Groggy On Moviepilot: The Twenty Best Spaghetti Western Titles

Groggy's put his recent Spaghetti Western obsession to good use by publishing this article for Moviepilot: The Twenty Best Spaghetti Western Titles. Relish some of the most ridiculous (or awesome?) titles in movie history, served with cheap sarcasm.

Note that I'm mainly commenting on the titles of the Spaghettis in question, not the movies themselves. I haven't seen several of them. But if you know how to see And They Smelled the Strange, Exciting, Dangerous Scent of Dollars, let's hear it!

Thoughts on Groggy's Fifth Anniversary

Five years ago today, I gave birth to Nothing is Written: A Film Blog. Reading this initial post, it's clear I had no idea what I was doing. Being "fairly eclectic" would come as a shock to readers, who know 90% of my posts are simple movie reviews. I also use my real name, something I've avoided where possible.

I take a lot of pride in this blog. Just maintaining interest in something for this long is a big accomplishment. With past blogs, my engagement was always hit and miss: periods of intense involvement, followed by neglect, repeat until I give up. (Heck, my T.E. Lawrence site isn't exactly thriving.) This follows through to my writing generally; the real reason I haven't gotten anywhere professionally, I suspect, is through this lack of focus and energy. Otherwise I'd have a dozen pieces on Moviepilot by now.

Yet I've never gotten sick of blogging about film, and don't plan on getting sick of it. There are way too many films to discuss, too many angles to explore. If I get sick of reviews, I could write about television or plays, as I've done recently. Profiles of actors or directors aren't off the table, either. Nothing is Written will live until I drop dead or someone hacks the site. Either would be a tragedy.

Why blog? For one, I was a wide-eyed film student then, still dreaming that I could be the next David Lean. I had a lot to say about movies and honed my knowledge through different classes. Freshman year I had Professor Marcia Landy, a decidedly eccentric scholar, for a class on Italian genre movies. Getting thrust into an advanced level course right away really helped my appreciation of film analysis. Sure, I reject the more obnoxious strains of literary theory: not everything is a metaphor for penises and Communism, guys. But encouraging me to dig beneath a film's surface level certainly helped.

Then there were the actual production classes. My strongest memory of the Pittsburgh Film Institute comes from standing in a blizzard juggling a book, a light board, a camera and tripod, then dropping them all in the snow just as a bus drove by. Then finding my film cartridges were defective, and having to re-shoot, develop and edit the project all in one day. Time and stress eventually put paid to that dream, or maybe I realized I wasn't cut out for it. Either way, my love of movies burns strong.

Reading film criticism certainly helped. Glenn Erickson of DVD Savant is my biggest influence. I love reading his reviews, which are both learned and conversational - a difficult task. When not actually ripping off his style (readers may judge for themselves), I certainly hew to Erickson's approach to movies: analyze the film while entertaining the reader. I like to think my pieces appeal to the casual reader and serious film scholar alike. If they do, I've succeeded.

I settled into the review groove with my Lean Quest in fall of 2008. It was easier to write about individual films than some of the ambitious ideas. My writing on those early pieces is verbose and obnoxious. I've even gone back and rewrote a few, because I'd rather have an articulate piece about my favorite film than some lumpen mass of unformed 19 year old thought stinking things up. Then I instituted the ratings system on reviews, something I eventually discarded (except for the index).

My current style developed junior year (2009-2010). A big part was my flirtation with journalism: I'm nothing if not a dilettante. I briefly wrote for The Pitt News, and having my reviews dissected and pared down by editors certainly influenced my style. No longer obnoxiously verbose, I decided a succinct, (relatively) economic style that I still use today. No long sentences dammit! Convey as much information in as little space as possible.

