for best Horror, Honor At Stake, is finally out today.

Whew. that was a lot of effort.

Obviously, it has been bizarre over the past few months.

To start with, I would have published Murphy's Law of Vampires back in September, had I been smarter. But as you recall, I had submitted to Castalia House, and there was a screw up, and the Castalia process had to start all over again. It ended amicably enough. I'm surprised I wasn't outright rejected, but that's another blog.

Also, I've been busy, with Pius History, Pius Tales, and LibertyCon, and the Dragon Awards.

After Honor At Stake, what is Murphy's Law of Vampires?

After saving Brooklyn from a nest of vampires, Amanda Colt and Marco Catalano are a little banged up. He's been given a job offer to deal with vampires in San Francisco, and it's a tempting offer – it would get him away from Amanda, his feelings for her, and get her away from the darkness inside him. When a death in the family compels Marco to move to the West Coast, they're both left to fend for themselves.

But when a creature known only as “Mister Day” leaves their world in tatters, they must once more join forces against the darkness. Only "Day" is no vampire, but a creature beyond their experience. It will take the combined might of Marco, Amanda, and all of their allies just to slow it down. They have no weapons that can kill him. They have no ways to imprison him. To even fight him is death.

But they have to try, or face the end of everything they love.

For those people who have no idea what I'm talking about with Honor at Stake and Murphy's Law of Vampires.... I actually have a whole history on the process of developing the universe and the story of how it came together.

I would have posted a #TBT post dedicated to my blog on Sex in Novels, but I haven't added anything to it, or charged it at all.

Honor at Stake was originally with a publishing company.

I've got the basics of the book down already, including the original cover and the tag.

Why I went from doing thrillers that take Dan Brown out to the woodshed to taking Steph Meyer out to the woodshed.

The origins of Honor At Stake.

How I modified vampire lore for Honor at Stake.

How a sociopath and a vampire walk into a bar...

There's also a conversation on world building, how vampires would deal with the real world, and Vatican Ninjas.

I've even talked about the wonderful world of writing romance.

I even posted the prologue.

At 11 blogs later, I'm running out of things to say.  Except of course, to ask you if you could please buy the book.

And now, with Murphy's Law of Vampires, we've got...

Chapter 2: The meeting of the NYC Vampires Association

Moving Forward in a Romance.

And Chapter 11: Bankrupt

Now, buy Murphy's Law of Vampires. Enjoy.

900 Posts later

Yup, it's blog number 900. Who knew I would last this long?

One of the things I do at this point is to note all of the top ten blogs of all time.

Though of course, first, I'm going to remind everyone that the Dragon Awards are still out there, and they're they still need voting on. So, get to it. Click here, and have fun.  If you need some suggestions, I have some for you right here.

Now, as far as the top ten biggest blogs of all time are concerned....

1. Who would Captain America vote for? An election special.

From the 2012 election, I think this one was carried more by Alex Ross art than anything else. But it's still going strong as the #1 blog of all time.

This was fun. I was just going over the top and insane.

But here, Captain America punching Hitler in the face.

Can we have one of Captain America punching Osama in the face?

2. Sad Puppies Bite Back

From April of last year. Leaped to the #2 spot immediately.

If you have no idea what SPBB is ... click the Sad Puppy Tab above. It is a really, really, really long flipping story. It was a one-shot that spiraled so far out of control, I really don't see the end of it. But people are still coming to the blog just to read them.  I may be doing a little more with this along the way.

How?  Heh heh heh.

3. Sex, DC Comics, and ... wtf?

Yup, it's still in the #3 spot. Right after the dawn of DC's New 52 Universes in 2011, the comics had gone into a sideways spiral of strange. 

Catwoman screwing Batman on a roof? Check. 

Starfire becoming an amnesiac slut? Check .... except that they're not even that clear, and backtracked, rewrote, and I'm not even sure that DC Comics know what the hell they were doing then. 

I think this the popularity of this had something to do with sex being in the title. You don't even want to see what the search terms look like.

4. Disasters to Marvel At: A Comic Discussion.

From 2010, I ripped apart with every stupid decision that Marvel comics had made for the previous 5 years.  Sadly, some of those decisions are still going strong. But it's hard to figure out which ones. 

Except for One More Day. F**k that, and them, and Joe Quesada.

I think I have to do this again. Because, well, Captain America as Hydra. Gah.

Seriously, Marvel, stop it.

5. Sad Puppies Bite Back (Part 2)

This is where things started going really odd. And I probably should have seen it coming that things were going to really go sideways ... "sideways" as in "The Puppies have taken over my blog."  I think part one got suggestions of nominating this for a "Best related" award from the Hugos. 

I would have enjoyed watching the Puppy Kickers go insane. But we can't have everything. 

Oh well. Heh. 

6. Cry Havoc! And Let Slip the Puppies of War!

From Apr of 2015, this was after Entertainment Weekly's libelous article about Sad Puppies, written and published without talking to anyone within Sad Puppies. At all. Yes, really.

Believe it or not, in retrospect, this was not what got me really into the Sad Puppies bandwagon. That was when someone decided to go after Brad Torgersen's wife. Then, then I had a meltdown, and decided someone needed a stern talking to.

7. #MakeItStop -- please, make the stupid stop

From this June, 2016. This is a month old. Heck, in the course of a week, this shot up. This is what happens with the use of hashtags.

