Monthly Archives: October 2025

Blog

Why Writing Simply for Clearer Meaning is Important

1 Comment

Often, beginning writers write long, winding sentences that lose track of their meaning. Typically, this happens because novice writers have a lot to prove, and simply do too much. What budding writers forget is that writing simply for clearer meaning is important. Writing simply is an important function of writing because it shows that the writer has a direct command of language. In this way, they are able to say more with less. It is okay to write big, long sentences with lots of punctuation and conjunctions from time to time. Yet, it is an entirely other thing to write simple, direct sentences that pack a lot of meaning.

How Can Writers Write Simply for Clearer Meaning

To start, a simple sentence has a subject and a predicate, and this also makes it an independent clause. Both terms are interchangeable: simple sentence = independent clause.

A sentence is independent because it can stand on its own. So that also implies that a simple sentence should start with a subject and end with that subject doing something. After all, a simple sentence is a subject and a predicate. Therefore, simple sentences are very direct.

Henry played his guitar loudly. The flurry of music filled his head and he smiled.

The above sentences are simple but tell a great deal. We learn about Henry, that he is a musician, and that he loves music. He is probably very good at playing guitar, too, because the writer used the words “flurry” and his appreciation of this is apparent. In this instance, simple sentences help writers write clearly, stay on track, and convey meaning.

Let’s look at an excellent example of writing simply from Ernest Hemingway’s In Our Time:

“They shot the six cabinet ministers at half-past six in the morning against the wall of a hospital. There were pools of water in the courtyard. There were wet dead leaves on the paving of the courtyard. It rained hard. All the shutters of the hospital were nailed shut. One of the ministers was sick with typhoid. Two soldiers carried him downstairs and out into the rain. They tried to hold him up against the wall but he sat down in a puddle of water. The other five stood very quietly against the wall. Finally the officer told the soldiers it was no good trying to make him stand up. When they fired the first volley he was sitting down in the water with his head on his knees.”

I believe this passage is perfectly simple, and it tells the audience exactly what the need to know. Of course, if you were a writer who focuses on more flowery passages, this excerpt could be made into something more purple. Hemingway wrote in a very straightforward manner (perhaps too straightforward according to some). So, here is a reedit connecting some of the simplicity while still maintaining its thrust and meaning:

“They shot the six cabinet ministers at half-past six in the morning against the wall of a hospital. There were pools of water in the courtyard, and there were wet dead leaves on the pavement. It rained hard. All the shutters of the hospital were nailed closed, and one of the ministers was sick with typhoid. Two soldiers carried him downstairs and out into the rain. They tried to hold him up against the wall, but he sat down in a puddle of water. The other five stood very quietly, and, finally, the officer told the soldiers it was no good trying to make him stand up. When they fired the first volley he was sitting down in the water with his head on his knees.”

Both passages are simple enough. One is very Hemingway, while the other connects the ideas and avoids repetition. The first is the author’s voice, while the second is creating greater flow between ideas. Both work, and both are simple in construction. They both convey the same meaning.

Verbosity and Grandiloquence

There are writers that use long, complicated words to create mood and to set the tone of writing, and that is totally fine. Those writers are conveying different moods and tones through their use of syntax. However, those writers (Joyce Carol Oats, Flannery O’Connor, Charles Dickens, etc.) have had a great deal of experience writing. And, practically speaking, as a budding writer, the focus on simplicity should be paramount. In other words, writing simply for clearer meaning should be crucial for a beginning writer.

One thing a writer learns eventually is that a thesaurus is not necessary to be a good writer; though, they do come in handy. Yet, one’s eye is much more clear than the ocular device on one’s head, if that makes sense. Thus, grandiloquence is also not necessary for a writer to make a clear statement. Similarly, a large amount of words for wordiness’ sake is just wasting somebody’s time. Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Grey is a great example of this verbose idea. Wilde loved words and using lots of different, complicated, ones to convey meaning.

Conclusion

What needs to be said is this: a beginning writer needs to cut down the length of their sentences and their word count in order to discover what is essential. In this way, the writer can see the simple message of their story or essay. Writing simply for clearer meaning allows the writer the freedom to evolve. From a simple passage, they can continue honing the story itself or begin to add more flowery passages while connecting ideas with more creativity and clarity.

Analysis, Blog

An Analysis of “The Selfish Giant” by Oscar Wilde: Magical Allegory

Leave a comment

Magic is a wonderful element in fiction. It appears from wizards’ hands and from the Emerald City itself. There are also a great deal of regrettable actions in fiction, that lead characters to sin and vice. Yet, sometimes magic appears in tales of woe and regret. In “The Selfish Giant,” by Oscar Wilde, a magical garden takes center stage, as well as religious allegory and sorrow.

Summary of “The Selfish Giant”

The Angry Giant

Wilde’s “The Selfish Giant” tells the story of a giant who runs a beautiful garden. The beauty of this garden is truly magical indeed, and it has caught the attention of some local children. As rambunctious youths, they want to spend their days playing among the beautiful flowers.

Wilde writes that, “It was a large lovely garden, with soft green grass,” and “there over the grass stood beautiful flowers like stars, and there were twelve peach-trees that in the spring-time broke out into delicate blossoms of pink and pearl, and in the autumn bore rich fruit.” These pleasantries are enticing to children as it gives them a place to run and play. A place to be free.

