Brief Notes on Movies Vol. 1 No. 3

Leave a reply

Sometimes Kalene and I spend so long trying to decide on which movie to watch that we run out of time for actual viewing. To combat this, I sought out several online lists of best/worst movies in different genres.

This comes from from a Rotten Tomatoes list of the best slasher films.

#93: Deadly Blessing (1981)

  • Director: Wes Craven
  • Starring: Maren Jensen, Ernest Borgnine, Susan Buckner, Sharon Stone
  • Had I seen it before? Not that I remember.  
  • Should it be on such a list? [I hate saying negative things about other people’s work, but when you’re doing a project like this, sometimes you’re forced to. Sorry!] For the first two-thirds of the movie, you would be tempted to say yes. A young Sharon Stone, Academy Award winner Ernest Borgnine (!!!), an isolated location, religious conflict—what’s not to love? Unfortunately, this is a movie you could show to film school students if you want to illustrate the meaning of “third-act problems.” The whole movie goes off the rails, as if the creative team realized they had no idea how to end it. Red herrings come so furiously that it’s hard to keep up, and none of them make much sense. Plus, like The Incubus, this movie seems to forget that incubi are male. If I recall correctly, this was one of Wes Craven’s work-for-hire projects he made while working on the movies and shows he actually cared about. It shows. Given the mess at the end, it’s tough to believe there aren’t slasher movies that could replace this one on the list.

#92: Halloween Kills (2021)

  • Director: David Gordon Green
  • Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer, Andi Matichak
  • Had I seen it before: Yes, in the theater.
  • Should it be on such a list? [Again, sorry for the negativity] Absolutely not. I hated this movie when I first saw it. Watching it again proved a better experience, but not by much. The first of Green’s Halloween trilogy is one of the best horror movies I’ve seen. It gives John Carpenter’s original film a run for its money as best in the franchise. This one disappointed me about as much as any sequel ever has. Much like Halloween II, there isn’t much of a story. Michael meanders about Haddonfield, killing everyone he sees as he slowly makes his way back to his old house. Everyone in town tries to stop him. That’s pretty much it, which might have been enough to make a decent middle film in a slasher trilogy if it weren’t for the other problems. The nature of the movie sticks Laurie Strode in a hospital room for most of the movie, and unlike in Halloween II, she doesn’t even face off against Michael. Instead, we see a mob of incompetent nitwits take on the Shape with all the unearned confidence of a middle school wide receiver telling everyone that pro cornerbacks could never cover him. Chief among the boobs is Anthony Michael Hall’s Tommy, the grown-up version of an OG survivor. He leads the mob in all the wrong directions. They use deeply stupid strategies to corral Michael. They go after the wrong people, at one point mistaking a short and rotund mental patient for the tall, intimidating killer. And don’t even get me started on the repeated chants of “Evil dies tonight!” or the long speeches by Tommy and Laurie as they hit the viewers over the head with what it’s all supposed to mean. Plus, the ending squanders some of the feminist good will the first movie earned. This is simply not a good movie, though if all you’re looking for is to see Michael looking like a badass as he slaughters enough people to make a football team, check it out.

There will be more installments in the future. Join me, won’t you?

In the meantime, buy my books. All the cool kids are doing it.

Got comments, questions, or complaints? Email me.

Brief Notes on Movies Vol. 1 No. 2

Leave a reply

Sometimes Kalene and I spend so long trying to decide on which movie to watch that we run out of time for actual viewing. To combat this, I sought out several online lists of best/worst movies in different genres.

This comes from from a Rotten Tomatoes list of the best slasher films.

#94: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

  • Director: Marcus Nispel
  • Starring: Jessica Biel, Jonathan Tucker, Andrew Bryniarski
  • Had I seen it before? No, because like a lot of critics, I looked on this movie as unnecessary. Why remake a good movie without updating anything? It just seemed repetitive.
  • Should it be on such a list? You know what? I’m okay with it. Yes, it remakes the original without doing something new to justify its existence, but the acting is a lot better than you often see in slasher films. The new death house is creepy, more in an typical-house-of-horrors way than in the original “inbred cannibal hicks with terrible taste in decorating” set design. Like the original, it feels brutal without actually showing all that much gore. The filmmakers miss the subtler (!!) aspects of Leatherface’s masks, but this doesn’t hurt much. Jessica Biel also isn’t required to scream nonstop for half an hour, which cuts down on the teeth-grating tension of the original, but I’m not complaining. One TCM using that many screams is fine. So were the critics right? Is this movie unnecessary? Yep, but it exists anyway, and unless you’re simply offended that anyone would remake the original, this one isn’t a bad watch.