I'm still blown away that, well, this was a political post. I don't do politics here. I tend to avoid them. I'm surprised anyone bothered.

And all I did was round up arguments I've seen others make online. 

Funny thing? The douchebags whining in the comments are pretty much invalidated by the existence of the truck attack last week in Nice, France.

Shocking, huh?

8. Review: Tom Stranger: Interdimensional Insurance Agent.

This one hit the top ten most popular posts on the blog within 24 hours of being posted.

This is what happens when authors like your reviews.

Who knew?

9. Puppies Come to WorldCon (SPBB III)

Still here from last year. This was going to be The End. Period. Dot. Final. The last straw. The Puppies were going to come to the Hugos, and it would have to end there. Why? Because there would be nothing left for me to write until the Hugos came out. It was a perfect out, right? Right?

Yes. And that worked well.

10. Strong Female Character Problems

This is from April. The entire problem of waif-fu: where tiny little girls beat up 6'5" men. No. That doesn't work. Period.

How did this make it to the top ten? Was it that good? Maybe.

It made it to Castalia House's "radar sweep" -- they liked it enough to put it up on a roundup.

Next time, let's not have tiny little girls beating up on guys about the size of Larry Correia, huh?

Looking over this list, I've come to the conclusion ... that I should probably make this blog all about sex, Sad Puppies, politics, book reviews, and comic books.  But then, I reach that conclusion every few hundred posts or so.  We'll see about doing that sometime next time around.

Sadly, I'm all out of Puppy material. Oh well. Maybe something will blow up next week.

#NeverHydra and #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend

I was originally going to do a blog post on how SJW leftist dirt bags were trying to suborn and subvert media.

First with Gillian Anderson claiming to be available to be James Bond (Not only is she 20 years too freaking late, but also, you know, a woman).... but you know what? I think Nikki Kenyon covered this.

Then there was the #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, where the LGBTQMOUSE slash fiction community on Twitter banded together to whine that Captain America wasn't gay, and that he and Bucky should have gotten together. Because, apparently, two men can't be best buddies without sex. Because, you know, everything's about sex now.

When it was reported by the NY Daily News, it was reported as "The Fans want this." Which is odd, because I notice they blame a lot of the crap they pull on the "fans" - like the obviously trans Ancient One, which  .... funny, when fans said that Agents of SHIELD sucked, we were told to sit down and shut up. Interviews with Forbes said fans should grow up.

And then, suddenly, what the "fans" want actually matters only when it matches up with a Lib agenda. I'm. So. Shocked.

I even had a conclusion.

Hey, you libtards in the LGBT community. Yeah, you. No, not the ones who want to just go on with their daily lives, the guys in front of you. The ones who scream and whine and carry on about how you want "gay heroes," but won't make your own, but would rather suborn and co-oped preexisting characters with a massive fan base. Yeah, you morons. I've quite had it with you idiots. If you want gay characters, go write some. Hell, make a comic book out of Chuck Tingle's work if you so desire. But put in some of your own effort, and do the work yourself.

But no, those people? The activist ones? They don't want that. They want Captain America suborned. They want someone who is good and pure and just and righteous to be gay so they can tag along to a 75-year history, and be attached to the good qualities around Captain America. They don't want gay characters, they want to co-opt the straight ones.

Normally, I'd say "that's what alternate universes are for," but no. They're apparently not content with that. Screw you people. With a hot poker. Thanks. But no thanks.

Then of course, nope, Marvel Comics had to see that and raise it. How?

BY MAKING STEVE ROGERS A HYDRA NAZI FROM THE BEGINNING.

So ... yeah. That actually happened. And no, that wasn't click bait. They’re making Steve Rogers, Captain America since 1941, into an agent of Hydra, the Nazi organization of the Red Skull. And no, they've explicitly stated that it's Steve Rogers, no tricks, and they're deliberately rewriting it so that he's always been a Nazi.

Yes, this happened.

Of course, I wrote a whole rant on this over at the Catholic Geeks.

I can't even write one lousy post without the real world becoming even dumber overnight. Really, people, what is your problem? Here is a character. Here is the way a character is written. This is the character's history over time. What's the matter with sticking to it.

And I wait one, just one lousy stinking fanboy to bitch that "Oh, they'll retcon it again with comic book logic somewhere down the line, it's not big deal. It's just a gimmick."

NO, FOOL.

It is a slap in the face to fans, and they have deliberately said as much. They know what they're doing. They're being iconoclastic for no good reason other than to be iconoclastic. In the name of being "edgy" and "different," they've gone out of their way to make the hero of the Marvel universe lesser than what he's always been.

Nope, can't have heroes. It might make someone feel like they're underachieving. Can't have anything to aspire to, because then, we might consider there's some room for improvement in ourselves. Heaven forbid that there's someone out there who is imbued with all good qualities ... you know, like the movie suggested. Can't have goodness, it might imply that there's a standard of "good" out there. Can't have that, now can we?

The long and the short of it is that the good liberals at Marvel can't seem to abide innate goodness. They don't want 'role models' - they want people so broken it makes them look good in comparison. And that's what's killing every bit of story telling libtards touch. And I'm sick of it.

