Here is the Product Description:

The Pact is back and demons are as devious as ever in The Crimson Pact Volume 2.

Read 28 original stories (over 500 pages in print!), including many sequels to stories in volume one. Suzzanne Myers’s powerful flash fiction piece, “Withered Tree” continues with the exceptional short story, “Seven Dogs.” Chanté McCoy’s “Inside Monastic Walls” is followed by the literally gut-wrenching follow-up short story, “Body and Soul.” Urban fantasy mayhem is off the charts with rising star Patrick Tomlinson’s “Monsters in the Closet” and Robert D. Hamm’s “Karma.” Steampunk your thing? EA Younker’s steampunk apocalypse tale “Stand,” Sarah Hans’ sequel about professor Campion, “A More Ideal Vessel,” and Elaine Blose’s steampunk Western “Wayward Brother” will whet your appetite. The dark fantasy and adventure continues in “Dark Archive,” Sarah Kanning writes how Danielle from “Hidden Collection” must deal with the lingering effects of being possessed by a demon. Volume two mixes sequels from Gloria Weber, Justin Swapp, and Isaac Bell with new stories from Lester Smith, Kathryn McGee, Adam Israel, Valerie Dircks, T.S. Rhodes, Elizabeth Shack, Daniel Alonso, and Nayad Monroe.

New York Times Bestselling author and Campbell award nominee Larry Correia presents an exclusive short story, “Son of Fire, Son of Thunder” co-authored by Steven Diamond, about an FBI paranormal investigator and a bad ass marine who knows the exact moment of his own death. Travel to the alternate history Earth of the “Red Bandanna Boys” by Patrick M. Tracy and find out how ruthless you have to be to survive the slums of St. Nikolayev. Follow “The Trail of Blood” by Alex Haig, a horrifying Western about a bounty hunter who wants vengeance, not money. Hunt for Nazis in a disturbing 1950’s America in “Hunters Incorporated” by Kelly Swails. Patrol the steaming jungles of Vietnam with a squad of soldiers in Lon Prater’s “Last Rites in the Big Green Empty.” Then enter the mind of a godlike demon in Donald J. Bingle’s ambitions tale, “Dark Garden,” or visit the creepy shadow world created by Richard Lee Byers in “Light and Dark.”

Watch your back, the demons are coming.

I’ve been going crazy lately for a number of reasons. For one thing, moving is stressful, even if other people are paid to move you. There’s still a ton to organize and oversee, not to mention the waiting for your stuff to arrive at your new home. Then, surprisingly, we received a phone call from the Bichon Frise (small puffy white dog) breeder my wife really wanted to get a puppy from. So, the day we left, we picked up our little guy, Asher is his name, and drove 14 hours. Wheee. That wasn’t bad, actually, it was the most relaxing time during this period.

It wasn’t until yesterday I was able to set up my command center in my office and I didn’t even turn on the computer until this morning. Up to now, I felt like an addict suffering major withdrawal symptoms. I hadn’t written or edited anything over this period of about 9 days and I was feeling really shitty about that. I have deadlines to meet, you know, and I get really jittery and just plain foul when I can’t work when I want to. That’s not to say I don’t go days or even a week or two without working on my writing, but I always choose those times and this move plopped into the middle of my “shut up, I’m working” stage.

So when I pushed the power button on my computer tower and saw the blue lights of my case light the room to the soft whir of fans, I felt like a new man. Ah, the freedom of choice is such a grand thing. Now I just need to reenter the realm of productivity.

The 1990 film was in a word, horrible. I saw it twice when I was a kid and I thought he was the worst superhero ever created. He looked silly in his suit and I was never quite sure what was really going on in the movie. Oh, and the Red Skull in this movie scared the hell out of me. Really, he looked freaky. He is a cross between a burned out Anakin Skywalker and the new Red Skull played by Hugo Weaving The new Red Skull looks quite tame in comparison.

The 2011 Captain America was good. It was a solid movie with a plot that made sense (for a superhero movie) and gave a good sense of who Captain America was as a person. Like most superhero movies in the last 10 years, the character of the Captain was exaggerated, so much so that I winced at the climax scene when he swears to do something. Chris Evans didn’t deliver the lines poorly or anything, it’s just one of those “superhero” moments that these movies just can’t do without.

As for the rest of the movie, it was predictable in that once you saw where the story was going, it was easy to see how it would be done. Predictability isn’t a bad thing, but rewatches are less exciting and you walk out of your first showing merely satisfied instead of wowed.