There will be more installments in the future. Join me, won’t you?

In the meantime, buy my books. All the cool kids are doing it.

Got comments, questions, or complaints? Email me.

Brief Notes on Movies Vol. 1 No. 1

Leave a reply

Sometimes Kalene and I spend so long trying to decide on which movie to watch that we run out of time for actual viewing. To combat this, I sought out several online lists of best/worst movies in different genres.

Here are some results from a Rotten Tomatoes list of the best slasher films.

#100: The Incubus (1981)

  • Director: John Hough
  • Starring: John Cassavetes, John Ireland, Kerrie Keane
  • Had I seen it before? Not that I recall.
  • Should it be on such a list? I’ll just say it wasn’t for me. It was nice to see John Cassavetes, but the acting, editing, and writing seem to match the movie’s RT “rotten” score. It would have been nice to see more of the subplots be resolved. Some of the minor characters don’t seem to justify their existence. Surely there are 100 better slasher movies.

#99: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022)

  • Director: David Blue Garcia
  • Starring: Sarah Yarkin, Elsie Fisher, Mark Burnham
  • Had I seen it before? No.
  • Should it be on such a list? I’m torn. The premise is a bit hard to believe; Leatherface has just been hanging around a deserted town all this time? In all that silence, nobody hears the screams of victims and the roaring chainsaw? On the other hand, the acting is often good, and the kills and scares often work well. I guess I can see why someone would put this on the list, but don’t come to the movie hoping to experience the same kind of visceral horror the first, less slick TCM gave us.

#98: A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)

  • Director: Stephen Hopkins
  • Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Kelly Jo Minter
  • Had I seen it before: Yes, several times. We rewatched it a few months ago, so we didn’t revisit it in sequence with the list.
  • Should it be on such a list? Let’s put it this way: If this one makes the top 100, then Elm Street #1-4 and New Nightmare better be on here, because all of them are better. Maddeningly, this one immediately erases most of the characters from #4, and apparently they couldn’t convince Patricia Arquette to return, which contributes to the less-than-stellar acting. By this time, Freddy is more comedian than monster, and we know better than to trust any ending that seems to leave him dead (again). I hate to say negative things about anyone else’s art, and Elm Street completists will want to take a look, but otherwise this is one of the weaker entries in the franchise.

#97: Madman (1981)

  • Direction: Joe Giannone
  • Starring: Gaylen Ross, Tony Nunziata, Harriett Bass
  • Had I seen it before? No, unless my 1980s exploits erased it from my memory.
  • Should it be on such a list? Look, I doubt anyone will argue that this film aspires to high art. Much of its execution will probably remind you of Friday the 13th and its various sequels: Boneheaded camp counselors wander into a supernatural killer’s woodsy territory, make the worst possible decisions, and get picked off one by one. That said, the film does give the titular madman a different backstory, including an evocation that echoes Bloody Mary and Candyman. The kills are mostly typical stuff, and you’ll probably wonder why there are seven or eight counselors for only five kids or so, but take my word for it; you’ve seen much worse acting. I do wish someone had told Giannone not to shoot so many takes that stretch out and out. Do we really need to pause for a full minute while a character looks around at nothing? Or follow someone across a large room as they shuffle inch by inch toward the next kill? No, we do not. Still, it’s fun in that cheap, amateurish way that provides much of the genre’s charm. I’m okay with its placement.

#96: Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

  • Director: John Carl Buechler
  • Starring: Terry Kiser, Jennifer Banko, John Ortin
  • Had I seen it before? Several times. We watched it again a couple of months ago, so we didn’t revisit it for this list.
  • Should it be on such a list? I’m never sure why characters keep going back to Camp Crystal Lake. “Sure, the last six sets of counselors were brutally murdered, but I’m sure we’ll be fine.” This movie reflects the continuing shift away from counselors and toward residents of the lake area and/or those who show up specifically to find Jason Vorhees. That helps with the realism of a movie that otherwise nudges the human characters toward the supernatural, where Jason has already been living. Having said that, the storyline with Tina’s father makes little sense. I’m never sure why Tina’s mom trust Dr. Crews so much when he’s clearly shady. Not that any of this is supposed to matter. Jason is the real protagonist at this point. We’re mostly here for the kills. In any case, surely slasher writers and directors have produced enough quality work that the seventh installment of this franchise wouldn’t make the list. The movie isn’t offensively bad like the very worst films in history. It’s an acceptable movie if you realize ahead of time that you’ll need to grade on a sliding scale. Still, I was surprised it made this list.