Dear Marvel, your comics lost me at One More Day. Wake me when you take Joe Quesada, and most of his minions, and throw them out the front door, or off the roof. Either way, if you pull this crap in your films, you can ensure that you will never get another dollar from me ever again.

Spinning Doctor Strange

Once again, they have changed the narrative about Doctor Strange and what they did to the ancient one.

First, it was obviously a transgender pandering moment.

Then, nope. They claimed that "fans want womyn, so we're going to give you womyn!"

Then they said that it was really about not offending China by having a Tibetan bad ass. That didn't even told up to the scrutiny of professional homosexual George Takai, who bitched about the whitewashing of the Ancient One.

And now, NOW, Disney insists that they changed the Ancient one because because you're a racist.

Yup. Really.

As Kevin Feige, master of the MCU just said

“We make all of our decisions on all of our films, and certainly on Doctor Strange, for creative reasons and not political reasons.  That’s just always been the case."

Always been the case? Really Kevin? Really? You just said a few weeks ago that it was about MOAR WOMYN.

And then it came out that it was about not offending China.

Who do you think you're fooling? You've changed positions on this four times in a month. That's more often than a skin walker shape shifts.

"I’ve always believed that it is the films themselves that will cross all borders and really get people to identify with these heroes, and that always comes down to creative and not political reasons." 

"All borders" meaning "China has a billion people and we really want their money."

"The casting of The Ancient One was a major topic of conversation in the development and the creative process of the story."

I'm certain that there were no other factors -- at all -- in this decision.

“We didn’t want to play into any of the stereotypes found in the comic books, some of which go back as far as 50 years or more. We felt the idea of gender swapping the role of The Ancient One was exciting. It opened up possibilities, it was a fresh way into this old and very typical storyline."

Um, dude, if you honestly wanted to do that, you'd cut out the origin story entirely. Why? Because the origin story of Doctor Strange is "An ego-maniacal genius at the top of his field finds himself humbled in an incident that requires him to find redemption in being a superhero."  You know, exactly like Tony Stark. If you really wanted to ditch the "old and very typical storyline," maybe you shouldn't be repeating the exactly same motif from film one.

Also, you've had a string of comic books for 50 years. Did you think that anyone who's been reading those comics might actually give a crap about having it look like what they were reading?

What about the young Asian kid who saw the Ancient One and thought "Yeah, I'd want to be a badass when I'm that old"? Nah. He doesn't matter, does he?

“Why not make the wisest bestower of knowledge in the universe to our heroes in the particular film a woman instead of a man?

Because you didn't make him a woman, you made him look more like a space alien.

Kill it with fire!

“We made changes to some of the other key characters in the comic for similar reasons. Specifically, casting Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo….

Why? Because you didn't want any more Russians to be the bad guys?

Oh, wait, you're not even going to have Mordo as the bad guy in this one, you've got him as the side kick.

“The truth is, the conversation that’s taking place around this is super-important."

Super important? Not super-duper important? How about super-super-duper important?

Does he even hear how stupid he sounds?

"It’s something we are incredibly mindful of. We cast Tilda out of a desire to subvert stereotypes, not feed into them."

Did you ever think that the archetype of the wise old man was a thing because there was something special about wise old men? Or do you not put that much thought into it? Is Jung just too advanced for you?

"I don’t know if you saw [Doctor Strange director] Scott Derrickson’s tweet the other day. He said we’re listening and we’re learning, every day. That really is true. As long as we’re starting on this topic, it means so much to us that people know that. We also know that people expect actions and not words in a Q&A, and I’m hopeful that some of our upcoming announcements are going to show that we’ve been listening.”

They're listening, but they are not going to change jack. Because you're a racist. I mean, obviously, if you actually want the wise old Asian character you may have cared about from the comic to, I don't know, look like a wise old Asian man, well, you want a stereotype, and stereotypes must be subverted. So if you want that evil stereotype, you must be subverted, so you are the problem. You are the racist.

Yes, I'm sure they're listening to you. You're just not saying anything that they want to hear.

As John C. Wright put it.

A young man learns from an old man because generally old men know more about what a young man wants to know than a younger woman. And Tibetans know more about Tibetan mysticism than Scottish Calvinists. Just saying.

I am wondering what exciting possibilities are opened up by having the Ancient One be a Scottish woman. If the only difference between men and women is plumbing, then the only way for having a woman play a man’s role and play it in a mannish fashion to be new and exciting is to have the story line be about plumbing, not about personality.

And now that the decision is done, filming is done, and it is too late to change anything, now you are listening and learning, is that the plan? Now, when it is too late to change your mind, it is super-important for us to have a conversation?

You would have been better off claiming that the Red Chinese bribed you.

Then, at least, the fans would have known you had some principles, that you were willing to whore for money. The capitalist side of my soul would have disapproved, but understood.

I'm with him.

Not to mention that they took out a large chunk from the comic book. The "stereotype" they jettisoned was important no only because of the comic, but because of the character. Think about it for a moment. In J. Michael Straczynski's The Oath, he highlighted that Doctor Strange, surgeon, not only had to stop being an egomaniac, he would also have to kowtow in a strange, alien land, and force his scientific, American Mind to learn the ways of Oriental mysticism. Guess what? We don't have that anymore. Poof. Why? Because the Scottish Calvinist figured it out, obviously our boy Strange will as well. That's one of the reasons I figure it's a darn good reason to either A) jettison the origin story or B) keep her role very, very limited.