The giant, an unhappy lout, catches the children playing reproaches them, sending them from his glorious garden. Driven off, the children find that they have few places to play and yearn to return to the garden. The giant, meanwhile, places a sign board up telling the children to “keep out!” The seasons take note of the giant’s actions. As punishment for this, the seasons decide not to change in the garden, and the birds do not sing either. A flower even pokes its head out, “but when it saw the notice-board it was so sorry for the children that it slipped back into the ground again, and went off to sleep” (Wilde). The seasons, meanwhile, had a field day.

Wilde writes: “The Snow covered up the grass with her great white cloak, and the Frost painted all the trees silver. Then they invited the North Wind to stay with them, and he came. He was wrapped in furs, and he roared all day about the garden, and blew the chimney-pots down.”

A Changing Heart

After a long time alone and without the spring, the giant wakes one morning and hears singing coming from the garden. He investigates and finds children in the playing. Overjoyed at their return, he then sees a small boy—much too small—trying to climb into the trees like the rest. This “melted” the giant’s heart and he went to help the child, which he does by setting him in the tree like the rest. With this action, the giant gave the garden to the children, having admitted to being selfish, and knocked down the wall he created to keep them out.

At the end of his life, the giant sees the little boy once more. However, now the boy tells him that he has come to take him to “Paradise” as the giant had shared his garden with the children.

Analysis of “The Selfish Giant”

This story is about magic in multiple ways—mostly love and redemption. The love of the giant proved a magical resource. Even though he was selfish, he was able to see through his own cruelty. He eventually becomes a decent person to the children (and steward of the garden). Additionally, through his redemption, the giant became selfless and caring, which benefitted more than himself.

Furthermore, we have religious allegory in this story, which often appears in fantasy fiction. The garden in which the children play is similar to Eden. The giant eventually shares this garden, and through magical/religious means, he is rewarded with paradise. This is afforded to him through the Christ-like child who takes him there.

At the end of the story, Wilde tells us that, “when the children ran in (the garden) that afternoon, they found the Giant lying dead under the tree, all covered with white blossoms.” White blossoms, while beautiful, also symbolize purity and innocence. Both of these characteristics the giant has regained through charitable spirit.

Conclusion

In “The Selfish Giant” by Oscar Wilde, the author tells tale of love, regret, and a changing heart. In a way, it’s Dickensian in scope. The scowling old miser learns his lesson, after all. By looking at this text and understanding both its religious allegory and allusions, the reader makes better sense of a world fraught with the haves and the have nots. Open your heart, the story tells us, and Paradise is yours.

Blog, Writing Craft

Improving Syntax and Sentence Structure in Writing

1 Comment

Writers must stop and wonder about their craft often. If they don’t, then evolving as a writer becomes impossible. One way to guarantee an evolving writing style is exploring the fundamentals of writing. By understanding what makes grammar work and function, writers obtain a larger command of language and set better routines. In this way, understanding syntax and sentence structure in writing is important for writers, so they know the best ways to formulate words and sentences.

What is Syntax and Sentence Structure?

To put it simply, syntax is the way an author structures a sentence. The Guilford College Writing Manual states that syntax is a “joystick” that allows you “to control your style,” as it “refers to the way you arrange words in such units as phrases, clauses, and sentences.”

Additionally, Purdue asserts how a writer’s sentences are written and received are “matters of syntax,” and “as are the ways that different clauses are arranged and how they flow. Choosing different kinds of syntax allows writers to manipulate the qualities of rhythm and coherence throughout a piece of writing.”

Thus, if we consider syntax, then we are considering how to structure our sentences.

What are Three Syntax Considerations?

There are many elements of writing to think about when writing. Three aspects are worth your time and consideration: sentence structure, grammar, and creativity.

Sentence Structure

The top of the list is certainly sentence structure. If you are unfamiliar with different types of sentence structures just remember that there are four main types: simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex.

  • Simple: A subject and a predicate (also known as an independent clause).
  • Compound: Two or more independent clauses (simple sentences) joined with a comma and a conjunction.
  • Complex: One or more independent clauses joined by one or more dependent clauses (and a subordinating conjunction).
  • Compound–Complex: Two or more independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction and one or more dependent clauses (and subordinating conjunctions.

Grammar

It is important to understand the basic conventions of grammar in writing. That is to say, there are some elements that are absolutely essential for a sentence to work. For instance, capitalize the first word of every sentence, put punctuation at the end, use commas where necessary, and make sure your ideas flow clearly. The best way to get a handle on grammar is to practice writing simply and focus on simple and complex sentences to begin with.

Creativity

The best way to describe the final syntactical consideration is by asking a writer to go to their bookshelf and open their favorite book by their favorite author. Look at the first few lines of their story. What moves do they make as authors to get across their point?

For instance, consider these first lines from famous literary works and authors:

  • The Dead Zone by Stephen King: “By the time he graduated from college, John Smith had forgotten all about the bad fall he took on the ice that January day in 1953. In fact, he would have been hard put to remember it by the time he graduated from grammar school. And his mother and father never knew about it at all.”
  • Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling: “Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense.”
  • To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee: “When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow. When it healed, and Jem’s fears of never being able to play football were calmed, he was almost never (concerned and a little worried about how you’re acting or what you look like) about his injury.”

The writers presented above use a conversational tone. However, consider that Rowling tone is a bit cheekier while King’s is a bit more colloquial. Meanwhile, Lee speaks to the youth of her characters and gives a sort of innocent retelling of events. With that said, each of these writers conveys their point clearly. We have a writing voice and that helps us convey information in our own way, whether we are informal or formal. Typically, a writers creativity and understanding of grammar and conventions guides their voice.