 #95: Halloween II (1981)

  • Director: Rick Rosenthal
  • Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence, Charles Cyphers
  • Had I seen it before? Lots of times. We watched it again a couple of months ago, so we didn’t revisit it for this list.
  • Should it be on such a list? Yes. The film was written by franchise creator and original director John Carpenter and Debra Hill. It’s the last Halloween film to star Jamie Lee Curtis until her return several years later. The whole movie consists of Michael Myers stalking an injured Laurie Strode through a hospital and dispatching various medical personnel along the way. Of course, Donald Pleasence’s Dr. Loomis tries to stop him, leading to an explosive finale some of the subsequent movies basically ignore. The vicious-cat-and-mouse game doesn’t make for much of a story, but the cast elevates the material enough that I’m surprised the movie is this low on the list. Clearly a second-tier franchise entry that doesn’t have much in the way of character development, it’s still got enough going for it to justify your time.

There will be more installments in the future. Join me, won’t you?

In the meantime, buy my books. All the cool kids are doing it.

Got comments, questions, or complaints? Email me.

On Imane Khelif

Leave a reply

It’s been quite a while since I’ve done a freebie “blog post” on my site, but I think it’s definitely time to sound off again. This one’s political, folks, and like most of my freebies on here, it will be lightly edited and quickly written. I am a professional writer, but these posts are much more informal than my pro work.

That said…

On social media, I’ve been seeing a lot of people comment on Imane Khelif, the Algerian boxer who recently made her opponent quit in less than a minute. Ever since, a lot of people who don’t have access to Khelif’s history or medical records have been saying a lot of things about a person they don’t know and her place in a sport they do not participate in. Some things you might want to keep in mind before you add your voice to this choir:

  • Many of these posts are calling Khelif a “biological male.” A few points here: first, before you use an athletic governing body’s threshold for how much testosterone a woman can have in her system as a basis for imposing your own beliefs about human sex on another person, you might want to ask who sets those standards, and why, and how, and why they aren’t universal. You might also acknowledge that there’s much more to being “biologically male” than hormones. Do you apply that same standard to men who aren’t producing enough testosterone? Are they somehow “biological women”? Besides . . .
  • . . . another marker of being “biologically male” are the individual’s primary and secondary sex characteristics. Do you know what Khelif has under her clothes and inside her body? If so, how? Have you considered your source for this knowledge? Are you assuming? Besides . . .
  • When a baby has indeterminate sex characteristics, who determines whether they are “male” or “female”? Far too often, it falls to the doctor, who sometimes recommends surgery to emphasize the sex characteristics that fit the diagnosis, which totally ignores how this child might feel in just a few years. See this old ABC News story for just one example. For those of you who are outraged due to your own certainty about who Imane Khelif is and how you know, you might want to think about all this. Of course . . .
  • . . . all of that is really moot in this case, because Khelif is and, as far as I can tell, always has identified as a woman. She is not transgender or intersex. Just because her “male” hormones have risen above one athletic governing body’s threshold for competition does not somehow negate her identity. Here we should also consider that her hormones levels do not exceed Olympic thresholds. She was cleared for competition. But . . .
  • . . . there is much more to sex and gender than hormone levels or sex characteristics. To understand these very complex issues, you also need to know about gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Along with sex as assigned at birth, these issues describe how we form our sex and gender identities. Here’s a necessarily oversimplified primer that can help you begin to understand. Sex as assigned at birth refers to what is in and on your body—your primary and secondary sex characteristics. Gender identity refers to how you feel inside. Note that ABC story about an individual who was assigned one gender but never felt comfortable presenting that way. You might have been assigned to male sex by your doctor but, as you grow, feel in your heart and mind like you belong to the female category. In other words, your sex as assigned at birth and your gender identity might be aligned . . . or they might not be. This is further complicated by gender expression, or how you present to the world around you. Do you wear clothes, engage in activities and attitudes and professions, etc., that your society has deemed “male”? If so, your gender expression is male, whether or not that aligns with your sex as assigned at birth or your gender identity. Sexual orientation refers, of course, to whom you are attracted to and whom you enter willing sex/romantic relationships with. Again, these four elements of sex and gender may all be aligned—as with someone who was assigned as male, and who feels like a male inside, and who dresses like his society recognizes males dress, and who feels romantic/sexual attraction to women. Or they might not all align. You might, for instance, be assigned as female, and wear makeup and dresses and such (if only for reasons of survival), and feel attracted to men, even though inside you feel male.
  • In short, being “biologically male” is much more complicated than some of you are making out, and there is much more to consider than just what kind of genitals a person has. Not that those genitals are any of our business . . .
  • . . . because we don’t, and shouldn’t, get to look under anyone’s clothes and check their genitals before letting them in the door. Nor do we get to impose our own ideas about identity on anyone else’s life.
  • Before you grab your torch and your pitchfork and join the crowd gathering at Khelif’s door, you might also note that she is Algerian, and if I am not mistaken, that country currently lists “changing gender” as illegal. Gender-affirming care is against the law (though intersex infant surgery is not). If you contribute to the perception that Khelif is a trans woman, you are threatening her freedom, possibly her life, in her home country. Your words and your posts have consequences. Please consider them.
  • Of course, it’s silly to try to legislate different genders, sexes, and sexualities out of existence. You might as well make it illegal to have brown eyes or to be under five feet six inches tall. “Transgender” is a category of being, not something you can demand a trans person negotiate to make you more comfortable.
  1. There is nothing wrong with being trans. When I point out that Khelif is not a trans woman, I mean only to say that a lot of people’s statements about her are wrong. We should all love the trans members of our human family just as much as we love anyone else. If you can’t do that, perhaps it’s time for some introspection.