A show of hands, please: at the end of the day, how many people would have cared if they had stuck to one story? Or just admitted they were going for deliberate gender bending? Or as JCW put it, just being bribed by the fact of the PRC? Maybe then, they could have had something resembling the courage of their convictions. Stupid convictions, but sticking to your guns has got to be better than sniveling around like a worm, hoping not to be stepped on by the fans.

This has been going on for a month. The trailer dropped on April 14, and this latest spin came out on May 10th. And they've gone through four reasons on this topic. Does anyone want to make a guess on when they're going to settle on one story and stick with it? 

Can We Stop?

Fun Fact: homosexuals are somewhere between 2% and 5% of the US population, and about 1.85% of the entire planet Earth. Previous estimates were brought to you by the vile slander of a Doctor Kinsey, who had enough of his own problems that biased his research methodology as well as his results.

At which point, you have to wonder what the numbers of genuine "transgender" people are.

And now, we've got .... this.

The stupid. It burns. It burns so badly. I mean, look at this, these students have become so open minded that their brains have fallen straight out of their heads. Honestly, is there anything here that they won't "accept?" Because "acceptance"?

Look, the biggest number I've seen on the Trans population is .3% of the population of the United States, and that's from a study that strikes me as seriously, seriously off. I don't know if it's biased, the stats are bad, or the metrics are rigged, but looking at the rest of the "stats" in that study, I want to take that with a pinch of salt and a shot of tequila.

And heck, researchers from the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and from the Williams Institute, did a study on suicide attempts in transgender and gender non-conforming adults. The data was drawn from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS). This survey was conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality.

Their conclusion?  That people who "transition" are TEN TIMES MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT SUICIDE THAN THE REST OF THE POPULATION.

So ... with these two facts, I have to ask some questions. Even assuming that there are that many Trans people in the entire country, why should we pass laws like "gender neutral bathrooms"? Doesn't that inconvenience an entire population for less than a fraction?

And if those who transition are more likely to off themselves, why are we hearing about more "rights" for them, and not about more screening and therapy? Because, really, it sounds like either these people were not mentally fit to have this surgery in the first place, or they were not sufficiently prepared for life as a butterfly. Yes, butterfly. Because I'm tired of this terminology BS. Aren't those people pushing for all transients to transient, then aren't they basically trying to rush them into a procedure that will more often than not lead to them murdering themselves?

Frankly, here's my thing: if you were born with two sets of genitalia, and the wrong ones get cut, then that's a genuine problem. Not even up for discussion. But obviously, that's not even being CONSIDERED. It's "You can be whatever you want to be." Yeah, well, I want to be a bestselling author, and that's something I have to work for, not wish upon a star and get it. If I want to be Batman, or anyone or anything else, also not going to happen.

And now, we've got Doctor Strange having gender bending -- I mean, hell, we're bending space and time, why not something else while we're at it -- and it's generally being shoved in everyone's face. And why? No real reason that I could find. Because ... "Oh look, gay marriage, now what's next"? Honestly, I neither know, nor care, I would just like the screaming to stop. I want the stupid "LET'S SHOVE IT IN EVERYONE'S FACE" to stop.

How about we make a deal, world? If I get in your face, feel free to punch me in the face. And if you continue to get in mine, I will do the same to you? Is that fair? Is that accepting enough for you?

And why the good ***damn do I have to accept anyone or anything? Is my accepting of who and what you are so vitally important to you? Do you know me? Do you respect my opinion so much that it is vital to your continued well being? Am I such a person of importance and veneration, that if I don't approve of your every single action, that you will fold like a house of cards?

No, seriously, I'm curious, why should I care? I mean, hell, on the one hand, imagine that a butterfly is going to use a public restroom ... if this person looks like the proper sex for that bathroom, who's going to check? Unless said person has had really lousy surgery, who'll notice? Anyone wearing beard or a mustache hair while walking into a women's bathroom will probably have trouble. Though to be honest, if a guy dressed like a woman used a urinal right next to me, I probably wouldn't even notice, I live in New York.

I reiterate, why should I care? And frankly, why should my apathy upset anyone?  But the refrain is that I, and people like me, will be made to care. Guess what folks, when people ram pamphlets into my face about saving the wales or decreasing our nuclear arsenal, my first thought is that we should nuke the wales as soon as possible.

I am a really cranky human being who has to force himself to not going into full-on misanthropy. Do you really want to force me to give you that much attention? Because it will probably not end well. Trust me, there are people who have asked for my signatures on petitions who know better. Then again, they were asking for signatures against "attacking ISIS" while I was wearing a t-shirt that says "waterboarding instructor," so that's its own joke right there.

I must ask, does this "acceptance" and "tolerance" go both ways? Hi, I'm Catholic, I believe that the Pope can make infallible decisions, that babies shouldn't be aborted and that violent criminals should be fed to sharks (dead or alive), and that torturing terrorists is no big deal if they're following Inquisition guidelines, and tyrannicide is still approved by the Catholic church. You must accept that belief, right? I'm sorry, do you not accept that belief? Why don't you accept that belief? How dare you NOT accept that belief. You SHOULD!! You MUST! Because TOLERANCE!! And ACCEPTANCE!!! And HAVE I MADE MY POINT YET, OR MUST I STICK IT IN YOUR EYE?