Any works that I'm especially proud of? I'm very happy with my Lawrence of Arabia pieces from last fall, the Seven Scenes from Seven Pillars of Wisdom article especially. That epic Charge of the Light Brigade piece from May took two months to research and write; I think it turned out well. Hard to pick a favorite among individual reviews, but my pieces on In Cold Blood and Dr. Strangelove hew closest to my ideal style. I enjoy writing the occasional bad movie article; one even got linked by AV Club. Finally, there's the review index, which I created one long May night during 2010's summer term.

I've no delusions that Nothing is Written is a timeless work of film criticism. But I take pride if only for putting so much time and effort into the blog. It's an expression of my love for cinema, passion for writing, and evidence that if I ever get off my ass, I can actually do something. If people read my reviews and enjoy them, gain a deeper appreciation for old favorites, heck if they put something new in their Netflix queue, I've succeeded. Thank you all for reading.

Catching up

A few things to catch up on...

Most recent is the passing of Richard Matheson. One of the doyens of late 20th Century science fiction, Matheson amassed an extraordinary body of work. His post-apocalyptic novel I Am Legend (1954) has been filmed three times (none an all-time classic, but it's the thought that counts). He also contributed several memorable scripts to The Twilight Zone (most notably Terror at 20,000 Feet), and wrote screenplays for movies The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), The Raven (1963), The Devil Rides Out (1968) and Duel (1971), among others. 

This comes just a few days after James Gandolfini's shocking passing. Gandolfini was just 51 when he died of a heart attack last Wednesday. This remarkable actor will always be associated with Tony Soprano - not unjustly, as most consider The Sopranos one of television's greatest achievements. Lest we forget, Gandolfini had a memorable film career: True Romance, Get Shorty, The Mexican, Zero Dark Thirty. Notably, Gandolfini cited his portrayal of Al Love in A Civil Action (1998) as a personal favorite, and helped spread awareness of PTSD through the documentary Wartorn. Off-screen he always gave the impression of a friendly, humble guy a world removed from his gruff screen persona.

It's not all doom and gloom, though. Groggy's friends at Moviepilot accepted his pitch to write a column on classic movies. That won't effect this blog much, though - my schedule remains as erratic and eclectic as ever!

Groggy on Movie Pilot!

A few weeks back, the fine folks at Moviepilot.com asked Groggy to contribute to their site. Yesterday they published my first piece, asking whether historical accuracy in movies is important. For the three of you who don't know my real name, here's your chance to find out.

Ben Shapiro is a Big Honking Doofus

Ben at work on his latest piece: "How Liberals Crushed My Nose"

One-tenth score years and nine months ago, I first encountered Ben Shapiro. He made his bones with gasbag Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood, squawking about "liberal Hollywood" and showing a complete ignorance of cinema, logic and Strunk & White's Elements of Style. I made a punching bag out of this preening douche nozzle twice (here and here) before moving on to more productive blogging.

Over the weekend I encountered Mr. Shapiro on Front Page Magazine, the neocon hate rag whose raison d'être is assuring readers that a) all Muslims everywhere are out to get us, b) universities are hotbeds of Communism, c) David Horowitz regrets blowing his parents' money on pot in college. In other words, the perfect place for an aspiring crank like Ben.

(Oops, I just violated my political gag order. Offended readers need not read further.)

Ben's latest piece, The Left's Lincoln, is a model of vacuity. Ostensibly previewing Steven Spielberg's upcoming Lincoln, he displays a remarkable ignorance of history, movies and politics in an article he likely hammered out in 20 minutes. Even if you're expecting an article on liberal misuse of Lincoln iconography, you'll be disappointed.

Ben starts off expressing disgust at "radical gay leftist Tony Kushner" writing the screenplay. It's hard to know what disgusts our Michael Medved wannabe more: Kushner's politics or his sexual orientation. Nice of Ben to set the tone immediately.

For an article with that title, you might expect a historical analysis of Lincoln as conservative. Right wingers love to crow about the GOP's laudable early history as an abolitionist "free soil" party and protector of freedmen. (Or most do: a certain strand of libertarian/paleoconservative thought views Lincoln as a repressive tyrant.) Easy subject for an article, right?