This post is not meant to be all-encompassing. There are likely many more points to make about this situation and the arguments being posited. I do hope, though, that you’ll think about the issues related to sex, gender, and Imane Khelif before you use your public accounts to strike out at her, or against trans people, or against “masculine-looking” female athletes who are trying desperately to live their dreams.

Got questions, comments, or transphobic screeds you want to share? Send them my way at readersoundsoff@gmail.com. (Well, not the screeds. I’m not interested.)

ICYMI: Book Trailers!

Leave a reply

Thanks to Megan Edwards and the great folks at Imbrifex Books, you can now view the book trailers for Comanche, Lord of Order, and my forthcoming young adult novel Freaks. Enjoy and share! (Oh, and buy the books. Support independent authors and presses!)

The Outsider’s Totally Amateur Guide to the Dallas Cowboys’ Draft 2021, 4/1/2021 Version

Leave a reply

Welcome to the second edition of “The Outsider’s Totally Amateur Guide to the Dallas Cowboys’ Draft.” I have zero insider information and do very little research. This column is meant to be a fun thought experiment. There is absolutely no danger the Cowboys will do anything I suggest.

A few rules:

  1. No trades. Since I have no sources inside the NFL, it seems silly to speculate on what professional GMs will do with the resources that determine their career longevity. I’m making use of established draft picks, no more and no less.
  • I’m a writer and a college professor, not a GM. Don’t like what I do here? Feel free to say so, but don’t take it too seriously. Again, I have no influence on Dallas’s plans for the draft. I’m not sure I influence anything, in any area of life. So maybe be nice.
  • I will be using the Big Boards on The Draft Network or Pro Football Focus. I’ll switch back and forth and let you know which one I used for a given column.
  • Priorities will change according to Dallas’s off-season moves. I’m going with TDN’s list of draft needs: Cornerback, Defensive Interior, Safety, EDGE, Linebacker, Offensive Tackle, Interior Offensive Line, Quarterback, and Tight End. That’s also how I’m prioritizing Dallas’s needs. Safety has already moved from second-most-dire need to third. We’ll see what else happens.
  • I’ll justify the picks in a minimal way, but again, this is just one outsider’s often under-informed opinion. I’m not paying to get more information on a college player just so I can have some fun here. I try to find players who represent a good intersection of best player available and need. I try not to reach too badly just for need.
  • Since I’m just doing this for fun, I’m not going to agonize over these columns. In other words, you won’t be getting my best writing here. These columns will be written, very lightly edited, and posted as is. You want my best work? Buy my books or seek out my short-form published works. You can find links under the “C.V.” section of this site.

Today’s mocks use TDN’s information.

