But realistically, how many people trust a faceless icon floating out there in the bit-bucket somewhere? I could be anybody, writing to you about anything. And I think you know that. Yet, optimists we are, we click that “add to contacts.”

I was once contacted through Facebook for a position in Madison WI. I thought it was a joke at first. Isn’t that what LinkedIn.com is for? Turns out it was a legit offer for a pretty good gig. The lesson here is that the boundaries between social networking sites are melting away.  While I personally would rather keep business on LinkedIn and Mafia Wars on Facebook (some folks get it, some don’t), I’m the only one. It seems that LinkedIn.com simply lacks many of the facilities for contact that Facebook has. That is to say the built-in professionalism (formality) of LinkedIn in working against it as far as social networking communications are concerned.

Watching the evolution of the two sites offers some interesting insight into how people use the internet. LinkedIn’s addition of “apps” mimics Facebook and MySpace, furthers the common theory of the internet: people want to play with other people. These “apps,” most of which are games,  allow people to post fictional or real accomplishments and share them with others. Much like Twitter, the idea that one single person’s activities could be so interesting to demand the instant notification of thousands is amusing to say the least.

So how can small businesses take advantage of thee so called social networking websites? They seem to be just toys for office workers with too much time on their hands. That would be a correct assessment. However, a major appeal of the internet is VOICE. The web allows Joe Public to give their opinion. This high-tech sort of grassroots support shows carries a lot of weight in the digital world, even though it’s the easiest thing in the world to simply click that “like” button.

In fact, the support one sees for causes and products, bands and movements, via the internet are mostly based on “my friends are doing it” and “it seems cool enough” and “that’s a buddy of mine, so I’ll show support.” Besides, what does it cost anyone to “add as a friend” anything?

The benefits are of course subtle, but can’t be beat. When compared to traditional advertising, pound for pound, web ads, bulk email, social networking and fan-pages get triple the impressions for the same (less) dollars.

One would think this is a good thing - a great leap forward for marketing and advertising, allowing the small and mid-sized business owner a chance to compete with the corporate leviathans of the world. While it’s true, these new and ever evolving technologies allow us the average Joe to reach out to customers and clients, to expand their business networks and improve brand awareness, it’s also true that these new tools (toys) allow business owners a dozen and a half new venues to alienate and irritate their customers.

So what’s the solution? Knowledge of your technology and how the end user utilizes it is key, and with everything, research (vast amounts) goes a long way towards improving that knowledge. The internet has for the last two decades, and likely for the next two at least should be your first stop when trying to learn about these new methods of telecommunication.

There’s a catch, however. This caveat is subtle, and simple and for small business owners, logical. No website, blog, newsgroup or wiki is going to give you all the answers for free. If every master SEO writer gave away his secrets, he’d have no business. If every master web designer could step you through creating the most magnificent website ever, he’d have no clients.

This goes back to what grandpa always said “You get what you pay for.” This is especially true with technical knowledge. That’s not to say one shouldn’t do their own research, but unless you’re planning a career change from business owner to SEO Specialist or Web Content Specialist or Web (insert flavor here) Guru, you’ll need to hire a professional.

Being something of a mythology researcher, I’ve found no mention in Christian Biblical Lore about angels becoming mortal when they cut off their wings. In fact, this is an invention of the writer/director Kevin Smith. So, right off the bat, the basis for the film Legion is something Kevin Smith coughed up between bong hits.

The rest of the plot is a mish-mash stolen from films like The Prophecy, revolving about the classic “Hold-Out-And-Run” template. Aliens, 30 Days of Night, Dawn of the Dead (remake), The Mist and about a thousand other films of the genre share the same “story” arc; the characters are presented with an impossible challenge, one steels their wills to survive and they fortify until they realize they must move to stay alive. This decision invariably costs the characters that which they sought so hard to preserve – each other.

An ensemble piece, the cast of characters were there merely to add to the body count. Their deaths however, were nothing less than ignoble, usually getting chewed up by some file-toothed “angel” who has inhabited a human body.

The details of the plot are inconsequential – God wants to kill humans, but the Archangel Michael disagrees. Gabriel flies down after an hour of forced character development and begins to kick ass.

As a writer, you are obligated not to assault your audience’s sense of plausibility. Many will argue the “suspension of disbelief” is elastic and should be stretched – if I can accept that angels are real, I should be able to accept that angels would swoop down and enact God’s will.

