Anyhow, I wrote a lengthy (the lengthiest so far) post on the blog last night and I’d like to share it here.  I won’t say much about it, I’ll let you read it for yourself.  I recognize that it is not terribly scientific or anything, and kind of purposefully vague, but that is kind of the point (I mean, it is made up).  So here you go.

Humans Share the World With Other Hominids of the Homo and Australopithecus Genus Reality

Well there is a long title for you.  I also expect this to be a longer post, as well as being a more serious proposed alternate reality.  Basically (like most of these posts) the title explains it.  In essence, humans are not the only members of the Homo genus still alive on Earth.  Also there are a few species of Australopithecus alive too.

I suspect that I am not the first person to propose this kind of alternate reality.  I further suspect that other people who have thought of it have done a better job than I am about to do.  I will not claim all the science for being sound or for the scenarios being logical.  If you take issue with it, you can take this proposal and do all the fin tweeking you like.  Let me know about it, I’d be interested to see where you go with it.

So anyways, a staple for a lot of science fiction and fantasy is humans sharing a world with other developed intelligent species.  So you get elves and dwarves and trolls or some kind of alien creatures, etc.  But, keeping it more realistic, in this reality, it is simply that other species of the genus Homo and the genus Australopithecus are still around and sharing the world with H. sapiens.

The species of the genus Homo that are alive in this reality are:

• H. sapiens: Yours truly, humankind, just like we know ‘em here.
• H. neanderthalensis: Called “Neanders” here for short.  These are the classic “cavemen” we think about often times.
• H. heidelbergensis: Called “Heidels” for short.  Very similar to Neanders but much taller.
• H. erectus: Called “Erects” for short.  Significantly more primitive than the above.  Culturally and intellectually less advanced.
• H. floresiensis: Called “Flores” for short.  While the status of Flores as a true species is in debate in our reality, in this reality they are real, and very strange (see the more detailed descriptions below).

There are also two or three (depending on who you ask) species of Australopithecus.  I won’t detail them specifically.  Basically these species are regarded mostly as animals.  Perhaps more advanced in tool use, communication, and socially than other great apes, but still basically wild animals that do not have their own civilizations or major interactions with the other Homo species besides the expected natural encounters.

Now for more details.  We’ll start with humans.