....

Anyway, can we all move on to something else now? Let the washout, has been music stars like Ringo Star and Bruce Springsteen have their temper tantrums, as long as the rest of us are left alone? Can we agree on that? Please?

And, no, for the record, I am not having trans, gay, lesbian, or bi characters in any of my work unless there is a damn good reason for it. If you don't like that, I invite you to attempt anatomically impossible acts upon yourself.  Unless there's a surgery for that too.

Right now, I would just love it -- love it-- if we could have news stories and controversies about something relatively important. What's ISIS doing? Has Baghdad or Damascus fallen? Has Putin taken Georgia yet? And frankly, if this LGBTQMOUSE stuff is your bailiwick, here's an easy one: people are being slaughtered all over the world for being anything less than straight, and we're having arguments over bathrooms. Maybe you can find something important about that.

But seriously, can we just stop?

Trans-Baiting, Disney Politics, and the Ancient One in Doctor Strange

This was a lengthy rant subtracted from my Doctor Strange teaser trailer review of yesterday. Because, take a look at that once again. Remember the Ancient One I mentioned? The really old Tibetan guy who trained Doctor Strange?

Who did they get to play this old wise man of Tibet?

Tilda Swinton, the nearest white female.

Gah! Space alien! Kill it, kill it!

For the love of God, what the Hell did they do to the Ancient One? Did they think that Mister Miagi was too cliche, so they turned the little old Chinese man with phenomenal cosmic power into a "gender ambiguous" bald Caucasian woman? I'm with John C. Wright on this, I am not amused.

Damn it, that thing with the Ancient One grates on me the more I think about it. Especially since the last time I saw Swinton play "gender ambiguous" was ... wait for it ... the film Constantine with Keanu Reeves, another major suck-fest that I'm sure she'd like to wipe off of her resume (I think I stopped 30 minutes into the film).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't we just dealing with the racist pricks bitching that the casting of Iron Fist, a blond-haired, blue-eyed character in the comics, was too white?

So, are we suffering from a sudden dearth of Chinese, or even Asian actors? Did I miss the sudden disappearance of Jackie Chan? Because an older Chan would have been amazing as the Ancient One.

And in a comment of Wright's regarding the politically correct, he notes

How do these Morlocks think? Putting a bald white woman into the place of the Ancient One, a senior citizen Oriental man — how does that help minority representation or diversity or whatever their stupid buzzword of the day is today? So now we want fewer Tibetans, Chinese and Japanese in films? How does that work?

The answer, sir, is that it doesn't work, and that they think that going "gender neutral" will dodge bitching from people who, I'm certain, Disney expects to scream "cultural appropriation," or some other damn thing.

Again, quoting from Wright

What is sad is everything else in the teaser looks perfect, and comes straight from the comic — the selfish doctor, the car accident, him seeking a magical solution in which he does not believe in the mystic East — just as Stan Lee and Steve Ditko wrote it.

The rational by studio exec Kevin Feige?

In a time when Marvelites are calling out their favorite movie studio on the lack of female characters in these films, in comes Tilda---

Stop, Kevin. Stop right there. No one is calling for generic "female characters." We've been calling for a Black Widow film. Or a Captain Marvel film.

What we have not wanted is for you f**kers to play gender-bending with classic comic book characters. You tried to split the baby, and it didn't exactly work like how you wanted.

If you want to go and make a She Hulk or a Jessica Drew film, Kevin, be my guest, knock yourself out, I would love to see what you guys did with that.

I would have had you people do a Quake film, but you already done screwed that up on Agents of SHIELD. Nicely done, dumbass.

Remember how this SHOULD HAVE GONE?

How about a Hellcat film? Remember her? She was rewritten as the plucky best friend on Jessica Jones, and stole a whole swath of the series. I'd be happy with more of her.

How about an Elektra film that doesn't suck? I hear you already have an actress for that one.

Or Silver Sable! That was an awesome character. How about giving her a movie?

Or how about Night Nurse, the movie?

Or maybe .... or that ... or the other thing.... AND HAVE I MADE MY POINT YET?

Oh, and Mr. Feige, did you not notice that you DIDN'T GIVE ANYONE a female character? No. What you did was create a genderless character. Do you understand the difference between the two? Can you wrap your brain around the difference? Not only did you fail in what you say fans wanted, you lied about what you actually did, and hoped no one would notice.

Guess what, jackass? We noticed. Enjoy the slavering hordes who will come after you. Or are you expecting that the people you hear calling for "women" will be content with some trans-variant?

Hey, if you wanted more women in the cast, maybe instead of screwing up the Ancient One, you could have added Doctor Strange's partner in magic, Clea.

You know, the woman who has been part of his comics for over fifty years? Ruler of her own reality? According to Wikipedia, in terms of raw power, she's actually more powerful than Doctor Strange himself.

I'd say she'd be played by Rachel McAdams, but unless we're making Clea a nurse, that's not it. In fact, there's nothing in Clea's biography that indicates that she's a nurse. And according to the film's Wiki page, Rachel McAdam's is playing a nurse from Strange's past.  Now, I know the Marvel Cinematic Universe has changed some things -- eg: Jane Foster was never an astrophysicist, and where is Donald Blake, anyway? -- but if McAdams is going to play Clea, there would be no real point in having the Ancient One be gender bended into looking like a freaking space alien.