I take that back, I walked out of the theater wowed simply because of the 3D. It was awesome. Nearly every scene was obviously crafted to look great in 3D and it brought to life 1940s America. 3D is all about visuals and immersing the viewers and it did just that. In fact, the 3D was so good that I almost want to forgive the movie of it’s storytelling flaws, much to my great shame. I guess seeing 3D so well done in a live action movie just overwhelmed me. In fact, I’d go so far to say it was better than Resident Evil: Extinction quality of 3D. To me, Captain America proved once more that you could have fast paced 3D and have it look good.

I saw Green Lantern the other day and I kinda liked. I know the movie received mostly negative reviews from critics and mostly positive reviews from viewers (non-critics). In this case, I feel the viewers were more correct in their assessment of the film. It was good.

That being said, I realized I had lowered my expectations for comic book superhero movies when I walked out of the theater. GL just wouldn’t have been a comic book movie without the requisite awkward scenes (at least 2, no more than 3. Any more would be too much) and the feeling that I already know what’s going to happen. The awkward scenes were for the most part reserved for Hal Jordan and his lady love. They were awkward in that the dialogue was poorly written. Yes, I know their reunion was awkward in and of itself, but come on, say something more in character Hal Jordan.

As for predictability, I realize (and so should everyone else) that the superhero IS NOT GOING TO DIE in the first movie, if at all. This should mean that we already know our hero is going to live and triumph over evil some way or another. Therefore, the tension during physical confrontations isn’t if he will live or die, but in how he will triumph. Honestly people, after all the Spidermans, Batmans, Supermans, X-Mens, and every other superhero show out there, we should understand that a bit of predictability comes with the territory. I mean, these stories have hundreds of comic issues behind them at the very least. I think we know that short of nuclear bombs, dismemberment, or disintegration that most of our heroes are going to survive.

So, go into this movie expecting a bit of predictability and a handful of awkwardness and you will come out entertained and not too bothered by its shortcomings. At least, unless you’re a fanboy/girl and then that’s a different story entirely. GL, like the other good comic movie adaptations, does a good job at setting up the story and universe within the modern day. Hal Jordan is likeable in his recklessness because he is vulnerable (albeit cliche) and the visuals are pretty neat.

This movie was a solid introduction into the GL universe. It wasn’t mind-blowing like  the Nolan Batmans or the Singer X-Mens, but it isn’t bad. Now, the producers and other people attached to the film or film companies were saying this had the potential to be the next Star Wars. Yeah…I’m going to call bullshit on that one. At least right now. Give me a sequel that nears perfection and then we’ll decide if it can become as big and loved as Star Wars.

About a year ago, during a rare moment of entering a brick and mortar bookstore, I roamed the Science Fiction and Fantasy section and saw The Way of Shadows by Brent Weeks. It instantly stuck out to me and I put it on my monstrous “To Read” list. The time has finally come.

Last night on my shiny new Kindle, I read the first 13 chapters. By the time I hit 10, I thought to myself, should I read this? Should I look for something else? Then I thought for a minute, “Dude, you read 10 CHAPTERS. Of course you should read this.” So, I got the entire Trilogy for $20 on Amazon ($4 cheaper than if you bought each book separately). And I’m excited. I’ll post a review when I’m done.

But first, I’m biased toward shows that tell great stories, ones that are character and plot driven. Reality TV is based on experiences of contestants without plot and over-hyped drama that in the end, matters little. American Idol and related shows do a great job of entertaining, but that’s it. Other reality TV is a manipulation/threatening/pleading/melodrama fest between people that serves no larger purpose. There are people out there, and lots of them, like me who want to experience dynamic characters, intricate plots, vivid settings, and quality acting of shows that tells us a story. Mankind loves stories — our history is rife with them. Everyone loves a good story. So why are so many getting cancelled?

I believe there are two main reasons why promising, even great shows, get cancelled. The first has to do with this foolish system of hiatus-airing TV. V, The Event, FlashForward, and Caprica were the most serious and obvious victims of this stupidity. Who the hell wants to watch less than four episodes (or even up to 8!) only to find out that for no reason on God’s green and blue earth it’s going on hiatus for…oh let’s say 3-4 months. And then let’s delay it a little longer because of Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, or some other reality TV bull.