• Humans: As I said above, they are like we are.  Humans are, by their own opinion as well as by more and more mounting research in this reality, the most advanced living species of the genus Homo.  They have built complex societies, developed increasing advances in tool use, and engage in the exchange of complex languages and mathematics.  As such, they are by far the dominant species of Homo in the world, and their whims and fancies have shaped the majority of history.  Humans have much the same success and failings in this alternate reality as they do in our own.  They can just as easily be compassionate, friendly, and inspiring as they can be cruel, arbitrary, and dishonest.  Many of the major accomplishments of civilization in this society have been achieved by humans.  However, there is a general arrogance to the species.  As science has demonstrated differences in genetics and brain usage between humans and the other Homo species, this arrogance has in many ways developed in the Superiority complex.  And while humans have largely, in the developed nations of the modern world, put aside past atrocities enacted on the other species (as well as their own) they are still a long way from being truly enlightened beings.
• Neanders and Heidels: Genetically and culturally these two species of the Homo genus are very similar.  In regards to morphological appearance they are quite different.  Neanders are shorter than humans (averaging around 5’ or so) but significantly more muscular.  They have pronounced cranial ridges, broad and flat noses, and are considerably more hairy than humans.  Heidels on the other hand are very tall, with an average height of about 6’5” for an adult.  heidels are more muscular than humans, but not quite as much so as neanders.  Heidels and neanders have similar facial features and hairiness.  Early on both of these species compteted heavily with humans (as well as with each other) for dominance of territory and cultural influence.  In the end it is generally agreed that humans won (though many neanders and heidels will suggest the degree of this human-influence win is much closer to a stalemate than humans like to admit).  While many humans will, with bias, suggest that neanders and heidels are less intelligent, this just isn’t the case.  Many studies have demonstrated time and again, that humans, neanders, and heidels all rank at about the same comparative averages for IQ.  Furthermore, neinders and heidels are both expert tool users like humans, have developed advanced civilized cultures, and are heavily involved in the arts and sciences.  One major difference has been that both neanders and heidels are more prone to aggression than humans.  Studies have demonstrated that in stressful situations neanders and heidels fair much more poorly at maintaining patience or solving problems proactively rather than reactively (they are more likely to break something in anger when it doesn’t work than they are to try and fix it).  Because of this increased aggressive nature, along with their natural physical strength, both neanders and heidels have been very effective in warfare throughout history.  There has long been tensions between humans and the neanders & heidels, however, throughout history they have found many occasions to work together and cooperate.  In the modern world most nations include a relatively even distributions of humans, neanders, and heidels, all serving various roles and intermingling.  A few third world and less stable nations still see extreme inter-species violence and conflict between the three.  Neanders and heidels can both interbreed with each other as well as with humans with varying degrees of fertility of the progeny (90% of neander-heidel hybrids are born fertile; 75-80% of human-neander hybrids are born fertile; about 65% of human-heidel hybrids are born fertile).  Many neanders and heidels have risen to fame and contributed significant achievements throughout history.  So have many hybrid individuals.  For the most part neanders and heidels get by well in the modern world, but many feel a degree of distrust and frustration at the arrogance of humanity.
• Erects:  The erects are the truly tragic story of this reality.  Because they are significantly less advanced and developed than humans, neanders, and heidels they have often been subjugated to awful abuses by all three of these other Homo species.  Slavery, genocide, destruction of home and civilization, have all been the results of the more “advanced” Homos.  Erects are unquestionably less intelligent.  They have not on their own terms developed as advanced tools or social structures.  Furthermore, while they can speak and understand languages, they do so poorly.  Very few are able to write, even after much practice an study.  Traditionally erects of lived in secluded primitive villages, living simple hunter-gatherer lifestyles.  The one area that they seem to excel in is the development of complex myth-ritualistic practices.  Also, they seem to have a keen intuition about native food and medicine sources.  Unfortunately, the other Homos have long viewed them as savages to be contained at best, and pests to be eradicated at worst.  This led to much slavery, genocide, and displacement of the erects throughout history.  Only in the past hundred or so years have real efforts been made to cease these atrocities and protect the species from further degredation.  Alas, a history of cruelty at the hands of the other species has caused a significantly diminished population of the erects in the modern world, and as such, they are the only modern living Homo species that is actually classified as “endangered.”  Erects can interbreed with humans, neanders, and heidels, but there is a high rate of still-birth and the hybrids that live are almost universally sterile.  The sad history of the erects has been a major cause for creating greater unity and peace in the world, so as to prevent future unforgivable atrocities.
• Flores:  Of all the Homo genus species, the flores are the strangest and least understood.  These small people (rarely ever reaching a height over 4’, more often about 3’6”) inhabit most of Oceania, the south-east Asian islands, and Australia (though some can be found pretty much everywhere in the world in the modern day).  These people look physically similar to erects, but are just much smaller.  When first encountered by humans, neanders, and heidels, it was assumed that these small people would suffer a similar fate as the erects had, if not worse because of their diminutive size.  This did not happen however, in fact, the flores managed to repel the spread of the larger Homo species into their territory so that it was not until the past two centuries or so that humans, neanders, or heidels were able to establish any lasting colonies in the  south Asian islands or Australia.  The success of the flores is deceptive at best, if not downright mysterious.  Besides their obvious physically small stature, all flores have very small brain cavities.  Further studies have also concluded that an individual flores is only slightly more intelligent than an Australopithecus species, making them even less intelligent and developed than erects.  However, when first encountered, the flores were found to have their own very successful and surprisingly advanced (if not completely alien) civilizations.  The early humans, neanders, and heidels who first encountered the flores thousands of years ago had no means to understand these tiny people, but soon, they learned that the flores were best left alone.  Regardless of their physical size and stength, the vast numbers of flores were easily able to drive away and defend themselves from the larger Homo species.  It wasn’t until the past seventy years or so that an undrstnading of the odd flores began to come to light.  What was found, is that whereas humans, neanders, heidels, and erects are all able to function well as individual autonomous creature, the flores are truly a hive species, more similar to ants and termites in their social structuring than to the other Homo species.  Their hive mind existence made them very well suited to dealing with the other Homo species and as such they have flourished in their territory.  A single flores is not a very big threat or remotely even that intelligent, but a thousand of them are an incredibly effective and calculating swarm.  Research in the past decades has begun to allow more and more understanding of the flores and their strange social structuring, as well as some inroads to means of communication.  It is still uncertain as to how these people are able to maintain such a tight and effective hive-mind, but nevertheless, they are a present and active part of this reality.