No, seriously, this is pissing me the hell off. The politically correct nimrods have bitched, whined, kicked and screamed about "minorities and women" in film, but they not only screw over this opportunity by giving it to the nearest white person, the character is completely and utterly neutered. Literally.


Sad thing is? Had they just given it to, oh, I don't know, Bai Ling and made the Ancient One a woman, plain and simple, I don't think I would have cared half as much. She would at least have been Asian. And, frankly, she could have been made to look older (she's 50 this year, and still in amazing shape). And, frankly, she already has some interesting, sharp features that would work as far as a character that can bend space and time and probably throw fireballs as a starter kit. And let's face it, not even traditional Asian cultural misogyny would be able to hold up against a woman who can KILL YOU WITH HER BRAIN.

But to make the character a white "neuter" and then blame the fans for it pisses me off no end, especially since this is an outright and outrageous lie. It is slander. It is libel. If Feige were pointing to a specific person, I'd ask if it were actionable.

When you have something that you're going to experiment with a classical character, don't make that experiment front and center of your trailer.

Kevin Feige took any enthusiasm that I might have had and stomped on it with his PC BS about the Ancient One. And you know what? Maybe I would have been less pissed off it they had at least gotten an Asian woman.... Or an Asian actor.... Or an older actor who could pretend to be ancient...

Or maybe they would have made a better impression on me had they NOT decided to make this choice that smacks of trans-pandering, at the height of the transgender political BS going the rounds.Maybe this would have gone over well had they even come out and admitted that they were doing it for political reasons, instead of blaming us, the fans, for this stupidity.

Maybe if they had handled this in any other way imaginable., I might not be so annoyed just thinking about it for longer than five seconds.

Let's make a deal, Kevin. See this amazingly awesome poster?

Give me the movie that this poster promises, and I will consider forgiving you your idiocy.

Otherwise? F**K YOU, Kevin Feige, AND YOUR F**KING LYING, DUMBA** SUMBITCH F**KING IDIOCY, YOU F**KING POLITICAL CORRECT MUTHAF**KING MORONS. F**K YOU. F**K YOU. F**K YOU.

That is all.

Doctor Strange and the Suicide Squad

So, two trailers came out in the past few days.

#1: Suicide Squad

To start with, I'm really tired of the paranoid view of Superman. They've obviously decided to stuff this DCU filled with backstory -- as we have career criminals with history here -- but they didn't decide to just jump to the part where Superman can be trusted already and move along? I know the Injustice alternate universe where Superman is the villain is popular right now, but does it have to seep into everything? Also, if Superman had decided to take out the President, these guys wouldn't have been able to stop him. Thank you. Have a nice day.

I keep hearing that Joker is not the villain of the piece. He's not a big part of the movie. Funny, since he seems to get larger and larger roles in these trailers. Am I missing something? The best interpretation I've heard (assuming that the film people aren't straight out lying to us) is that Joker is just thriving in the chaos in the wake of the actual bad guys.

I still have serious problems with Will Smith as Deadshot. Consider for a moment that Floyd Lawton, Deadshot, became the best shooter on the planet after he had accidentally shot and killed his brother. Deadshot is both simultaneously proficient as hell, with deep suicidal tendencies, kept alive only by the fact that he has a daughter. Do they look like they have any intention at all of having Will Smith playing a role of any more depth than, well, Will Smith?

Once more, Harley Quinn is obviously and evidently stealing this entire trailer, and probably the movie. We've already seen that there will be a ton of backstory on her, including her origins. Hence the heavy Joker presence. In short, this should probably be "Harley and the Suicide Squad" more than anything else. Which makes me wonder why they bothered getting a big name for Deadshot rather than ... anyone else?

Think about it a moment, when The Magnificent Seven came out, most of the actors (at least 5/7) were Big Names, the equivalent of Will Smith today. They had careers, and were easily identifiable. These folks? Margot Robie was big in Wolf of Wall Street, there's Will Smith, and Jared Leto.  Other than that? Not a whole hell of a lot of people I can pick out of a lineup. Jai Courtney I know from three films. Viola Davis will probably not be a big part of the film, on par with the voice on the phone for Mission Impossible.

The rest? Eh.

And, also, has anyone else noticed that this is sooooo much lighter in tone than the first trailer? It's like someone decided "Hmmm, dark didn't work out well for us with Batman versus Superman, maybe we should lighten up the tone a little bit, and make it look more like Guardians of the Galaxy."

But I've noticed that they still haven't explained who the enemy is in this one. If it's not the Joker, then what the hell is going on, exactly?

This one has me mildly tempted to see it. Mildly.

#2: Doctor Strange

Okay, now listen here, Marvel, you get one more origin story.  This is it. I am really, really tired of them otherwise.

For those of you who are wondering what the hell is going on here, Doctor Steven Strange is a surgeon, and like all surgeons, an arrogant narcissistic bastard. When he has his hands ruined in an accident, he goes off to seek ways to repair his hands, going to far flung Tibet to find the mystical Ancient One, a wise old man who has mastered the mystic arts.  The Ancient One has decided that Doctor Strange will be his replacement, and trains him in the ways of sorcery. In so doing, the Ancient One snubs another student, Baron Mordo, who becomes Strange's enemy in order to get the power he feels is rightfully his.