Let me give you some stats. For FlashForward there was 3-3.5 months between Season 1 and 1.5. For Caprica the time was 6 months. For V there was 4 months between the 4th and 5th episodes of Season 1 and then 7.5 months between the end of Season 1 and the start of Season 2 (and ABC wonders why people didn’t watch this??). For The Event there was a 3 month break. If you were watching these shows as their aired, this waiting was no doubt unbearable.

Keep in mind that out of these shows, The Event and FlashForward were the only ones with a full 22 episode season. Caprica came in at 18 and V had a 12 episode and 13 episode Season.

What am I getting at with these numbers? I see two trends here that play out not only with these shows, but with many others as well. The first is that people understand there needs to be a break during the month of December. But shows used to restart at least by the middle to end of January. Now, it’s the end of March. The break is simply too long to sustain a viewership during a time when there is so much other media out there. Besides, for many of these shows, people can’t (or don’t want to) handle the stress or suspense for that long, especially when they know they haven’t watched 11 episodes to get their half season fill. With many shows truncated down to less than 15 episodes in a season, watching 5-9 episodes with such a long break is like the power going out during the final buzzer shot of a tied basketball game. It’s just not cool, all the more so when it’s on purpose. Every. Single. Time.

The second reason for shows getting cancelled is something I just touched on. Shows aren’t airing for enough episodes. Take V. You watch the first 4 episodes and you think you have found a possible favorite show (out of several others). You see the 4th and you find out it’s on hiatus because *gasp* it can’t interfere with the first half of the last season of LOST (which, by the way, had the last 3 seasons shortened to 14, 17, and 18 episodes). Come on, if ABC had aired both at the same time, in back-to-back slots or separate days even, viewership might have carried over to V more strongly. This is the whole point behind networks sandwiching two crap sitcoms or struggling series on either end of a powerhouse one.

Anyway, viewers detest getting involved in a show that they know or think won’t last but a handful of episodes before a lengthy hiatus. It’s a “test” that the networks should realize has only succeeded in angering TV viewers and condemning many shows that don’t really deserve to get canned. This is a practice that needs to end, or people will just migrate permanently to online streaming services like Netflix since they can watch an entire season without mandatory breaks. I will even go so far as to argue that there are many viewers out there who love TV shows, but can’t justify watching them on live TV or even subscribing to cable or satellite services because their shows will just end up getting cancelled. It’s just more convenient to watch when you want than to set aside days and times for your shows. I don’t think TV viewing is like that anymore.

Let’s talk about the networks’ reasons for cancelling shows: ratings aren’t high enough. First of all, if the network doesn’t show faith in a series by airing them back-to-back minus the Holiday Break, then that’s a strike right there. When viewers hear the phrase “mid-season series” people can’t help but think to themselves, “It might be good, but I won’t bother until it’s on Netflix because it’s only going to air a handful of episodes and I don’t want to get hooked and have to wait an eternity for the next part/season.”

A more important thing to consider about ratings, though, is how they are measured. The primary ratings method used was developed by the Nielson Media Group. This is the primary, if not only, way that networks measure viewership. This is a foolish and outdated measure for everything except measuring LIVE TV and TiVo recordings (but viewing recorded TV only counts within 7 days of airdate).

Basically, Nielson creates a research group of around 5,000 households across all demographics and types of viewers across America. They gather statistical data about what shows are watched and then extrapolate what the rest of the country is watching. In laymen terms, they’re just making shit up. Moreover, these numbers only figure in LIVE broadcasts. What about HULU, Netflix, or other online streaming sites (paid or free)? Nada, zip, none. Herein lies the reason Nielson ratings are basically worthless for networks (since they use these numbers to determine popularity and viewership). With the advent of accessible online streaming for cheap, more people are migrating to this method of watching their entertainment for one glaringly obvious reason: It’s more convenient.

So why don’t the networks or the Nielson group change the way they measure viewership? Primarily because of resistance from the advertisers (Levin, Gary (2006-10-12). “Playback time for Nielsens”. USA Today. p. 1D). I know this was 5 years ago info, but I’ve found nothing in several days of searching that details any significant changes to this way of measuring viewership. Advertisers as one of the culprits to this problem makes a lot of sense. TV commercial spots are crazy expensive and only people who watch live TV see them. Hence their desire for networks to air shows with a high volume of live viewership.