Okay, so there you go.  You get the picture right?  I could go on and on and explain how different this world is (different countries, history, science, etc.) because of these different species but I am not going to because I think it would take a book (who know maybe I’ll write one … or somebody out there could do it).  Just know that this reality is very different from our own, not just because these species are present, but because of the impacts their presences have had on the world.

I have, at various times, asked these exact questions to myself, and applying Mr. Scalzi’s logic I think I can come up with some pretty good and comfortable answers.  So . . .

Am I a writer?

Well, considering I’ve been keeping this blog going for over five years now and I regularly write a lot of other things simply for the pleasure of writing, I think I can safely answer that “Yes, I am a writer.”

Am I a professional writer?

Probably not really.  I do a lot of technical writing for my job, but it is not my primary or regular duty.  I used to write some brief articles for a bit of cash, but I haven’t done that for some time, and even when I was doing it I can’t say that it was all that regular.  So being honest here I’d say that I am not a professional writer, which is okay by me.  I do wonder if I could be a professional writer, and that is a matter I often consider pursuing, but until I attempt to make some bucks out of my writing I guess I won’t really know one way or another.

Am I a good writer?

This questions, even using Mr. Scalzi’s analysis as a guide, is difficult to determine.  There is a part of me (perhaps a somewhat vain and proud part of me) that wants to exclaim to the world, “Hell yes I’m a good writer!”  But then a more humble sentiment kicks in and I feel like dialing it back.  I do believe I am a competent writer.  I have spent many years now practicing writing and I believe that I am almost always successful at getting my messages across. however, I know that there are a number of areas that I could use improvement on (I am horrible at self-editing and probably a little too fond of adverbs, just to name a few things that come ot mind). If I had to guess, with all honesty, I’d say that I am generally a consistently competent writer who enjoys the occasional bit of writing that is downright good.  I’ll take that, considering that most of what I do, as far as writing goes, is for personal pleasure first and foremost.

So anyhow, if you have ever wondered about questions like these (whether for writing or some other art form) I highly recommend reading Mr. Scalzi’s contemplation on then.  not only is it an enjoyable read (Mr. Scalzi is a good writer) on its own, but I also think that it is pretty accurate and honest.

As a bit of a post script, if you haven’t read John Scalzi’s blog, Whatever, it is really quite worth it.  I easily rank it as one of my favorite blogs to read.

I believe that there is a unique double-edged quality for any theatre in choosing to perform a well known play or musical like “Cabaret.”  On the one hand, the theatre can enjoy an almost certainty of a large audience turn out, as audiences enjoy seeing things of which they are familiar and knowledgable about.  However, this knowledge can be hazardous for the theatre.  The audience has more fodder for criticism if they have seen the performance before, or are, in the least, familiar with what it is.  As such, I suspect, that “Cabaret” demanded an even more intense attention to detail and quality from The Warehouse Theatre.  They did not disappoint.

Personally I have never been all that into musicals, not because I think they are poorly done, but more so because I find something about them distractingly absurd.  We do not live in a world in which people randomly break out into song and dance, and so it strikes me as odd that such a popular form of performance would portray things exactly that way.  While I can always follow the story of a musical, I tend to find it more difficult for me to achieve my preferred level of suspension of disbelief, because every time somebody begins to sing or dance I once again think, “things don’t happen like this.”

All that being said, I found “Cabaret” to be very enjoyable.  The close proximity of The Warehouse Theatre’s stage setup (nobody sits more than twenty feet from the stage area) really works well for this performance, allowing the audience to feel intimately involved throughout.  As far as my ears could discern the singing by all the actors and actresses was spot on (please note that my ears are not remotely classically trained, and as such might not be the best indicators of musical quality).  So also was the choreography superb, with tight consistency, and great exploration of the available space.

As a story “Cabaret” is unquestionably challenging for the audience.  It deals with a world and characters that are less than adequate.  It concerns a history, a very real history, of how we, as people, can allow horrible things to creep in, take control, and threaten our very future.  Juxtaposing the dark elements of the story with the joyous singing and dancing, creates a uniquely exhilarating and disturbing experience.  I’d forgotten just how dark the end of “Cabaret” is.  It was pulled off spectacularly at The Warehouse Theatre, enough to cause me to feel a chill through my body, and a sense of existential dread in my soul.  On top of all that, hanging on the wall by the exit were the ever profound words of George Santayana, reading, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  It made walking back out into the light of the early Sunday evening, a strange and surreal thing.