Conclusion

A helpful way to implement improvements in syntax and sentence structure in writing early on is to think while you write. More or less, writers should be aware of what they are doing while crafting. There are many people who write with fear, angst, and resentment, and with good reason–writing is hard. The trick is to find ways to ease the burden of the process so writers can be productive in their composing journeys.

Folklore

The Real Identity of Alexandre Dumas’s The Man in the Iron Mask

1 Comment

In Alexander Dumas’s 1847 novel The Man in the Iron Mask, the three musketeers are once again united to defend honor and the crown. This time, they work together to replace the King of France with his twin brother–the titular Man in the Iron Mask. Yet, while much of this story is literary nonfiction, the kernels of truth are compelling. In fact, there was a real Man in the Iron Mask. With that said, historical mysteries are interesting because when they remain unsolved for centuries, speculation tends to overshadow factual accounts. This is definitely true in the case of the man in the iron mask, who was an unknown figure in history, likely imprisoned for political crimes against King Louis XIV.

France during King Louis XIV’s Rule

During King Louis XIV’s reign in France, there were massive cultural shifts in arts and religion. Meanwhile, the king worked to expand his control over government. At the same time, workers and peons of the kingdom suffered a great deal. According to folkloric tradition, times of strife create engaging stories. As in this case, the aristocracy in the country held a great deal of wealth, while the lower classes were taxed excessively.

There existed a massive wealth gap in the country, and the newly built Palace of Versailles exemplified the extravagance of the administration. There’s nothing quite like pouring out a chamber pot into a dirty street and looking up to see a resplendent castle that you’d never enter in your lifetime. The Palace exemplified rich life, as Louis held lavish feasts and grand balls.

Accordingly, the lower class lived horrible lives of work and toil. They had difficulty obtaining food and lived through cold winters where death lingered just outside the door. Their clothes and homes were drab and they lived in “homely villages.” The lives of the lower class were a plague unto itself.

As stated: “For those who called the Third Estate home in the 17th and 18th century, their state of living was not as desirable as that of the high nobility. Often taken advantage of due to high tax breaks given to the upper nobility, the largest percent of the population was mistreated despite making up the identity of France.”

It is important to highlight the unfairness of this period. This is so because it relates to King Louis’s lack of empathy toward people in French society. The following story shows this to be true.

History of The Man in the Iron Mask

Life and Times

Meanwhile, authorities during King Louis’s reign kept a prisoner in France’s dungeons for 30 years starting in 1669. The prisoner was forced to wear a mask around his head. While the name “The Man in the Iron Mask” is dramatic, it’s very misleading.

Instead of an actual Iron Mask as per images and depictions, he wore a black velvet mask. The creator of the mask had stiffened it with whalebone and used “steel springs which permitted its wearer to breathe, eat, drink, and sleep, without difficulty.” The mask was fastened on the back by a padlock.

J. A. Brendon writes that the prisoner was kept under lock and key. The mask became a part of his everyday life. He writes that, “He slept in it, prayed in it, ate in it; and two musketeers were detailed to shoot him at once should he ever dare to unmask,” Brendon states. “In the end he was buried, still wearing the mask.”

Throughout his life, the crown moved him between prisons that “corresponded with the successive postings of the prison governor Benigne d’Auvergne de Saint-Mars.” The prisoner was not allowed to speak with anybody at great length. The king and governor allowed words exchanged with an attendant to his cell and doctors over matters of health–but that was it as far as communication.

After his death, authorities went through great pains to remove his existence from the world. They scraped his cell of all markings, burned his cell door, along with his clothes, bedding and furniture.

But Who Was the Man in the Iron Mask?

Anna Blackwell writes in an 1860 edition of London’s Once a Week that the prisoner’s demeanor did not reflect the vulgarity and violence that one would suspect of such precautions.

She writes: “M. Nélaton described the masked patient as of dark complexion, possessing a voice so sweet and touching that it could not be heard without awakening sympathy; making no complaint of his position; grave and dignitied in manner, and having the air of a person of distinction: a description which tallies with that which was given of him to Voltaire by the son-in-law of the physician of the Bastille.”

Some sources allege that he was simply an Englishman, or the illegitimate son of Louis XIV known as Duc de Vermandois. Other identities have been hinted at as well, including kinship to Oliver Cromwell, the Duke of Monmouth, and the Duke of Beaufort.

As published in The Illustrated Magazine of Art, the prisoner could only have been “an Italian of the name of Matthioli.” Antonio Matthioli, according to the author, held the position of diplomat to the third Duke of Mantua. His dealings with King Louis resulted in charges of treason when he attempted to negotiate the sale of the fortress Casale to France. After the money for the deal was exchanged, Matthioli informed Spain and the Holy Roman Empire of what has transpired. As some have claimed, this led to his imprisonment as the man in the iron mask.

Regardless of conjecture, historians still debate the identity of the man in the iron mask.

Works Cited

“Matthioli: The Iron Mask.” The Illustrated Magazine of Art, vol. 2, no. 10, 1853, pp. 222–23. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20538126. Accessed 11 Feb. 2025.

Brendon, J.A. “The Man in the Iron Mask.” Historical Periodical. Feb. 1922.

Blackwell, Anna. “The Man in the Iron Mask.” Once a Week, vol. 3, Iss. 61, 25 Aug. 1860.

Blog, Writing Craft

Creating Simple Sentences for Stronger Writing

1 Comment

As writers, we should know our craft, and, unfortunately, part of that is grammar. I say “unfortunately” because English grammar is really hard to understand sometimes. Yet, the more you know the better off you will be when it comes time to write. With that in mind, the best place to start is always at the beginning. Of course, we can skip the letters and sounds that we learn when we are children, but we need to start at a foundational point. This point is known as “the simple sentence,” which is also known as a subject and a predicate. Creating simple sentences in writing can help create stronger writing.