Pick #10: Patrick Surtain II, CB, Alabama

Dallas’s greatest need is probably still at cornerback. Most mocks have them taking a CB here unless Surtain is already gone, in which case Kyle Pitts looks to be the most popular choice. If both are gone, things get more interesting. Do they reach for a safety? Take one of the top offensive tackles? Choose Jaycee Horn? In any case, Surtain—this draft’s clear CB1, given how teams are shying off Caleb Farley and his back injury—was available here, so this was an easy pick, especially on TDN.

Pick #44: Christian Barmore, DT, Alabama

Defensive Tackle isn’t the highest priority with the signing of Brent Urban, but he’s on a one-year deal, and Barmore is the consensus DT1 in this draft. Somehow, he fell to 44 in this mock, so I snapped him up. TDN describes him as “a penetrating 3-technique that’s able to create vertical push and disruption.” Though we could still use a 1-technique like Tyler Shelvin, the value was simply too great here.

Pick #75: Jabril Cox, LB, LSU

LB also isn’t the greatest need on team—as of this writing, we’re more concerned with CB, S, EDGE, and TE—but again, it’s a question of fit and value. Dan Quinn wants LBs who can tackle and cover. Cox starred at North Dakota State and LSU, and TDN describes him as a “pursuit-style linebacker that can play man coverage.” Plus, he provides insurance in case one or more of the team’s established linebackers isn’t retained.

Pick #99: Hamsah Nisirildeen, S, Florida State

We signed two veteran safeties in free agency, which reduces the need this year. Both are on one-year deals, though, so we should give the position some attention. I’ve often taken a safety (usually Richie Grant) in the second round in my mocks, but here I waited until 99 and still got a contributor who can learn behind the veterans. TDN describes Nisirildeen as a “positionless sub-package defender” who can play in any scheme. I’d imagine that Dan Quinn can find ways to get him on the field and use that versatility.

Pick #115: Cameron Sample, EDGE, Tulane

Though not the greatest athlete among this year’s EDGE players, Sample also brings versatility to the Cowboys defense. TDN describes him as a stout run defender who can kick inside on passing downs. If Randy Gregory is still going to be used as a pass-rush specialist, the team could get both men on the field at once. If you can find a regular contributor at 115, you’re doing well.

Pick #138: Talanoa Hufanga, S, USC

Again looking to the future of the secondary and to versatile defenders, I chose Hufanga here for both fit and BPA. A violent tackler, he also seems to be ascending as a cover man. He could eventually take over as a starter.

Pick #179: Jamie Newman, QB, Georgia

Amazingly, I can get Newman at 179 on TDN, whereas over on PFF, I usually have to grab him at 115. Either way, I get a good backup for Dak Prescott. Quite a value at 179. (For more on Newman, see the 3-25-21 version of this column.)

Pick 192: Drake Jackson, IOL, Kentucky

Jackson played on the Kentucky OL for four years and is rated as a four-star player on TDN. According to them, he projects as a starting Center, which we’re still not entirely sure we already have on the roster. The question is whether he can adapt his play to Dallas’s team, but taking a third-day flyer on a player of his caliber isn’t the worst idea.

Pick 227: Cornell Powell, WR, Clemson

WR isn’t a position of great need this year, but this was a case of taking the BPA instead of reaching at some other position. Powell didn’t so much at Clemson until last year, when his play more or less exploded. He seems to be getting better and can play any receiving position. That kind of versatility and potential is what day three picks are made for.

Pick 238: Josh Ball, OT, Marshall

Ball played Left Tackle at Marshall and displays scheme versatility, as well as the potential to put on bulk and eventually compete for a starting position. Not bad for pick 238. (TDN has Ball as its 170th top prospect, meaning I got him nearly 70 picks later than his draft position. What a value.)

Feel free to let me know what you think.

Email me at @gmail.com. I can’t guarantee a response, but you never know.

Follow me on Twitter and Instagram: @brettwrites

Find me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BrettRileyAuthor

The Outsider’s Totally Amateur Guide to the Dallas Cowboys’ Draft 2021, 3/25/21 Version

Leave a reply

Welcome to the first edition of “The Outsider’s Totally Amateur Guide to the Dallas Cowboys’ Draft.” I have zero insider information and do very little research. This column is meant to be a fun thought experiment. There is absolutely no danger the Cowboys will do anything I suggest.