As always, The Warehouse theatre’s design elements, in both costumes and set, were flawless.  The costuming was at once conventional while at the same time shocking (which is precisely what is needed for a show like “Cabaret.”).  The set was a tight space, constraining the acting to a small area to work in, yet the simple addition or removals of a few props here and there, allowed it to be a very dynamic and interactive stage.  Musicals are an additional challenge to any set design, as the space must be carefully tailored with the knowledge that people, often many at a time, will be dancing upon it.  I saw none of the actors trip or stumble while performing, even considering that many of them were in heels, and so I have to believe the space was very ideal for this kind of show.

All around The Warehouse Theatre once again has delivered a wonderful performance.  As I get further and further into the 2011 – 2012 season, I am more and more convinced that we, living here in Greenville, are very lucky to have such a professional and talented playhouse in our midst.  If you are around and want to catch a good show, “Cabaret” is well worth it.  Tickets have been running fast however so if you want to go see it try to get them soon.  “Cabaret” will be running through February 18th.

Like Pizza places, I suspect that most people who buy and eat take-out Chinese, have one (maybe two) places that they prefer over all others.  This may partially be due to general proximity, but it also might be due to rapport with the owners of the place.  I have now been going to the same Chinese take-out place for the past four years and I love it.  The people recognize me there, they usually know what I like to get, and very often, if I place a large enough order, they will throw in some freebie items like fried donuts or sodas.  I, on my part, try to always treat them with courtesy (which I try to do everywhere I go), ask them how things are, and thank them with generous contributions to their tip jars (a lot of take-out restaurants don’t get much in regards to tips, even though they are arguably not making much more than sitdown restaurants).

It is nice to have a place you can stop into on the occasion and be greeted with recognition and friendly smile and some nice service.  So here is my praise to you No. 1 China Take-Out, you have my patronage as a customer (also, your house fried rice is amazing.  I could eat that stuff all the time).

As a child vampires were always the one monster that I thought of as truly terrifying.  Werewolves might be a creepy concept if I was out in the woods, mummies just seemed silly, and I was not really familiar with zombies yet.  But vampires, these undead bloodsucking night beasts that cast no reflection, really creeped me out.  But as I grew older and experienced more and more stories of vampires, I became less and less enamored by what I had once thought of as terrifying creatures.  The I read ‘Salem’s Lot and once again I remembered what it was about them that had made them so terrifying.

Vampires are a hot item these days.  Between the success of television shows like True Blood and The Vampire Diaries, the continued success of stories by Anne Rice, and the tame tween pop stories like The Twilight Saga, vampires can be encountered just about anywhere.  However, more often than not, I find myself disappointed in these modern portrayals of the creatures of the night (especially those lame-ass sparkly vampires from Mrs. Mayer’s novels).  Vampires, in there many current versions and narratives strike me as overwhelmingly de-fanged and marginalized as interesting and terrifying monsters.

It might be worthwhile to ask ourselves what purpose archetypal monsters like vampires play in our modern world?  Historically, vampires were folkloric creatures that demonstrated a fear of death, a lack of scientific knowledge about the decaying process, and a concern about the spread of disease.   Such was the historic concern about dead corpses rising from their grave that bodies actually were exhumed and desecrated by means like decapitation and burning.  In our present time, much of the folklore and myth, breed significantly from misunderstandings and a broader fear of the world, have receded.  We live in a more logical time in which the dark of night does not seem nearly as dark as it once had.  Yet we still maintain a fascination in the stories surrounding these imaginary monsters.  Even if the creatures themselves have changed over time, the overall interest has remained.

I suspect it is because in some ways we like the idea of being scared of “something” and so what better than  these beings that once actually terrified our ancestors?  Fear is a natural, if not uncomfortable, human emotion.  I suspect that for all of our logical and sensible faculties, we all take a degree of comfort in recognizing that our fear mechanize still functions.  A lack of fear in all ways, shapes, and forms seems like a unholsome and perilous thing.  Taking vampires in consideration, the biggest remaining fear is that concept of death as a necessary bookend to life.   The vampire is able to avoid that ultimate death, but usually at the cost of their overall humanity and with the gruesome prerequisite of regular sanguine meals.

While many portrayals of vampires in modern narratives may promote a kind of existential fear, I do not think that they really tend to elicit the overall dread and terror that once plagued peasants of the 18th European countryside.  More often than not, I find the vampires in our current fiction, television, and movies to be little more than moody mosquitos, who might cause a start with their disproportioned canine teeth, but lack an overwhelming ability to make a person unable to sleep.