Ben does write politics in his spare time, so he's (theoretically) qualified to opine. What does his political/historical analysis amount to? Responding to a Spielberg quote about the GOP and Democrats changing sides on racial issues, Mr. Shapiro writes:

"Well, actually, it’s not a whole other story. Because it’s not even close to a true story. The Republican and Democratic Parties never “traded political places.” Racism is still the preserve of the Democratic Party, which utilizes skin color as a political tool; color-blindness is still the preserve of the Republican Party. There is a reason that Senator Robert Byrd (WV), a one-time member of the KKK was considered the Democratic conscience of the Senate until his death in 2010. There’s a reason segregationists like George Wallace were Democrats. The Democratic Party never flip-flopped with the Republican Party. It just hid its racism beneath a veneer of reverse racism."

There's so much gaping illogic here I don't know where to start. The Democratic Party had a long and shameful history of endorsing slavery and segregation. This however was put paid by Democratic Presidents ushering through the Civil Rights Act and related legislation in the '60s. When millions of conservative Democrats fled the party, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon eagerly snatched them up by campaigning on identical "States Rights" arguments. It shouldn't need said which party currently invokes states rights in arguments over gay marriage, abortion and government bailouts. The idea that the GOP and Democratic Party hold identical positions to what they did 50 years ago, let alone 150, is simply ludicrous.

Further, Byrd and Wallace both repudiated racism late in life. This stands in contrast to, say, Strom Thurmond, who switched parties over Civil Rights and never offered more than a token recantation. The comment about "racism beneath a veneer of reverse racism" is a masterpiece of doubletalk. And a member of a party who's spent the last four years caricaturing the President as a Kenyan Muslim Communist cannot claim "color-blindness" without seeming idiotic.

The rest of the article drops even this modest line of historical inquiry. Ben doesn't argue whether Lincoln was a liberal or conservative. Instead, he bashes Spielberg's filmography, saying for instance:

"A film like Saving Private Ryan puts an antiwar gloss on the most pro-human rights war in the history of humanity. When the character Sgt. Horvath explains, “Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess,” that’s a pathetic statement given that this conflict was about defeating the worst threat to humanity and humane values ever unleashed."

Shapiro, have you even seen the movie? Saving Private Ryan is possibly the purest embodiment of Greatest Generation cultural iconography. One line taken out of context, arguing that war is a nasty experience, is used to argue a movie is "anti-war." Go play with your plastic army men, Ben.

"A films [sic] like Amistad, which revolves around a slave revolt aboard a Spanish ship and the subsequent trial in the United States — portray white abolitionists as selfish folks out for themselves."

Or it's recognition that not everything is (geddit?) black and white. After all, wouldn't you expect evil progressive Spielberg to show abolitionists as faultless heroes?

Jeez, look at that. I don't even like Amistad and Ben's got me defending it. Nice job.

 "In The Color Purple, Spielberg portrays Africa as a grand sort of multicultural place, while the United States is steeped in darkness."

I'll admit I haven't seen The Color Purple. I do remember Amistad showing Cinque and his tribe kidnapped by black slave traders.

"In Munich, the real bad guys are terrorist hunters rather than terrorists – and Israel is so scarred by terrorist hunting that Israelis must move to the United States and abandon their country for absolution."

It does no such thing. Munich shows its heroes dehumanized by a multi-year campaign of assassinating Palestinian terrorists. That is not portraying them as "the real bad guys" unless you inhabit the Manichean mind of a FPM scribbler.

In the Spielberg world, America is the target; only “progressive” forces, reflecting the pacifist, multicultural tendencies of the filmmaker, can cure America of its ills.

What exactly is this Ben? Movies should portray slavery and Jim Crow in a positive light? All war movies should reflect Gunga Din's childhood game mentality? Did you miss the literal flag waving at the open and close of Saving Private Ryan? And didn't you just note that Amistad portrays its "progressive forces" in a dubious light?