A few rules:

  1. No trades. Since I have no sources inside the NFL, it seems silly to speculate on what professional GMs will do with the resources that determine their career longevity. I’m making use of established draft picks, no more and no less.
  • I’m a writer and a college professor, not a GM. Don’t like what I do here? Feel free to say so, but don’t take it too seriously. Again, I have no influence on Dallas’s plans for the draft. I’m not sure I influence anything, in any area of life. So maybe be nice.
  • I will be using the Big Boards on The Draft Network or Pro Football Focus. I’ll switch back and forth and let you know which one I used for a given column.
  • Priorities will change according to Dallas’s off-season moves. I’m going with TDN’s list of draft needs: Cornerback, Defensive Interior, Safety, EDGE, Linebacker, Offensive Tackle, Interior Offensive Line, Quarterback, and Tight End. That’s also how I’m prioritizing Dallas’s needs. Safety has already moved from second-most-dire need to third. We’ll see what else happens.
  • I’ll justify the picks in a minimal way, but again, this is just one outsider’s often under-informed opinion. I’m not paying to get more information on a college player just so I can have some fun here. I try to find players who represent a good intersection of best player available and need. I try not to reach too badly just for need.
  • Since I’m just doing this for fun, I’m not going to agonize over these columns. In other words, you won’t be getting my best writing here. These columns will be written, very lightly edited, and posted as is. You want my best work? Buy my books or seek out my short-form published works. You can find links under the “C.V.” section of this site.

Since this is the first mock-draft column I’m posting here on my personal website, I’ll give you THREE mocks for the price of one. Today’s mocks use PFF’s information.

MOCK DRAFT #1

Pick #10: Micah Parsons, LB, Penn State

In this mock, Parsons lasted until pick #10 and seemed a better fit for the Cowboys’ needs than other available players. Considered a tweener who can play straight-up linebacker or the kind of linebacker/safety hybrid that can provide Dallas with versatility, he can also offer some future assurance that linebacker will continue to thrive if Sean Lee retires and Jaylon Smith is eventually released.

PFF grade for the pick: C+. (No idea why. I’ve chosen him this high in other mocks and gotten better grades.)

Pick #44: Richie Grant, S, UCF

A popular second-round target for Dallas, Grant brings a lot of skills that the Cowboys’ secondary can use right now. I completed this mock before Dallas’s recent free-agent signings at the position, so they may not target safety this high, but if they do, Grant seems like the best intersection of skill and availability. (Trevon Moehrig has been consistently going in the first round on PFF.)

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #75: Thomas Graham, Jr., CB, Oregon

The highest-rated cornerback available at 75 in this mock. He’s got experience and skills.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #99: Rashad Weaver, EDGE, Pitt

As I continue to re-stock last year’s historically bad defense, Weaver is the highest-rated player near pick 99 who also fits a need.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #115: Jamie Newman, QB, Georgia

It doesn’t seem fair to label Newman as a Georgia QB, but going into last college season, he was looked at as an intriguing player who could flourish in the SEC. I try to pick a QB in each draft around 115 or 138, due to Dallas’s need and Mike McCarthy’s penchant for drafting and developing them. Newman is often available here, so I snapped him up before he was gone.

PFF grade for the pick: A+

Pick 138: Marlon Tuipulotu, DT, USC

The highest-rated player at a position of need. I would have liked to address the position earlier, but things didn’t fall that way here. Luckily, Tuipulotu could help Dallas inside.

PFF grade for the pick: C+

Pick 179: Israel Mukuamu, CB, South Carolina

The other cornerback from SC in this draft, he was the best player available at a position of need.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 192: Tony Poljan, TE, Virginia

I hadn’t addressed this position yet, and he was the highest-rated prospect available.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 227: JaCoby Stevens, S, LSU

Stevens is consistently available in the seventh round. He’s got skills and a championship pedigree. He deserves a shot.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 238: Tristen Hoge, G, BYU

At the very least, he’s a big body that might contribute on special teams or the practice squad. Plus, the O-line needs depth.

PFF grade for the pick: C+

PFF grade for this mock as a whole: B+

Mock Draft #2

Pick #10: Kwity Paye, EDGE, Michigan

Paye brings a lot of skills to the position immediately. He shouldn’t need several years to get off the ground. He plays a position of need and has a high first round grade in most mocks I’ve read. This was the best marriage of need and BPA at 10.

PFF grade for the pick: A-.

Pick #44: Jeremiah Owusu-Koromoah, LB, Notre Dame

Sometimes these mocks present scenarios that just aren’t likely to happen in real life. This is one. JOK has a mid-to-late first-round grade on all the mocks I’ve seen, so it’s unlikely that he’d be available here. But if he were, I’d snap him up, as I did here. He can help shore up Dallas’s iffy linebacker unit and provides great value at 44.