What is a Subject?

To put it plainly, a simple sentence has a subject and a predicate. Both of these elements make up the simplest sentence type. But, what are the subject and predicate made up of as far as words?

A subject is what the sentence is about. What this means is that the subject is the noun or noun phrase (person, place, or thing) that appears in a sentence. They often appear at the beginning of a sentence.

Let’s take a look at this example:

Larry played his guitar.

In this sentence, Larry is the subject, because that is who or what the sentence is about. Additionally, Larry is a proper noun. Thus, it fulfills the requirements of being a subject.

Still confused? Work in reverse by asking yourself what the subject is doing.

So: who played the guitar? The answer is Larry.

In other words, who or what is performing the action of the sentence? In this case, who is playing the guitar.

Here’s another example:

The house was on fire.

In this sentence, the house is the subject because that’s what the sentence is about. It’s the noun.

Still confused? Work in reverse by asking yourself what the subject is doing.

So: what is on fire? The house is on fire. Here, the word “was”is acting as a verb, so that’s the action.

As such, the house, much like Larry, fulfills all the requirements of being a subject: it’s a noun and it’s doing something (an action).

What is a Predicate?

A predicate in simple terms is what the subject is doing, or, as some put it: the rest of the sentence. This is also the verb part of the sentence or the action.

Look at your subject like the VIP of the sentence: he/she/they/them. It is the most important part of the sentence, so we can move them off to the side. Now, we can identify the predicate. In this case, it is what the VIP is doing—the action they are performing—and it’s the rest of the sentence. This part we can think of as the fans of the VIP. They are just straggling along to follow the subject.

Consider the example “Larry played his guitar.” In this instance, “played his guitar” is the predicate.

For the second example, “The house was on fire,” “was on fire” is the predicate.

Conclusion

There are many rules and parts of speech to contend with. There are also a variety of sentence types. Yet, you really need to start at the beginning in order to understand how sentences are written. Identifying the subject and predicate helps you understand basic grammatical constructs. It also helps you identify the parts of a sentence that make it a sentence. Once you get that down, you are already on your way to mastering the craft.

Blog, Folklore

The Ferocious Ogres of Folklore and Myth

Leave a comment

According to folklore, Ogres are, in fact, not like onions. That is, while they actually do have layers, they are far more terrifying than their portrayals in media. For instance, ogres come in many shapes and sizes. This includes their description in famous literature, to their awesome power in roleplaying games.

History and Interpretations of Ogres

Ogres are often described as “hideous giants” that eat humans and come from folkloric stories passed through communities. As such, there are many depictions of the ogre monster. For example, the giants in Homer’s Odyssey and the giants in Jack and the Beanstalk.

However, their title comes from French or Italian etymology, and seems to relate to orgo or orco (“demon”). There is also some relation to mythological figures, such as Orcus. Moreover, there is a connection to the “cyclops of myth and heroic literature.” They share many of the same physical traits: large, carnivorous, and violent. These attributes define the modern view of the ogre. It also seems to set it apart from, say, your run-of-the-mill cyclops or giant.

Ogres Appearances in Folklore

Meanwhile, we see various interpretations of the ogre in Tales of Mother Goose. Specifically in the stories “Tom Thumb,” “Hansel and Gretel,” and “Little Red Riding Hood.” In the latter, the ogre-like wolf attempts to consume the heroine of the story.

As Cambridge Dictionary states (and others), ogres are “a large frightening character in children’s stories who eats children” (Cambridge). The cannibalistic or at least flesh-eating inclinations of the ogre seem to steer it toward a more taboo-breaking creature, as a giant (say from “Jack and the Beanstalk”) doesn’t necessarily want to eat people, but would rather stay in its high castle.

Furthermore, the fairytale “Puss in Boots,” the protagonist, Master Puss, embarks on an adventure and encounters a castle that was under the ownership of an ogre.

“He was the richest ogre that had ever been known, for all the lands through which the king had passed were part of the castle domain,” the story states. The ogre allows Master Puss to come into the castle and reveals that he can shape change into many different animals. Master Puss tricks the ogre into changing into a mouse, and he then gobbles up the ogre in his hubris.

Ogres Appearances in Modern Media

Likewise, the terrifying ogre of Dungeons and Dragons fame is described as a “hulking giant” that is “notorious for (its) quick temper.” An ogre “lashes out in a frustrated tantrum until it runs out of objects or creatures to smash” (D&D). If you’ve ever fought one of these pea-brained monster in Dungeons and Dragons, then you know they are difficult combatants. They have a lot of hit points, and the ability to smash your character into a pink mist.

Lastly, and as hinted at, the most well-known modern interpretation comes in the classic kids-film Shrek, where the ogre is a big, green, and soft-hearted monster who lives in a swamp. Shrek stands in contrast to what we know of the ogre–for the most part–as it seems as though his monstrous personality is just a front to keep villagers away from his home.

Conclusion

Ogres, as with most monsters of folklore, aren’t just one thing. Think about vampires. How many stories are there that characterize vampires in different lights? From the viscous Vlad the Impaler to the sensual Lestat de Lioncourt from Anne Rice’s 1976 novel Interview with the Vampire, to the horrifying nightmare child in John Ajvide Lindqvist’s 2004 novel Let the Right One In.