If I had to list where I think some of the problems with vampires are, I would come up with a number of examples.  I shall go through them here:

• Vampires having Existential Crisis:  This stereotype is entirely too overplayed in modern fiction.  The vampire who is conflicted by his/her immortality and need to feast on human blood in contrast to retaining the sense of humanity that once defined their personhood.  This kind of vampire story might have been interesting once or twice in that it differentiated from vampires as simply cold-blooded killing machines, but after awhile it has become tired and empty.  I would say these crisis of character are the most debilitating portrayal of vampires in that it really removes any degree of fear worthiness.
• The beautiful vampire: This often goes along with the above.  Not only does the vampire have to deal with the issues of remaining “human” but they are also “cursed” with some absurd degree of attractiveness.  Admittedly, the allure of vampires has been around for a long time.  There has long been a sexual element to the creatures.  However, traditionally this has been more of an unnatural glamour of sorts, used to entice and enthrall unsuspecting prey rather than a broad characteristic of the undead.  What has happened all too often in recent portrayals is that the focus is all on how beautiful the vampire(s) is, and not on the fact that this is a predatory creature that is longing to take a bite our of some poor human’s jugular.
• Vampires who are Not Evil:  Along with the two above reasons this portrayal really get’s my goat.  In my mind vampires should always be evil things.  It should be part of their nature.  If they are not evil by nature then of course they are bound to have existential issues with the nature of thier being.  But if their nature is just cruel and vicious, then really they shouldn’t take issue with thier need for human blood.  I do like vampires that are not entirely beastly, but have some mote of intelligence which they use for one purpose, that being the acquisition of more humans to feed upon.  this manipulative quality can make a vampire even more evil than just as a blood thirsty monster.  It is part of what made Dracula such a lasting success.  If a vampire is good, then he/she is not really a monster at all, and boring in my book.
• The diminishing of vampire weaknesses:  It seems like a lot of more current portrayals have taken away from vampires’ various vulnerabilities.  Some are immune to holy items, some don’t mind garlic, and some can even wander about under the light of the sun with no apparent unease.  Like the existential crisis, this might have been neat once or twice, but now it is so often done that when I vampire in a modern story explains about the misconception of a supposed vulnerability, I feel like asking, “who really now thinks that that was actually supposed to hurt you anyways?”  It is good to make sure that our fictional monsters have weaknesses.  This grounds them in a sense.  It forces them to work their terror within the confines of certain rules, and it furthermore gives people an opportunity to combat an already impressive foe.  Taking away from these weaknesses makes the vampires seem more unstoppable on one hand, but also seem unreasonably powerful, which makes them kind of boring.  Of course they are going to defeat the humans, because they can withstand just about everything short of a nuclear explosion.  COntrary to common assumption this does not create greater tension or suspense, but instead allows the creator of the story to get away with having to work around difficulties for the vampire itself.  Creating a really terrifying vampire that still has the normally expected vulnerabilities takes a wider degree of creativity.  I am okay with limited degrees of overcoming weaknesses.  One I particularly like, is that a vampires weakness to holy symbols, holy water, and holy places, is directly in proportion to the amount of faith vested in these things.  As such, a devout priest may be able to wield a crucifix against the children of the night with great success, while an atheist with some “holy water” might just get ol’ Dracula wet.  Beyond that though, I like my vampires to hate garlic bread, wear gold instead of silver, get real nasty sunburns, and have a strong aversion to sharpened wooden objects near their heart areas.
• Scientific explanations for Vampires:  This is a bit more recent inclusion into the vampire mythos.  Explaining vampires as a product of either some sort of contagion or genetic mutation.  Personally (and perhaps interestingly as an atheist and skeptic of real world claims of the supernatural) I like my vampires to be supernatural beings, or, better yet, to be left unexplained altogether.  Zombies make wonderful monsters to be explained by some terrifying virus, but for vampires I kind of find it tiresome and, once again, taking away from the frightfulness.  When you explain things with a natural cause like a disease, you create this sense of “well maybe we’ll find a cure.”  However, with an unnatural or unknown cause, a means of removing the beings in far more elusive and difficult.  One of the few recent vampire stories I actually liked was the film version of 30 Days of Night (I have not read the comics so I can’t comment on them), in part  because the vampires are left relatively unexplained, they just appear and act like terrifying horrible monsters and that worked perfectly for me.  Sometimes things are better left unexplained.  Sure it is okay to have some speculation and thoughts about it, but leaving it open and unknown creates other forms of drama and suspense and allows for a broader sense of mystery in the world. 
• Vampires Who Can survive Without Human Blood:  Look, if your story has a vampire like this ten you suck (and not like a vampire sucks blood, you suck in the sense that you are a lame piece of shit who has annoyed me).  For vampires to be at all interesting in my opinion they need to feed on human blood, exclusively.  Often times it is the moody existential crisis riddled vampires who make do feeding on the blood of things like rats and pigs rather than draining a human.  This annoys me.  Vampires are supposed to be monsters and that which is supposed to make them monstrous is the insatiable appetite for human body fluids (specifically the red body fluid).  You take that need away and basically you are left with a long living superhuman who has entirely too much time to bitch and whine about how shitty it is to be a vampire.  Fuck you Edward!