This is all well and good, but it really screws up TV series, namely those with huge overarching story arcs and conflicts i.e. LOST, V, The Event, etc. These story/film creators are forced to cut short wonderful stories simply because of live viewership numbers. But how many people watch episodes on their DVRs over a week after the airdate? Or on HULU or another streaming service? I, for one, want to know! With all of these cancellations, I’ve seen countless blogs, forums, replies on articles, etc of people decrying the ending of their shows. While I know there are fanatics of any series, it seems to me that the fanatics aren’t the only ones posting negative things about networks or proclaiming that their show should continue. In fact, I’d wager they’re the minority.

The Networks need to pay attention. We’re becoming more of an online world as the months tick by. Either the Networks need to man up and figure out a way to obtain accurate online viewership numbers so that they can make BETTER decisions on the futures of our beloveds, or some enterprising people will start to air shows via streaming sites without the help of Network TV because the fans themselves will support them (as well as online advertisers) If you don’t believe me, read up on what might be happening to The Event. Netflix has cited their interest in expanding into producing and making shows. The producers of The Event are looking to take the show elsewhere and I really hope Netflix tries their hand at this. How awesome would it be for them to pick up canceled Network shows and capitalize on what the viewers (other than live TV watchers) want?

I saw Thor and decided to go big with IMAX 3D. I figured what the hell, it was my birthday and only a dollar or two more expensive than 3D, which I’m a huge supporter of in case you didn’t know. For me, movie watching should be an experience, and 3D offers what surround sound began in the mid-90s: immersion.

The 3D in Thor was actually impressive, especially the scenes in Asgard. I found out afterwards that the movie was a 3D conversion; it wasn’t filmed in 3D stereoscopic format. Thor ended up being a great 3D movie unlike other 3D disasters like Clash of the Titans and Avatar: The Last Airbender. If you haven’t heard by now, the latter two films had flat, 2D scenes scattered throughout. While I felt that some scenes in Thor were flatter, I don’t remember losing the 3D effect that was obvious in other, earlier 3D conversions. The quality of Thor’s 3D actually bodes well for 2D-3D conversion software that many of the mid to high end 3DTVs have incorporated. This makes me really excited for taking my favorite shows and movies and watching them in converted 3D.

The previews of Thor made the movie look amazing, and it did. It hinted at an epic story with lightning quick glimpses of Asgard that became fully realized in lengthy scenes throughout. What really happened, was that Thor was a solid hero story. While many of the character conflicts and story developments were cliche and easy to guess, it didn’t matter because the movie had great pacing and focused on fun. Just because a story is cliche or simple or transparent doesn’t make it bad. That being said, if the music wasn’t as good as it was and the cinematography wasn’t effective in maintaining my interest, I would have felt cheated and Thor would simply have been an overjuiced WWE character with a pimp cape – and some kind of magical ability fueled by his yelling.

Thor was a simple story about a hero who loses everything and embarks on the road to redemption, thereby learning what it means to be a true leader of men (or Asgardians). What critics seem to forget (or never knew in the first place) was that Thor transitioned from the simple bloodthirsty warrior in constant search for glory into a more complicated being warring with love and hate, and compassion and mercilessness. Many people have compared Thor with Ironman 1. I say that one is not overall better than the other. They both do different things very well and I think they tie for the spot of top Marvel comic movie.

An interesting fact is that Collins is adapting the screenplay herself which is quite awesome. I feel that authors should have more of this kind of responsibility when their work is making the transition to a TV series or movie(s). We’ve all seen the book to TV conversions that managed to get things horribly wrong. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Golden Compass, Battlefield Earth, X-Men 2 and 3, to name a few. The novels/stories are extraordinary and you should go read them, but the movies…ignore them. However, there are ones that got it right: Lord of the Rings (even skipping tons of content, the story was pulled together into a followable and effective narrative), Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, and The Princess Bride. What makes some suck where others succeed? I think it’s all about the adaptation and understanding what makes the individual stories work.

By keeping the writer “in the loop” or even assisting and consulting on the screenplay, costuming, scenery, etc, it’s possible to have not only a movie that is entertaining and visually stunning, but one that is true to the story. Take Starship Troopers. That movie is over-the-top with its melodrama and violence, but by itself it actually somewhat works. I’ve seen the movie several times and if I want mindless macho-ness and blowing up aliens, Starship Troopers is on the list. But the book — it was so different. The issues Robert A. Heinlein explored had him accused of all sorts of things, fascism, utopianism, militarism, and racism. He explored these issues and crafted them into an entertaining story that did something many storytellers tried to do: get people to question their morality, belief system, the status quo, and the effects beliefs have on individuals and society.