Much in the same way, we find overlap in the ogres’ stories with that of other monsters, from the werewolf’s often lumbering persona to a zombie’s insatiable bloodlust. All of this to say: maybe ogres really are more complicated than we acknowledge.

Blog

“Rattle of Bones” by Robert E Howard: Swords, Sorcery, and Death

2 Comments

The horrible darkness of unknowing and terror glides through our subconscious in terrible times. It occurs when it is dark and we can’t find our way, or when a strange visage appears on the horizon. In “Rattle of Bones” by Robert E Howard, who was also the progenitor of the sword and sorcery genre. Howard’s story features weird elements and hallmarks of the sword and sorcery genre: intense action and menacing villains.  

Who is Solomon Kane?

I thought it would be important to discuss the hero of our tale, as he appears in many other stories as well. Solomon Kane was the invention of Robert E. Howard, who also created the classic Conan the Barbarian, and Kull the Conqueror. Though, Solomon differs from these two former characters as his slavish devotion to his faith is what pushes him forward on adventure. That is to say, Kane is a faith-based warrior, attempting to fight evil in the name of his convictions.  

“Unlike Conan and Kull—two of Howard’s creations I’ve discussed in recent posts—Solomon Kane is neither barbarian nor king.  Instead, he’s a Puritan adventurer traveling through Europe and Africa during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries” (Cohen). 

In addition, Kane is a serious figure interested in serious work. Though, much like many of Howard’s character, they unwillingly stumble into abstract adventures where monsters are melded with the Lovecraftian horror. In isolation, the story “Rattle of Bones” is a hybrid of adventure and horror. The story has gruesome deaths and dark settings perfect of readers interested in Gothic horror with a flair of frenzy. 

Summary

The Tavern

Our story begins in a black forest near the Cleft Skull Tavern that was “low, long and rambling, built of heavy logs.” Over the front door was the portentous sign that featured the image of the titular cleft skull. Two men, Solomon Kane and Gaston l’Armon, are greeted by their host, a bearded man who is suspicious of their motives. 

Howard describes them: “The two men sat down, with the bearing of men who have traveled far. One was a tall gaunt man, clad in a featherless hat and somber black garments, which set off the dark pallor of his forbidding face. The other was of a different type entirely, bedecked with lace and plumes, although his finery was somewhat stained from travel. He was handsome in a bold way, and his restless eyes shifted from side to side, never still an instant” (Howard). 

The two men eat and then are off to bed, deciding to leave early in the morning when there is sunlight. 

Sleeping Quarters

The two adventurers, Kane and Gaston, follow the host to their quarters. After he has left, they discuss how they could possibly bar the door from intruders in the night. 

 “Let us see if there be any way to make fast the door,” said Kane. “I like not the looks of mine host.”

“There are racks on door and jamb for a bar,” said Gaston, “but no bar.”

“We might break up the table and use its pieces for a bar,” mused Kane.

“Mon Dieu,” said l’Armon, “you are timorous, m’sieu.”

Kane scowled. “I like not being murdered in my sleep,” he answered gruffly.

Here, the story reveals that the two men met on the road. While Kane recognizes Gaston, he can’t quite place where he knows him from exactly. 

After fruitlessly searching for a bar to the door in their own room, they begin to search the tavern. They look through a second room and find nothing. Then, upon venturing into the third room, they discover “that the door was provided with a small barred opening, and fastened from the outside with a heavy bolt, which was secured at one end to the door-jamb” (Howard). 

On the floor of the room, there is a darkened spot where dried blood coagulated. Kane remarks that “Men have died here” when Gaston discovers a secret room that has the bones of a long-dead victim shackled to the floor. Gaston makes a crude remark of the dead man and is rebuked by Kane. Though Gaston says that he would come back from the dead to kill his attacker. 

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

As Kane thinks about the “demonry” of this murder, Gaston places a gun to the back of his neck. Kane recognizes the man as Gaston the Butcher and that he even recalls seeing him “in Calais some years agone.” Just as Gaston is telling him that Kane will never see him again, a strange sound occurs, which Kane refers to as “the rattle of bones.” 

The two men exchange words regarding Kane’s naiveté, Gaston’s barbarism, and Gaston’s league with the host, but right before Gaston kills Kane, a great shape takes up behind him. 

“And with the suddenness of death, from the darkness behind Gaston’s back, a broad, vague form rose up and a gleaming blade swept down. The Frenchman went to his knees like a butchered ox, his brains spilling from his cleft skull. Above him towered the figure of the host, a wild and terrible spectacle, still holding the hanger with which he had slain the bandit” (Howard). 

The host, whose insanity becomes clear to Kane, begins to lament his long, tortured years in a “Continental” prison. This imprisonment destroyed his mind for crimes he never committed. He tells Kane: “and here I make war on all men….” 

The host reveals to Kane that he had taken his bitter resentment for revenge out on anybody who came to his tavern. This includes a Russian sorcerer who threatened to kill him after death. Thus, the host stripped him of flesh and shackled him in the secret room. Yet, while monologuing, a force sweeps the host into the small room and the door slams shut.  Kane, alone, waitis in the darkened tavern. 

As Howard tells the reader: “Kane’s groping hands, sweeping over the floor, found a pistol, and he straightened, facing the door where the maniac had vanished. He stood in the utter darkness, his blood freezing, while a hideous muffled screaming came from the secret room, intermingled with the dry, grisly rattle of fleshless bones. Then silence fell” (Howard). 