I will take a break from listing my gripes with modern vampire portrayals (though I could probably come up with some more if I wanted to) and now mention the few cases of more recent vampire stories that I think of as succeeding fairly well (almost all of them have some of the failings I list above, but overall I’d say they do okay).

• ‘Salem’s Lot:  We’ll start off with this one because it is what got me onto this post in the first place.  Admittedly ‘Salem’s Lot is getting a bit dated ( it is almost 40 years old), but I still think that this is the modern vampire story that sets the bar for all others.  The vampires in Mr. King’s novel are truly monsters with a remorseless attitude and that insatiable hunger.  They are actually frightening (especially the floating creepy children vampires), they are actually evil, and they actually feel like uncompromised vampires.  This is the story for people who feel like I do, and think that the state of vampires in fiction is currently in disrepair.
• 30 Days of Night(film):  As I mentioned above, I found this to be a good film portraying vampires.  It has a bit of the existential stuff near the end, but for the most part the monsters in this movie rock the full on terror and destructive qualities that I like in a good vampire story.  The movie is overall successful in its creepiness and it adheres pretty well to the more traditional vampire mythos.
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer (television series):  This popular TV series has a number of failings on the vampire front (most significantly Angel, and later defanged Spike) but overall it isn’t too bad.  The vampires adhere to the general rules of vampirism. They are actually evil and blood thirsty.  They have a definite supernatural origin.  However, most of the vampires in the series are kind of wimpy and weak and so they never really come across as all that terrifying.
• Lost Boys:  Another one that definitely has its faults, but does succeed in keeping the vampires actually pretty evil and vicious as well as maintaining their vulnerabilities.  Ultimately it is a pretty campy 80s flick, but it mostly gets its vampires right (even if they are not all that scary.  Sorry, but it is hard to really be afraid of Kiefer Sutherland).
• The Blade Series:  Again, these have some issues, most significantly Mr. Blade himself, but it does keep vampires as pretty evil horrible creatures that like to drink from human necks.  I give these points for being willing to stick to the gruesome violence all too often left out of vampire stories today.
• Let the Right One In (Swedish version film):  Next to ‘Salem’s Lot I think this is my favorite modern portrayal of vampires.  It does delve some into the existential and romantic vampire (kind of) but it does so in such a refreshingly original way that I feel like I can forgive it.  Not only does the vampire adhere well to vampire rules, but she is also utterly terrifying.  I’d love to read the novel this film is based on to see if it accomplishes the same degree of suspense and dread that movie did.  To date I have avoided watching the American remake of this movie because the Swedish version was so flawless in my opinion. Really this is quite an exceptional vampire story.

What else?  I’d love to hear other suggestions of good vampire stories.  There are times, as somebody who tells a lot of stories in his head, that I try to think of what kind of vampire story I’d like to tell.  I can say, with some certainty, that if I were to ever write my own vampire story, I’d work very hard to avoid the above listed failings.  I’d be disappointed with myself if I didn’t.

Anyway, I am kind of surprised I haven’t written about this sooner seeing as about six years ago I don’t think I had ever used cast iron cookware, and now it is a real staple to my culinary practices.  Cast iron cookware is, simply put (and in my personal opinion), an essential for any complete kitchen.