If you didn't get any of that from the teaser, don't worry, neither did I, and I knew all of this in advance. If you're not a fan, you didn't understand it at all.

While I appreciate that they're trying to convey the full weight and power of the forces we're dealing with in the teaser, could they have done something other than use effects and imagery out of Inception? I hated that film (it was boring. I gave up on it.)

Right now, I'm not even entirely certain I like Cumberbatch's American accent, but it may grow on me.

And for the love of God, what the Hell did they do to the Ancient One? Did they think that Mister Miagi was too cliche, so they turned the little old Chinese man with phenomenal cosmic power into a "gender ambiguous" bald Caucasian woman? I'm with John C. Wright on this, I am not amused.

Other than that ... there's not a whole hell of a lot of stuff going on in this teaser. The imagery is okay, so they have the look down. And there's so very little here. There are before and after pictures of Doctor Strange, going from the top of the world to the bottom of the trash heap. There are special effects out of Inception, some halfway decent reflections of Lost Horizon, but aside from that, there's so little "there" there.

As Wright notes, the imagery fits. The look is generally good. But damn it, pretend there is a plot when you make a teaser. And when you have something that you're going to experiment with a classical character, don't make that experiment front and center of your trailer.

There is no action in the teaser. None. Look at it. It's all character, and Cumberbatch can probably pull it off without breathing hard.

Sigh ... maybe I'll calm down with the first full trailer. Or if Tilda Swinton is only ten minutes of the movie. Which would be nice, because I'm really, really bone-tired of origin stories. Please stop. Maybe then, if this "Ancient One" is in only a few minutes of the film, it'll be more tolerable.

If you're wondering why I'm so down on origin stories, tell me if you've heard this one:

Arrogant, unrepentant genius is also a pure schmuck. After he is injured in a way that alters his life forever, he goes out and seeks ways to fix himself, and in so doing, finds a power and an ability that makes him into a superhero.

Riddle me this, Batman, is that Iron Man or Doctor Strange? The answer is: Both. It's not the exact same story, but the character arcs as so similar, I'm not 100% certain I want to see it in full yet again. I'll happily take his origin in flashbacks. You know, like they do on Arrow. Or Daredevil. Or Jessica Jones.

In short, please make what we see in the teaser be the first 10-20 minutes of the film, and not the first 40-50.

But you know what? I'm not impressed. I'm underwhelmed. Wake me when we get a real trailer.

Strong Female Character Problems

You have probably already seen this Rogue One: A Star Wars Story trailer, but in case you missed it, here it is.

This inspired the question among some friends of mine: what the hell is it with these really freaking tiny women adopting the "strong female character" trope?

Now, if you've read my novels, you know that I have no problem with strong, kick ass women. I've defended against that stupidity from feminazis often enough. Look at my defense of women in military science fiction. Or my article on SFCs. Or when I beat up on the idiocy of Tor writer Liz Bourke.

On the other hand, there is a major problem with the Strong Female Character that's being used lately. Because, sorry, when I create a woman character who is ALSO a bad ass, I also make certain that these women are either a) not a size zero, or b) fighting in creative, indirect ways.

Why? A few reasons. To start with, even among well-skilled (and equally skilled) male fighters, the bigger fighter is probably going to win -- the odds are nearly certain. There's a good reason that Loki rarely, if ever, directly engages with Thor -- Thor has got at least fifty pounds of muscle on him. Depending on the comic, the Joker is not squaring off against Batman and exchanging punches most of the time, because Batman is twice Joker's weight.

Hell, if you have two pro-wrestlers, how many of them fight exactly the same? When you get out of different weight classes, the changes are extreme. But you're not going to have a 5'6" wrestler like Rey Mysterio take on the 6'11" Undertaker in a direct fight -- the smaller wrestler will be bouncing around the ring like a ping pong ball, and trying to catch him is a pain in the ass. Small people fight different than bigger people. Simple as that. If you're small, you go in, strike something critical, then get away from them as soon as possible. If you're big, you close with the opponent, and crush them.

So, why are women being treated so much differently than men in this area? Seriously, there are weight differences between men, but somehow, all women are allowed to fight exactly the same way as men in media, even though women are naturally 50-100 pounds lighter.

Granted, in some cases, this works -- when these well-trained kick ass females are going up against untrained hoodlums, there is no contest. That's superior skill versus brute strength. I'd take a dozen marines with handguns versus three dozen MS-13 members armed with SMGs any day of the week.

But, somehow, as I go through my collection of media, which grows larger with each passing day, the kick ass woman are getting smaller, and their opponents (many of whom are supposed to be of equal talent and ability) are getting bigger.

For example, look at Jaimie Alexander, who is basically playing Jason Bourne on Blindspot -- who can kick the ass of almost everyone she comes across. She is possibly better known as the Lady Sif in the Thor films.

Okay, yes, she's very pretty. But I didn't pick this photo for the underwear value. Look at her arms. Now look at her legs. Where's the muscle? She's 5'9", but she's also a toothpick. I am never happier than when she's using weaponry, because her shooting someone feels more believable than her bringing down a 6'3" thug with her bare hands.

Enter the other 5'9" female bad ass who has spent her days swinging a sword.

Yeah, I know Xena is a stereotype, but please look at these two actresses, and riddle me this, Batman, which one looks more believable in terms of being able to hold her own in general?