Analysis

The story “Rattle of Bones” by Robert E Howard is a story of revenge and vengeance. It features the crusader character Solomon Kane in a passive mode (typically his best stories) where he watches horror unfold. Gaston, a maniacal and plotting character, greedy and craven, attempts to slay Kane. In the process of his own ignorance, the ghost slaughters him in revenge. The host, whose wishes revenge on humanity, is killed by a terrifying sorcerer that he himself killed. 

Furthermore, the story is a cyclical tale of blood begetting blood. To do harm is to have harm cast upon you. Kane, a fallible character of shortsightedness and anger, falls prey to Gaston. Later, the sight of sorcery unhinges him in the secret room but makes it out unscathed. Seemingly, he is the only character in the story not seeking vengeance to some degree. 

“Rattle of Bones” by Robert E Howard is a weird tale–and there are many of them–but it is simple and fun for any reading on a dark evening.

Works Cited

Cohen, Douglas. “The Tortured Soul: Robert E. Howard’s Solomon Kane. Dec. 11, 2008. Web. https://www.tor.com/2008/12/11/solomonkanetorturedsoul/

Howard, Robert E. “Rattle of Bones.” Weird Tales. 1929. Web. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70653/pg70653-images.html

Blog, Folklore

Spring-Heeled Jack: Folklore and the Supernatural

Leave a comment

“Enchanted by that dark and mist-blown strawberry spring, and by the shadow of violent death that walked through it on those nights eight years ago. The shadow of Springheel Jack.” – Stephen King | Strawberry Spring

Victorian England, a time of cultural and economic prosperity, was also home to murderous figures who stalked the streets. Jack the Ripper was one such serial killer who killed and mutilated multiple women near White Chapel. However, his story is both plausible and true–it actually occurred. Nonetheless, some stories require a bit more fantasy. Spring-Heeled Jack, the Leaping Terror of Victorian England, for instance, is this sort of fantasy, as he bounded over walls and attacked people on his way through London.

Victorian England

Name and Factors

Before the story of Spring-Heeled Jack, let’s discuss the years between 1837 and 1901. Historians know this timeframe as the Victorian Era, as Queen Victoria reigned supreme during this time. In this age of decadence, the high society of Britain was doing extremely well. They enjoyed a booming economy and a rich culture. Many people voted and two-thirds the working class made up the empire.

Some key factors that contributed to this economic prosperity included the Industrial Revolution, imperial control, and scientific innovation. Meanwhile, in the arts, Charles Dickens, the Bronte sisters, and Oscar Wilde contributed literature that would shape the writing world. Pretty much, from top to bottom, the country was alive with economic and cultural movement in a positive direction.

The Price of the Era

But such resplendence often comes at a price: industrializing countries have many issues, including child labor, poor working conditions, and wealth inequality. This was also true in England. If you weren’t working in any of the factories that dotted the city, then you were working as a railway worker, or you worked at the docks, or you and your children spent time in the coal mines. Additionally, social class kept a separation between the upper aristocracy and the lower poor. There was very little in the way of upward mobility. If you were born in the poor slums of England, then you died in the poor slums of England.

A Focus on Morality

Similarly, the morality of the era focused on modesty. The fixation on modesty contributed to high society considering some topics “improper.” The morality kept under check included “sexual proprietary, hard work, honesty, thrift,” and a “sense of duty and responsibility toward the less well off” (2).

Artists of the era took note, and some even faced ostracism. Aurhorities removed Oscar Wilde, playwright and novelist, from his high-status life due to homosexual acts. Wilde once wrote: “The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame.” Often, in the pursuit of modesty, those perceived as immodest are unduly punished. 

The Anatomy of Spring-Heeled Jack

Yet, within these prosperous confines, smoky streets, and industrialized neighborhoods, murderers lurked. They included Jack the Ripper, Mary Ann Cotton, Amerlia Dyer, and the titular Spring-Heeled Jack. 

While Spring-Heeled Jack’s appearance varies from account to account, the basic values are as follows:

  • Devilish, with clawed hands.
  • Eyes: Glowing red eyes
  • Clothing: Wore a black cloak, oilskin suit, helmet.
  • Abilities: Able to leap great heights and exhale blue flames.

Appearances of Jack and Timeline

The spectral, supernatural figure of Spring-Heeled Jack first appeared in the early 1830s. Author Karl Bell stated that local villages began reporting a “phantom bull or bear,” around their communities. Then, the more actualized appearance of Spring-Heeled Jack came into focus. He was “a tall, dark, cloaked figure who pounced upon individuals, predominantly women” (3). 

One of these earlier accounts included a woman by the name of Mary Stevens. She claimed to have seen Spring-Heeled Jack in London around 1837. He attacked her but then sprang away from her scream. Similarly, in 1838, a woman by the name of Jane Alsop stated that a policeman knocked on her door. When she answered, he attacked her with claws and spat blue fire at her before leaping away. 

Later, in the 1870s and 1880s, Spring-Heeled Jack was spotted again, and even though he was fired upon by soldiers, he escaped unscathed. In time, Spring-Heeled Jack faded away into history, but his lore still lives on. 

The Identity of Spring-Heeled Jack?

There have been a variety of assertions as to Spring-Heel Jack’s personage. Some are convinced it was the Marques of Waterford, who started the story for his own amusement. If we consider the idea of “modesty” during this age then it stands to reason that it would indeed be improper of a Marques committed the evil acts of Spring-Heeled Jack.

Others claim that it was similar to both the werewolf phenomena and the Dancing Plague of Medieval England. That is to say, mass hysteria took hold. Considering it was a chaotic age of evolution and technology, there was still the spirits of violence stalking the corridors. The aforementioned Jack the Ripper murdered and terrorized the city. Spring-Heeled Jack, too, could just as easily manipulate his way into the human psyche through hysterical attitudes.