PFF grade for the pick: A

Pick #75: Tyler Shelvin, DI, LSU

Shelvin is young and somewhat raw, and he can let his weight get out of control. But if he can stay disciplined, he would be a run-stuffing plug in the middle of Dallas’s D-line for the next decade. He’d be a great addition at the 1-tech.  

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #99: Eric Stokes, CB, Georgia

The best available corner, a position of great need that I haven’t yet addressed due to how the first two rounds played out. He’s experienced and solid.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #115: Jamie Newman, QB, Georgia

He was available here again, so I took him again for the same reasons as noted above.

PFF grade for the pick: A+

Pick 138: Kary Vincent, Jr, CB, LSU

Like Jacoby Stevens, Vincent brings a ton of skills, experience, and championship pedigree to the Cowboys’ new secondary. If he’s available here, Dallas should snap him up.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 179: Damar Hamlin, S, Pitt

This mock was completed after Dallas’s two new acquisitions at safety, so I felt comfortable with not reaching. Here, Hamlin is the best player available at the position.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 192: Darius Stills, DI, West Virginia

Another big body for Dallas’s defensive interior, he was the BPA at any position of need.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 227: Michal Menet, C, Penn State

This mock didn’t allow me much opportunity to bring depth and competition to the O-line, at least not in the early rounds. Here we bring both with someone thought to be versatile enough to play any interior O-line position.

PFF grade for the pick: C+

Pick 238: Nick Eubanks, TE, Michigan

I finally address this position with our last pick. Eubanks brings potential and a big-time-school experience.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

PFF grade for this mock as a whole: A-

Mock Draft #3

Pick #10: Kyle Pitts, TE, Florida

Finally available at 10 in my latest mock, Pitts doesn’t fill the position of greatest need, but he is thought to be a generational talent at his position, and Dallas does need a tight end, and he has the versatility to line up wide. Selecting him also means he won’t fall to a division rival.

PFF grade for the pick: A-.

Pick #44: Alim McNeill, DI, North Carolina State

Described as a player with the potential to contribute anywhere along the D-line, McNeill would be a fantastic get for the Cowboys, who need to invest in the interior. I’d be thrilled if Dallas manages to get him.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #75: Paris Ford, S, Pitt

The BPA who also meets a need at 75, Ford could contribute right away and learn from the free agents who have recently signed only one-year deals.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #99: Shakur Brown, CB, Michigan State

Like Ford before him, Brown was the BPA who also fulfilled a clear need. In most mocks, I try to grab Patrick Surtain or Caleb Farley at 10, unless one of the top-10 players falls to me. I couldn’t get them in these mocks, as it turned out, so I’m building the secondary in the later rounds.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick #115: Jamie Newman, QB, Georgia

Here he is again.  

PFF grade for the pick: A+

Pick 138: Richard LeCounte, S, Georgia

A big-time player for a big-time team in the best conference in college football, LeCounte joins our safety rotation at 138, which seems to be in the range PFF believes he’ll go. We’ve got a realistic shot at him if we don’t address the position earlier.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 179: Garrett Wallow, LB TCU

We haven’t addressed the second level of the defense yet. He’s the BPA.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 192: Brendan Jaimes, T, Nebraska

In these mocks, I keep having to wait until the later rounds to address the O-line, but Jaimes could potentially be a steal.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 227: William Bradley-King, EDGE, Baylor

It’s really late to address this position, but like Jaimes, Bradley-King has the potential to outplay his draft status.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

Pick 238: JaCoby Stevens, S, LSU

See above. He’s available again here. Taking him with our last pick almost feels like robbery.

PFF grade for the pick: B+

PFF grade for this mock as a whole: A-

Well, there we are: three different mocks you can scoff at. Feel free to let us know what you think.

Email me at @gmail.com. I can’t guarantee a response, but you never know.

Follow me on Twitter and Instagram: @brettwrites

Find me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BrettRileyAuthor

One Man’s Opinion–FanFic

Leave a reply

Last semester, a student asked me how I felt about fan fiction. I suppose it counted as one of those “don’t ask the question if you don’t want the answer” situations.

For me, fan fiction can be a good way to keep your creative juices flowing. It can be a way for burgeoning writers to find a (hopefully) supportive community. It can be a way for fans who are passionate about a given book/film/show/etc. to join a creative conversation about the text in question. There is even a chance, however miniscule, that it can provide exposure, which in turn might lead to offers, an agent, a contract, etc.