She's not a toothpick, she's not "a guy with breasts," and she had this bright light in her eyes right before she wiped the floor with everyone in a berserker rage, and she looked like she was having fun. (Yes, I'm ignoring some of the later seasons. I think I ditched the show somewhere around the time she met Lucifer ... or when she was crucified by Julius Cesar, after having only met King David ... yeah, that show hurt my brain after a while).

And even after all you do the compare and contrast in build, why are the "strong women fighters" straight-up brawlers? When you consider that not even all men fight like this, why are all women fighting like this? Are the stunt coordinators that stupid? (Unlikely). Or are the directors and writers? (That's where my money is).

Hell, the closest we have to a Lucy Lawless type these days is Adrianne Palicki. She, sadly, was wasted on a Wonder Woman pilot from David E. Kelly (seriously, who allowed the lawyer show guy to make Wonder Woman?), and is currently being wasted on Agents of SHIELD.  People who have better things to do with their lives might recognize her as Perkins from John Wick.

Note, from this photo, three things.

1) Her body type is not "Toothpick."

2) She is 5'11" in body armor.

3) She is holding an improvised weapon, because people who fight have weaponry.

Thank you. Was that so hard?

Frankly, I think I would have preferred her to being Wonder Woman in the films than Gal Gadot. Why? Because Wonder Woman was many things, but never a toothpick. Heck, I would have even taken Hayley Atwell (Agent Carter), who is 5'7", and not a size zero.

Does anyone remember Antje Traue from Man of Steel? I mean, look at this woman.

Oh wow, look! Muscles!

Height? 5'6"

Can we have her in some of these films? I know everyone in Star Wars is British, but still, can we make an effort here, people?

Seriously, Hollywood, what are you doing to get these toothpicks as actresses? It's very offputting. There's "thin" and then there's "good God, please eat a hamburger, I'm expecting you to break."

This is why, at the end of the day, the most believable kick ass woman in current  media is, well, Scarlet Johansson's Black Widow. Why? Because despite her being 5'3" (yes, she's that tiny), she's 1) not a toothpick and 2) she fights in so many varied and sundry methods and styles, she never takes someone on directly and / or bare handed. She's jumping on people and breaking necks, or dropping them with a gadget, or just shooting them.

Hell, remember Black Widow in Avengers, where she just stood square against Hawkeye and exchanged blows with him? Of course you don't, because it never happened. She jumped all over the place like a freaking rubber ball, and catch her if you can.

Don't get me wrong, there are places and points where not only should these smaller women be used, the can, and have, been used WELL.  Black Widow is brilliantly and intelligently executed. Remember Rey in The Force Awakens? She was tiny, short, and the managed to be victorious in her light saber duel because she fought smart -- she spent most of the fight strategically maneuvering to better positions, using her environment, and was fighting a partially trained Sith who had already been shot with the SciFi equivalent of a howitzer.

Frankly, the best points where getting these tiny, tiny women to perform great feats of strength is, really, science fiction or fantasy. Whether it's the Bionic Woman or Summer Glau as a Terminator, or Buffy the Vampire slayer, it's impressive because they're so small. Supergirl is fine, because, well, she's a freaking alien. But this isn't how normal people operate.  Hell, Buffy was supposed to be stronger than your average bear, and she still jumped around all over the place.

Why is Buffy the Vampire Slayer better executed than some of these more "serious" thrillers, like Blindspot?

(Hell, I'm actually surprised that Jaime Alexander isn't better built, considering she has to carry what looks like at least twenty pounds of plastic armor in the Thor films. I didn't expect her to be that tiny.)

For a moment, let's look at my books ... with normal characters, because I'm not counting the vampire as "normal." That's covered under my "science fiction and fantasy" exception.

(Though I should note, Amanda Colt is not the toothpick Jaimie Alexander. I think I would rather have Scarlet Johansson, if she were a little taller. Anyway...)

If you haven't read / don't recall The Pius Trilogy, I have three women who have gotten into fights.

Exhibit A) Wilhelmina Goldberg: Five-feet tall (really 4'11") Goldberg is a computer nerd. She used to work for the NSA, but went over to the Secret Service to audit security, since she's not tall enough to jump in front of Presidents. Her fights included: punching someone in the balls, and dropping low and cutting their Achilles tendons.

Exhibit B) Maureen McGrail: somewhere around 5'9 (because I don't recall), imagine Jaimie Alexander with about thirty pounds of muscle on her, and a broader frame. She's ridiculously over skilled. Even though she has more black belt levels than Chuck Norris, her fighting style boiled down to: attack joints, attack eyes, and deflecting, rather than blocking attacks.

Exhibit C) Manana Shushurin: 5'7" or so. Also insanely well-trained. Her primary form of fighting?Shooting people in the head. Yes, really. She may have gotten into three actual physical altercations in the entire trilogy, but most of the time, she just shot her enemies. Because bullets are your friend.

Seriously, at the end of the day, can we have a collection of characters and actresses who look, well, healthy? I'm tired of the cliche. It's getting problematic, and the execution is getting more and more lazy as things go on. At least in the Thor films, Alexander's Lady Sif is covered in body armor to bulk her up. But in general, the actresses seem to be getting smaller and shorter, and becoming more like empty-handed, bare-knuckle brawlers. And it really needs to stop.