Finally, more theological and conspiratorial minds state that he was in fact some kind of Devil or an alien from a distant planet here to spring-heel his way through England. These connections are more tenuous, but the church’s prominent role in Victorian England could lend itself to demonic accusations. As for aliens, the endless fascination of outer space and visitors from other worlds lends itself to an errant, galactic invader.

Conclusion

In a similar vein to other folkloric creatures like the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, Spring-Heeled Jack lives in myth. He has been sighted by some (mostly country dwellers). His legend thrives on fragmented reports, sensational newspaper articles, and the Victorian fascination with the supernatural. 

Meanwhile, the police accounts for Spring-Heeled Jack seem pieced together and based on speculation. They read very similar to how the police handle investigations today, while trying to get ahead of public hearsay. That is to say, a common murderer can be turned into a 20-foot tall beast on a dime based on the victim’s account.

Either way, unlike more supernatural creatures from England, Spring-Heeled Jack will live on as a real threat for his fearful demeanor, violent actions, and association with the age of decadence in England. 

Blog, Folklore

Jack-o-Lanterns, Folklore, and the Devil

Leave a comment

A pumpkin is just a pumpkin. A turnip is just a turnip. Carve a face into them and suddenly you have a jack-o-lantern. While these carved-out, festive fruits are something to behold, they also have a mythic history to them altogether. These stories carry a deeper connotative meaning then just spooky faces to put on your doorstep. In fact, jack-o’-lanterns may be one of the most important objects in the modern Halloween tradition.

What Makes a Jack-o-Lantern a Jack-o-Lantern?

To start, jack-o’-lanterns are literal pumpkin lights. People cut the pumpkin “to resemble a human face.” With that, they become jack-o’-lantern. These contain the popular pumpkin grin and candle. A more botanical definition describes pumpkins as “a large, orangish gill fungus that is poisonous and luminescent.”

A “Jack with the lantern” or “Jack of the lantern” refers to somebody “with a lantern or a night watchman.” This stems from Britain, where watchmen would refer to men they didn’t know by a “common name like Jack.” The term also refers to the aforementioned “Jack with a lantern” or the bog gas known as “ignis fatuus” that “often leads travelers to destruction.” These are a few “stock” definitions that describe what a jack-o’-lantern is, but the lore of jack-o’-lanterns goes much deeper.

The Jack-o-Lantern Folklore

Every jack-o’-lantern comes with the heavy weight of history, specifically Irish folklore. Back in the mid-1800s, children would carve jack-o’-lanterns out of vegetables and place candles inside to create a haunting visage around Halloween . This tradition added a unique touch to the season.

There is also a story about the name “jack-o’-lantern” and its origin in Irish tradition. According to legend, a blacksmith named Stingy Jack and the Devil were having a drink, but Jack didn’t want to pay when their drinking session was over. He convinced the Devil to turn into a coin to pay, and then Jack trapped the Devil near his pocketed cross. Later, Jack again trapped the Devil, this time up a tree, by carving a cross into the bark.

After Jack died, part of his bargain with the Devil was revealed: the Devil could not take Jack’s soul, as per one of their agreements. Additionally, the Lord would not allow Jack into Heaven due to his questionable life on Earth. So, Jack was kept out of both Heaven and Hell, forever wandering the Earth with a solitary coal to guide him through the dark. Jack “put the coal into a carved-out turnip and has been roaming the Earth with it ever since.”

Types of Jack-o’-Lanterns and Modern Usage

Depending on where you live, jack-o’-lanterns were carved from a variety of different fruits and vegetables in the past:

  • In Ireland and Scotland, people carved faces into turnips and potatoes.
  • In England, people carved jack-o’-lanterns from large beets.

Moreover, in Ireland, “people cut out heads and faces of turnips.” They then “hid them in the hedgerows as a prank during Hallowe’en” according to BBC. This may possibly be a better explanation for the jack-o’-lantern’s genesis. Things changed when immigrants came from overseas to the US, where pumpkins became the next best thing.

Conclusion

Jack-o-lanterns are an important function of the season. They provide an easy decoration and also a chilling image of the connotative, spiritual power of the holiday. They also remind us to stop and reflect on why we celebrate certain aspects of the Halloween. After all, a pumpkin may be just a pumpkin, but after we cut it open–we have symbolically embraced a whole world of folklore and tradition.

Blog, Folklore

Was Halloween Built on Sacrifice? The Truth Behind Samhain

Leave a comment

In Ray Bradbury’s The Halloween Tree (1972), a group of boys are whisked away on a magical Halloween eve and venture through time to learn the true meaning of Halloween. They encounter many obstacles and a great deal of folklore in the process. Some of it is true and some of it not true. All of it is laced with darkness. But just how sinister is it really? While there are many allegations that the ancient tradition of Samhain is actually a sacrificial party for pagans, there seems to be no first-hand accounts of this fact. In actuality, the folkloric origins of “sacrifice” have more to do with propaganda and less to do with tradition. 

Sacrificial Origins

The Celts and Halloween

The Celts have had a significant impact on our modern understanding of Halloween. Much of the celebration and nuances, such as treats and celebration, come from these early stories. Allegedly, they started large pyres as a crux for celebration, and they danced in the embrace of “Samhain” (pronounced “sow-win”). The celebration lasted from October 31st through November 1st (Gershon).