It is my hope that with Collins taking such a role in film-making, that the story of the Hunger Games will be preserved in all of its violence, dystopia, and how-the-hell-is-the-Capitol-STILL-getting-away-with-this thoughts. The Hunger Games trilogy was a thrill ride of elation and depression, horror and bravery. She wrote a trilogy that is R-rated even though its considered YA fiction. Her portrayal of society in her world and the actions are for a mature audience, or at least a prepared one. The themes she explores and the everyday struggles of Katniss, the main point of view character, are eye-opening and will have you thinking for days.

I’m not saying that movies should mirror the books that spawned them, but they at least need to be able to stand on their own. I think we watch movies based on books we like because we want to see the story translated faithfully to the silver screen. We want to know what people look/dress like. How majestic is Lothlorien really? How does it look to crash through the jungle with a pissed T-rex on your ass? We expect to see the same stories; we expect to visually relive the characters’ journey. Who can get this done better than those who came up with the stories in the first place?

First, the series is fantasy, but it’s unlike much of what’s currently in print. That makes this series neither good nor bad, but different. Rothfuss tells us a story about a man, Kvothe, who is found by a historian of sorts to take down his story for the rest of time. Kvothe tells him it will take three days, hence setting up the trilogy format, and what unfolds is beauty incarnate.

Below the cut is a bit more about the series in general and the latest book specifically. Some people will consider what I have to say spoilery, some not.

A few years I read The Name of the Wind. It had been recommended to me by countless friends and I made the time to read it in the middle of one of my semesters at university. What I experienced during the five days (I think, definitely less than a week) was what people (i.e. not me) have described when reading Harry Potter, Twilight, or Wheel of Time. Yep, it felt like I was on drugs. It was addiction that demanded to be sated. The demons of hell nor the angels of heaven were going to stop me on my quest to read every. single. last. word.

Unfortunately classes were an entirely different power that succeed in delaying me. Thinking back, I probably should have just skipped since it would have equated to the same thing. Plus I would have been done quicker. My mind was with Kvothe, agonizing over his painful familial memories while at the same time scheming to learn everything at the University while coming up with ways to pay his tuition.

Oh, and the music. It must have been the musician in me, but that was powerful! This inclusion was genius on Rothfuss’ part and essential to who Kvothe is, not to mention the emotion it evokes.

“But wait a minute, Daniel. This is a book. What do you mean music?” you say.

I mean to say that Kvothe is a musician, one whose talent with a lute is unrivaled. The musical scenes in these books, the first focuses more on this, are described in such a way that you can hear the music in your head. You couldn’t hum it, but it’s there in some part of your mind that knows it’s awesome and you feel its emotion. These are the most consistently evocative and powerful scenes dealing directly with music I have ever read.

Then there’s Kvothe’s life situation, struggling with poverty and genius and warring thoughts of family and friends. His journey from “normal” life to poverty to acceptance at the highest education facility in the land to beyond is so complete, so moving, that it is an experience rarely afforded to us. It’s the pinnacle of self-exploration, a fictional autobiography that gives us a glimpse into life so real that we forget it’s not. By the end of each book, you wish you could continue this exhilarating piggyback.

Am I too much over the top? Maybe. But for me, this series has done for me what I try to do in my own writing. It’s what many authors aspire to. Rothfuss does it. He draws you in so completely that each breath you take is Kvothe’s. Each trial and triumph is yours. Rothfuss has shown twice now that he can provide an immersive experience that yanks on a reader’s heartstrings.

All writers of fantasy, and even other genres, should give this series a go. Rothfuss unfolds a diverse plot that branches, twists, and combines into a story that will suck you in. Not only that, but Rothfuss’ prose is near perfect for someone like me. I enjoy clarity and well-paced writing that doesn’t dwell too much on worldbuilding type of details that draws me in and makes me feel what the characters feel.

All said and done (tl;dr for you people), The Kingkiller Chronicle is an experience. Sort of like seeing Avatar in 3D or taking that dream trip to Europe. You can’t even be a “Reader of Books” unless you’ve read this series, even if you don’t like fantasy. This is fantasy of a different sort and I’ll be surprised to find anyone who gave this an honest read and didn’t enjoy the ride.