However, this film left so many loop holes, even the most devout may begin to question their faith. The only new elements added to the archangels arsenal were bladed, bullet proof wings (stolen, if I remember correctly, from a Marvel Comics character named Archangel) and of course, a mace straight from the MI6 labs – a bludgeoning weapon that whirred and twisted and changes shape, extended and transformed, though likely too heave for even the new James Bond to heft, he was no doubt drooling over the versatility of this ridiculous weapon.

To spoil an already predictable plot, the good guys win and Michael gets his wings back, having taught the omniscient and omnipotent God a lesson in mercy. Gabriel flies off, beaten and the main characters, a trailer-park hussy/new mother and a bumpkin named Jeep (whose only heroic act was to machine-gun a child possessed by an angel) drive off into the post apocalypse desert to rebuild humanity, enacting a sloppy Joseph and Mary/Post Flood analog.

Overall, a  forgettable film.

The plot centers around a vampire who doesn’t like being a vampire (what, eternal youth, power and indestructibility not as much fun as you thought they’d be?), who by chance encounters the dwindling human resistance.  Proving himself a  friend to sheeple everywhere, the bipedal cattle bring this hematologist in on their plan to cure the vampiric infection.

The film is filled with those clever little gimmicks, like “daylight” driving windows, tinted 100% opaque, and a warren of underground tunnels that allows the leeches to travel during daylight hours. Willem Dafoe plays a blue-collar vampire who accidentally cured himself, and with the help of Ethan Hawke, intends to help cure all of humanity. Meanwhile, the blood supply is out, and the vampires are tearing off their neckties and degenerating into the nosferatu-esque and savage true vampiric form. Gross.

Half-developed characters stumble through subplots, while the audience is treated to constant barrage of surreal gore, squishing noises and vampires that are so starved, they turn on one another.

The films true weakness comes in the form of the cure – a shake and bake solution requiring neither hematologist nor faith nor garlic/silver oxide solution to achieve. Not impressed.

True vampire fans will enjoy this classic tale of moderate redemption wrapped in Big Business Dystopia, but those demanding substance will find the film without much of a bite.

While I, and perhaps other members of the audience were expecting something more akin to a mystery, I found myself delighting in the pacing. The lightning quick scene-to-scene action slowly but surely redefined Holmes and the indefatigable Watson. There were moments in the film where I felt they were more like Dr. Hunter S. Thompson and His Attorney, than the legendary sleuth.

The dismissal of layered mystery and sub-plot worked for this action adventure film. Sherlock, it seems, has been re-invented.

Reader’s will notice I always gloss over the acting. Well, I’m not changing my pattern. Downey Jr. was excellent, as well as Jude Law, both tried and true performers. I expected no less. In fact, considering their past roles, this might have been a screw-off project for them. Supporting cast was adequate. (Sidenote: I’ve heard rumors that Brad Pitt is cast as Moriarty – dashing my own aspirations – while Pitt has performed some excellent roles, it is my belief that he needs heavy interaction with the director – how else could you explain his “blah” portrayal of Achilles, perhaps the most archetypical character in the history of man?)

A mystery/thriller necessarily must play upon the audiences limited perspective, elsewise we would figure out the mystery well ahead of the main character. Thus, during the big reveal, we see Holmes’ perception of details the audience simply wasn’t shown. That’s cheating.

All said, I loved the film, it will definitely go into my Blu-Ray collection, right next to Iron Man.

The moon watched as I devoured a Nutroll, the nuts cracking and shattering as I chomped, crumbs piling around me, landing on the slick surface of my grim obsidian desk.

I hunkered down and she crept up higher in the sky to keep eyes on what I was doing. I devoured the candy.  The salt from the Nutroll was making me lick my lips. The goo in the center of the candy bar was sticking in my teeth and I was moving my mouth and cheeks in an effort to dislodge the tooth decayer. But I couldn’t give up the salt, so both efforts, the salt removal and the sticky candy-goo removal took twice as long.

The moon watched while I feasted like a dog.

Some hardcore film folk will suggest this is the down fall of cinema, the day the actor and director no longer interface is that day we’re all watching cartoons written my mad children.

And I would tend to agree. Jar-Jar Binks is my primary evidence.

But Avatar, all three hours of it, was something special. The plot itself was simple - to quote my uncle “a child could have written it,” and that’s okay. Most of the best stories are those that we all understand on a primal level. This film was nothing more complicated than Dances With Wolves in space. Which is okay too, since Alien was Jaws in Space and Attack of the Clones was just Star Wars in space (that last one was a joke).