As the folklore goes, the bloody history of Halloween included sacrifice and murder to keep the spirits at bay. The dead would stay beyond the walls of the living, until that wall became thin. Some researchers indicate that this was a time when the “nights grew longer and vegetation died off, the sagas represented doors opening between the lands of the living and dead” (Gerson). And through these doorways stepped the deceased ancestors previously laid to rest.

The Giants of Sacrifice

These stories state that the Celts sacrificed their children, grains, and cattle to the Fomorians of Irish Mythology. The Fomorians were a monstrous race of hostile ne’er-do-wells. These Fomorians would eat and consume and destroy unless plied with sacrifice to appease them.

As written in The Irish Post: “According to the ancient ‘Book of Invasions’, each Samhain the people of one Irish village sacrificed two-thirds of their children, their corn and their milk to the supernatural Fomorians,” and, “According to the later Dindsenchas and the Annals of the Four Masters – which were written by Christian monks … that a first-born child would be sacrificed at the stone idol of Crom Cruach every Samhain.” 

However, Halloween history contains a plethora of myth. Thus, it seems many historians interpret the Fomorians as symbolic of nature and its destructive forces. Still, superstition shaped the rituals of the time.

Sacrificial Charges

Strabo and Geography

Greek Philosopher Strabo explains in Geography that out of superstition the Celts created massive figures composed of straw and wood. They used these figures for the alleged sacrifices. According to some researchers “… Strabo records that ‘cattle and wild animals and all sorts of human beings’ were thrown into this colossus. It was then set on fire. Strabo also asserts that the ‘wicker man’ was just one method of human sacrifice …” The druids would also, “shoot victims to death with arrows, or impale them in the temples” (Mingren). 

In Caesar’s Own Words

The sacrificial claims don’t end with Strabo. Julius Caesar himself alleged that the barbaric tradition was happening just outside the borders of Rome. In De Bello Gallico, Caesar wrote, “They (Gauls) believe, in effect, that, unless for a man’s life a man’s life be paid, the majesty of the immortal gods may not be appeased …” Which means that a human must sacrifice themselves to make the Gods happy. He also writes, ” … and in public, as in private life they observe an ordinance of sacrifices of the same kind.” So, here sat the head of Rome, and he believed through the stories relayed to him that the enemy burned their own countrymen.

Caesar also wrote that some of the Gauls used “figures of immense size whose limbs, woven out of twigs,” were stuffed with living victims and set ablaze. “… the men perish in a sheet of flame,” he stated. “They believe that the execution of those who have been caught in the act of theft or robbery or some crime is more pleasing to the immortal gods. Yet, when the supply of sacrifices fails they resort to the execution even of the innocent” (Tastes of History). These allegations create a visceral image of bloodthirsty heathens waiting to bombard the Roman populace with their pagan ways. Thus, Rome’s narrative of a less civilized enemy held true in history as well, whether fact or fiction. In so many ways, Caesar’s own writings enabled the barbaric perspective of the Celts to take hold onto history. History is written by the victors.

Contrary Opinions

The Druids and Sacrifice

It’s important to note that Caesar may have been embellishing a bit. It is pure speculation whether there were actual human sacrifices even in the most famous instances of presumed sacrifices. Researchers are unsure if some of the remains of historical sacrifices were actually the result of “a homicide, a violent robbery, or the execution of a criminal” (National Geographic).

As stated by Irish Central: “As of yet, no human remains have been found within a Celtic Gallic sanctuary that clearly indicates a violent death. In the case of singular skulls or headless bodies, decapitation appears to have taken place after death, and one cannot be certain that these humans were alive, or even intact when they arrived at the sanctuary.”

All the same, it should be noted that researchers believe the “Lindow Man” was a human sacrifice. As stated, his “head had been violently smashed,” and “had been strangled and slashed.” The reason for his sacrifice is a mystery. Though, some researchers have pointed to the Druids’ fears of continued Roman invasion (Owen). Therefore, a sacrifice may have seemed necessary. Yet, one instance of human sacrifice is an outlier. This does not mean the Druids were killing people for their festivities in order to keep the spirits from harming them (Krul). 

Rome and Propaganda

The deaths related to sacrifice “predate the Roman era.” As such, it is difficult to ascertain whether Caesar was embellishing for propagandistic purposes or not. However, considering the fearsome depictions of the Gauls in Roman society—Caesar’s intentions may not have been historically benevolent. After all, physical victory over the Gauls was essential for Caesar. By demonizing their culture, he won the psychological war as well.

Additionally, a few sources speak to the idea that the Celts committed sacrifices in their time. Still, many of the sources either point to Strabo or Julius Caesar, who were not present at these celebrations and were pushing a pro-Roman/Greek narrative that overhyped the barbaric nature of the enemy.

Conclusion

The Romans eventually conquered the Celts and their culture, and adopted the Celtic celebration of Samhain into both Feralia and Pomona. The former was a day of the dead and the latter was to celebrate apples. These celebrations, plus those of Samhain, have lived on in various ways, from eating snacks to playing tricks or dressing up in costumes.

But, just as those traditions have lingered, so has the brooding nature of Halloween as an evil holiday that has links to the Devil and human sacrifice. Certainly, folklore in this way has created a negative connotation for some cultures and traditions pas and present. The fears of Satan and Halloween still crop up, and evildoers still allegedly stuff candy with razorblades. In some cases, these connective strands from evil to Halloween have created improper impressions. In this instance, the uncivilized held an obsession with human sacrifice. Yet, these charges come from the words of conquerors. Either way, the modern Halloween tradition is devoid of human sacrifice, which means you can still trick-or-treat without fear of sacrifice.