While you can certainly cook much the same stuff with some good stainless steel cookware (and really, let’s be honest, don’t use teflon non-stick shit, go with stainless steel.  If you know what you are doing this should never be a problem in the first place), there is something unique and enjoyable about the use of cast iron.  I think part of it is just the solid heft of the things.  There is no denying that you need a bit of muscle if you are going to be using cast iron cookware regularly.  Another part of it (and arguably the more important part from a cooking perspective) is the way that cast iron is so successful at evenly distributing its heat.  Even more so than stainless steel, cast iron provides a nice diffusion of heat.

As I said above, six years ago I had never cooked with cast iron.  I knew what it was, but because my parents had never owned any, and because when I was really getting into cooking, in my college years, I never had any money to afford the cookware, it had just slipped from my personal practice.  When I moved to South Carolina in 2007 I got my first experiences with using cast iron cookware.  Walker and Natalia, whom I lived with from summer 2007 to March 2008, had some cast iron cookware and this allowed me to get my feet wet with the stuff.  Admittedly, at the time, I had a bad tendency to cook things at too high a heat, and also to not pay as close attention to my cooking food as I should be, and so the results were mixed-negative at first.  But in time I got better and better.  Cooking a number of meals with Evan and Meg using cast iron provided further skill and knowledge of the cookware.  Living with Dan from summer 2009 through January 2011 allowed me to have constant access to the cookware as Dan had his own cast iron skillet (the cast iron skillet, for those of you not in the know, is basically the essential cast iron piece of cookware).  With Dan I also learned the pleasures of using cast iron on a grill.  When I moved in with Eliza in February 2011 I inherited a large number of cast iron skillets (I believe we currently have six) ranging in size from just large enough to cook a couple of eggs to big enough to roast a chicken in it.

Over the past year I have taken to using cast iron very frequently.  I sometimes just use them on the burner like a normal skillet.  I cook bacon in a medium-sized one out on my grill (the bacon grease makes for a fantastic seasoning for the cast iron).  As I said above, we roast whole chickens in our giant cast iron skillet.  We usually bring one or two of the medium to medium-small skillets with us whenever we go camping and use them right over the fire (this was, historically, the original intended use of cast iron cookware). For Christmas Eliza got me a nice cast iron press, which can be heated up real hot and used to cook the top of and press down food stuffs (so far I’ve only used it to make some seriously crispy bacon). The other night Eliza’s mom made an awesome cornbread in her cast iron skillet, which has provided me with yet another realm of cooking to attempt with the cookware.

So, if you haven’t tried it yet, and you’re as into cooking as I am, get yourself a nice ol’ cast iron skillet and give it a try.  Admittedly, new cast iron cookware can be a bit pricy, but it is worth it in the long run.  Cast iron cookware is extremely durable and can easily last through multiple generations (several of our skillets originally belonged to Eliza’s grandfather).  They take relatively little maintenance, just the occasional seasoning (using some source of fat; bacon grease, olive oil, butter, whatever your prefer and some heat), and, assuming you don’t get anything too burnt on or stuck in there, just a quick wipe down after use (ideally you don’t want to over wash cast iron cookware as it removes the oil seasoning and can promote rusting).  So give it a shot, and do yourself some cast iron cooking.  I am willing to bet you’ll like it.

Last night I finally put the tagine to use.  I thawed some chicken drumsticks earlier in the day to be the central component of the tagine.  To start off I seared each drumstick all over in a skillet.  Once they were nice and crisped I removed them and placed them in the tagine.  I deglazed the skillet with a splash of red wine and threw in some chopped onions to pull up the flavor.  While the onions were sauteing I chopped up some celery, carrots, cherry tomatoes, and cilantro and then added them all to the tagine with the chicken.  When the onions were nice and slightly caramelized I added them to the tagine as well.  I also added a can of chickpeas.  Moroccan cuisine is known for its bold and complex spices so in my spice grinder I ground whole seed cumin, whole seed coriander, whole seed fenugreek, mustard seed, cardamom, turmeric, black pepper, red pepper flakes, allspice, cinnamon, garlic powder, and sea salt.  I mixed half of this spice mixture with about 2/3rds cup of water, one squeezed lemons juice, and one squeezed clementines juice.  I poured all of this over the vegetables and chicken, making sure that everything was well covered.  I also sprinkled the remaining dry spice mix over the top.  I then covered the tagine with its lid and put it into the oven at 375°.

I planned on cooking the tagine for an hour, so while it was in the oven I made some couscous to serve the stew on.  In a saucepan I melted some butter and then threw in some chopped garlic, chopped almonds, and pine nuts.  I cooked them for a few minutes at medium low heat, and then removed them.  I added about a cup and a half off water and brought it to a boil.  Once it was at a steady rolling boil I poured in a  cup and a half of dry couscous and stirred in the nuts and garlic.  I removed it all from the heat and covered it and let it sit.   About 15 minutes later I gave it a quick fluffing.