But.

While writing (or, for that matter, reading) fan fiction can be a fun creative exercise, it should not be the primary vehicle for a serious writer’s creativity.

I don’t mean “serious” in any kind of elitist or dismissive way. I’m seriously invested in pop culture and believe that a good horror movie or graphic novel or sci-fi TV show can be just as valuable and engaging as the most serious literary fiction. “Serious writer,” though, suggests a person who envisions writing as an artistic pursuit and/or a career. And, unless you can score a spot in the writer’s room of your favorite TV show or land a solicitation to write the next sequel, what you can do with the text will always be limited.

One reason is, of course, the violation of trademarks and copyrights. You can write all the screenplays you want for the second season of FIREFLY or a sequel to ‘SALEM’S LOT, but unless you have written permission to use those characters, nobody’s going to option, buy, or publish your work.

Another reason is that artists in general take risks.

Writing for yourself and your friends as a fun exercise can be harmless enough and, as stated above, it can help keep your creative edge well-honed. But “writing for yourself and your friends” isn’t the same as creating original works to share with the world. Generally speaking, creating new worlds and characters is harder than imagining further adventures for something already established. When talking to some writers who really want to pursue their art but ONLY on websites and forums dedicated to fan fiction, I often find that they lack the confidence to try and create something from scratch. To these writers, it feels safer to work with a world that has already found some degree of success, whether in critical or popular realms.

One aspect of art that young writers need to understand: you can’t be afraid to fail. Most people fail at different points in their career. Not everything you create will be wildly popular and/or critically acclaimed.

That doesn’t mean your work is without merit. Tastes vary, and today’s successful novel might be forgotten tomorrow, while an obscure, ignored, and/or critically lambasted book from today might be lauded as great sometime in the future. Look at Herman Melville, who enjoyed some initial popularity, then drew the ire of critics and the indifference of audiences to the point that he died more or less broke and obscure. Now we study him as one of the great voices of the American nineteenth century. Or take the poets who were popular in that same century. They don’t get nearly as much attention now as two poets who were truly ahead of their time—Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson.

What all that means is that “failure” and “success” are relative and subjective. You can measure success by your brave attempts to make your own art, or by whether you get published (regardless of sales/acclaim), or by sales, or by acclaim, or by how good it feels to take the stories burning inside you and put them on the page, whether or not they light a similar fire in anyone else. Or you might measure success by some other metric entirely.

The point is that only you can really know how successful your writing is TO YOU. To allow anyone else to determine how much your work means in your own heart is to give them power over your deepest self.

As a writer, you do the best you can in the time you have, and you put your work out there, and then you move on. It will live and breathe on its own.

What does this have to do with fan fiction? Again, when people sometimes ask me about fan fiction, I often get the feeling they want me to legitimize their choice, to tell them that writing fanfic and ONLY fanfic is a legitimate way of being recognized as a writer. That it’s okay to stay on that same forum, writing for the same people, about the same texts all your life.

If you’re doing it because it’s truly where you tap meaning and satisfaction in your work, fine. Neither I nor anyone else has the right to tell you what you’re doing is wrong. You will have to realize that the world of the arts and broader audiences almost certainly won’t seek your work out or disseminate it or pay you for it or throw accolades your way. But if you are willing to pay that price, then huzzah.

HOWEVER.

If you’re only staying on that forum out of fear—of success, of failure, of criticism, etc.—I would encourage you to reach. Go beyond what’s comfortable. Take risks. I am here to tell you from experience that good reviews and money and all that stuff feel good, and that mediocre or bad reviews, jerks @ing you on Twitter and IG, and so forth are survivable if you believe in yourself. Fear is one great nemesis of art. Don’t give in to it.

And, again, only you can define what “success” and “my art” mean to you.

When people ask about fanfic, it therefore doesn’t really matter. But if they still want my take, I tell them that it shouldn’t be your primary means of expression if you truly want to be a “serious writer,” which isn’t to say that writing fanfic is useless or worthy of my derision.

Bottom line: If you want to make expanding existing worlds your primary creative pursuit, you could try to break into the worlds of screenwriting or comics. You’ll have to know going in, though, that those fields are just as competitive as any other in the arts/entertainment world. If you can do it, that would “legitimize” your use of other people’s work.

Otherwise, I advise you to spend at least part of your time creating your own worlds. You never know what will happen.

That’s one man’s opinion, which you can take or leave as you like.