The plot, essentially runs like this - Marine agent goes native. Saves people. Aside from the spectacular setting, there was nothing new or interesting about the story itself. Ancient as the plot may have been, it resonates with audiences because of some very simple and all too human elements: loss.

A sub-textual critique of the plight of Native American peoples can easily be read into Cameron’s somewhat heavy-handed action flick, but the secondary plot thread is entirely unnecessary.

I was disappointed to see that Cameron’s treat of space marines has changed little since the days of Aliens - the jarheads are mostly without conscience and still even talk the same. “Get some!” seems to be a common phrase in all centuries of Jim Cameron’s military vision. While I find his view of our own warrior caste somewhat two dimensional, I must applaud is continued use of powered armor.

Plausibility was kept at an all time high for a sci-fi action flick, and lord in heaven, this was a beautiful film. Simply gorgeous to look at.

I won’t comment on the acting. Sigourney Weaver is a professional who simply cannot deliver a poor performance. Our hero did most of his work in voice over mode, as well as the love interest. Michele Rodriguez (of Resident Evil fame) is sassy and sharp, but her character was a combination of Vasquez and Ferro from Aliens (can Jim never leave LV-426 behind?)

This story picks up with a Commissar-Colonel Gaunt wondering just how soft he’s gotten. One is reminded of the opening scenes of Apocalypse Now, where Martin Sheen stares out of his window wondering he’ll get orders to leave Saigon.

Gaunt’s Ghosts are no different than any other combat veteran, an entire regiment of soldiery so tuned up and keyed to self=preservation through violence, it’s no wonder that the Ghost’s run astray.

The novel opens with a gruesome scene wherein the infiltration of the Sabbat Crusade’s HQ world is cleverly explained. I won’t give too much more detail for fear of spoiling a fun read.

I did note, however, that it was page 67 before I felt the old interest, that Abnett page-turning, pulse-pounding sci-fi pulp action returning. Aside from the Blood Pact infiltration, I honestly can’t remember what happened in those first 67 pages.

As a long time Gaunt’s Ghosts fan, I think my patience for their antics is higher than would be for a new reader. I also found myself reflecting on the characters, it feels as if most of the original Ghosts are gone now. The replacement characters have yet to become fully endeared to me and I wonder, how will this regiment end up?

Gaunt’s capture and torture in the last book were cleanly glossed over, and any residual trauma he may have had has yet to make itself known…

I think she meant that I didn’t just spout off for a grade like the other students. The truth was, I seldom had anything good to say.

Tim Waggoner’s Thieves of Blood: Blade of the Flame read’s like an introductory page from a Dungeons and Dragon’s Gaming book. The exposition nearly bowls a person over, and the character archetypes offer nothing new to readers.

That said, if this book is classed as young adult fiction, or used as the marketing piece it was obviously intended to be, it’s a total success. Those not familiar with the Eberron campaign setting will find the book enlightening. Another refreshing aspect of Waggoner’s approach is his general lack of an “origins” story. He simply starts in with two pre-existing characters and allows their histories, though somewhat two-dimensional they may be, to unfold naturally for the reader.

Another thing the writer’s done here, which I appreciate greatly, is create a literary adventure, a time filler for young adults, that needs neither electricity or software.

B+

I’m sure it has. “Never write the solo person in one room. Nothing happens.” There’s some sense in the advice too – unless of course you’re me. Right now, my office is three stories above my library. Which is now conveniently referred to as Archives.

The room I currently occupy, much like the T.A.R.D.I.S., has the ability to transport me, my trusty laptop (named Hera – she runs Vista, what can I say) and any additional accoutrements I may need to wherever I see fit. Currently, we’re planning a trip past the pleasure planet Teytruis. I’ll leave the sordid details of my stop to your imagination.

Then, I think we’ll swing around towards the galaxy. I want to see this “Super Massive Black hole” for myself.

I read “Death by Black hole” by Neil DeGrasse Tyson (an excellent read, by the by) about a year ago, and since then, I’ve been chomping to get see this thing close up (relatively speaking).

Any another thing, since at the point of singularity, all laws of physics break down and we can’t really see past the event horizon in a black hole (because you know, it’s a black hole), that means the singularity could look like anything.

I vote for dinosaurs.