After an hour of cooking the tagine was perfectly ready.  The chicken was tender and flavorful and the vegetables retained a slight crisp and a strongly infused spice flavor.  The liquid in the base made a wonderful and aromatic sauce to pour over the couscous.  All and all I would call this meal a huge success and I definitely look forward to cooking more dishes in the tagine.  Next time I’d like to do some lamb.

For those of you not in the know (and too lazy to click the link I provided above), K-Cups are a coffee brewing system that makes coffee by using single serving little cups placed in specific coffee machines.  The systems are said to be able to brew coffee in a mere 20 to 60 seconds.  Furthermore, no measuring is required, as the cup has the specified grounds for a single mug of coffee.

Now, let me list the ways that these annoy me. 

First and foremost I see this as an extremely wasteful product.  As each K-Cup, correlates to only one cup of coffee, there is additional waste product (more than just grinds) created with each cup of coffee brewed.  While I have read about the My-K Cup, which allows conventional coffee grounds to be used (thus creating less waste) and some K-Cups are supposedly ”recyclable” (and yes those quotation marks are intentionally sarcastic), the main K-Cups I see available and advertised are nothing short of additional wasteful plastic products.  Coffee brewing does not need to be remotely this wasteful at all.  Grinds can easily be composted.  As can coffee filters (and you can opt, in most cases, for stainless steel or copper, mesh filters that can be reused indefinitely.  This is what I do and it works great).  As such, generally only the packaging creates a certain waste product, and even those are more often being made recyclable or compostable.  I think it is appalling to endorse such a blatantly wasteful product.

Secondly, the illusion of quick convenience and ease of K-Cups irritates me to no end.  I brew myself two cups worth of coffee every day.  Often times I also grind my own coffee beans.  How much skill and time does making this coffee take me?  Hardly any, maybe a minute or two of production and about five or six minutes to brew.  Is that more work and time than just putting a little plastic cup in a machine and pushing “Go?”  Yes, it is.  But serious get the fuck over it.  If you feel like spending less than ten minutes preparing your daily coffee is an issue then I think you are probably needing to do a lot of re-evaluting.  Even furthermore, on the easy of not having to measure or figure out the amounts, making coffee is almost one of the easiest things you can do.  Pretty much every bag of coffee has instructions on how to brew it, and if not, a quick look on the Internet will certainly solve that problem.  If you use a french press to brew your coffee it is simply warming up water (which you have to do with the K-Cup systems too by the way), adding the grinds, pressing them down, and letting it steep for a few moments.  It is really not anymore more difficult.  If you do use a drip system (like I do) here’s a hot idea, how about during the six or so minutes of brewing you get a few other things done instead of just standing around watching the drip-drip-drip.

Lastly (kind of), from what I can tell by my astute research (which is really just looking at prices at stores) the K-Cups are significantly more expensive than brewing your own coffee.  Most of the K-Cup boxes I have seen contain something like 16 K-Cups, which is 16 cups of coffee.  They run about $12 to $14 for a package of them.  According to Scott, who roasts coffee at Palmetto Bean here at the library, one of his 14 oz bags of coffee can produce 45 cups.  He charges $8 a bag. So on top of it all, from what I gather, K-Cups are not even really economically that great.

So let me sum this all up.  Basically, from best I can tell, K-Cup systems can produce a single cup of coffee in a minute or less all at the expensive of spending more money and creating unnecessary waste.  To me this is moronic and really just demonstrates a general problem with people and overall laziness.  We are all too often willing to essentially spend more for the appearance of saving time and doing things easier.  For all I can tell, K-Cups are a crock and a waste and really just ridiculous.

Allow me to be fair though, I have offered my rant and rage, I now invite those of you who choose to use K-Cups to explain to me why you think it is a better system than conventional drip coffee makers or french presses.  I am willing to admit that perhaps I have missed some overwhelming secret amazingness about the K-Cup systems and if it can be proven to me I will work to amend my stance.  Until then however, I think they are fucking stupid.

However, all good things come o pass and once again it is time to return to the working week.

Hey, no worries.  New Year’s Day is coming right up, meaning another long weekend.  Maybe it won’t rain as much and I can spend some time outside.

Peacerinos for now.