To repeat: Ben wouldn't know consistency if it crawled up his rectum and died.

Spielberg, ironically enough, ignores the gory, ugly, beautiful tapestry of the history of the United States page by page – a true story that would bring to light unique and fascinating elements of human nature.

QED. Above, Ben apparently doesn't think negative aspects of American history should be portrayed on film. So what "ugly" and "gory" aspects does he now want included?

We'll never know. Rather than elaborate on the above paragraph, Ben segues into...

"Spielberg's history... is the story of “progress” toward today’s Democratic Party. John Quincy Adams from Amistad would be a Clinton voter; Lincoln would be a fan of Obama;"

I agree that it's morally dicey, at best, to use historical figures as avatars for contemporary causes. On the other hand, Lincoln and Amistad are works of fiction. I doubt Ben has a problem with Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly using dead presidents in ostensibly non-fiction books to parrot modern conservatism.

"by the end of Munich the protagonist would want to sign up for a tour with the Gaza Flotilla."

It wouldn't be a FPM article without insulting Muslims.

To recap: Badly written? Check. Politically and historically ignorant? Check. Vague and unsubstantiated analysis? Check. Comments on movies that give no indication he actually saw them? Definitely. Wildly inconsistent? That's a bingo! It must be a Ben Shapiro.

Groggy tries not to be overtly political save for extreme circumstances. But this articles intertwines three issues I feel passionate about: movies, history and decent writing. So I feel justified in spouting off, just a little. Ben, please join Armond White in the piranha pool.

"Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, Kurosawa buff or Chris Nolan fan, the one thing we can all agree on: Ben Shapiro is a BIG HONKING DOOFUS!" - Dan Rydell

New movie review tomorrow.

All right everyone, chill!

It's a COLD blog!

Unfortunately I haven't found much time for this blog lately. I've been reading a lot for my TE Lawrence blog and perhaps more importantly, had another failed job interview. Life stinks.

I present my interview with Lawrence biographer Stephen E. Tabachnick here. At least there's one thing to show for my recent efforts.

Enough self-pity. Returning to the movie realm, let's catch up with a few links:

DVD Savant has a very perceptive (and surprisingly positive) review of The Hunger Games, newly released on Blu-Ray. My take can be read here.

Margaret Peary's been doing an excellent rundown of TCM's Summer Under the Stars series on her Katherine Hepburn blog. Guess who today's star is?

Our friend Jim Tate has a podcast interview of '80s actress Diane Franklin (Better Off Dead, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure) on his site.

A few months old but well worth sharing: J. Hoberman's take on "Un-American" Westerns.

Hopefully I'll have movie-watching time this weekend. Stay cool.

Edward Cullen of Arabia?

Every bad joke you've heard about how much Hollywood sucks just came true.

Recently my T.E. Lawrence obsession has taken full flower. I'm growing more and more excited about the upcoming Lawrence of Arabia re-release (hoping, praying even that it will play within driving distance of me). I've also been expanding my long-moribund T.E. Lawrence blog, with new book reviews and an upcoming interview with one of Lawrence's biographers.

Then it's all ruined in one fell swoop.

So Werner Herzog is making a biopic of the extraordinary Gertrude Bell, apparently a separate project from the Ridley Scott one I complained about awhile ago. Herzog's an interesting choice for director, and this picture has a half-decent actress attached as Bell.

On the other hand, who does Herzog think is a good fit for Lawrence? Funny you should ask...

This is as good a reason as any to firebomb Hollywood.

Shooting One's (Robert) Bolt

I'll start with a personal note: I didn't get the job I interviewed for. Pity.

Lately I've been catching up on the plays of Robert Bolt. Mr. Bolt's long been one of my favorite writers and I'm appalled at the paucity of internet information on his non-A Man for All Seasons work. If you want to learn about The Tiger and the Horse, State of Revolution or (God forbid) Gentle Jack, you've either got to track down super-rare, ultra-expensive copies of the plays, or read their Groggy-authored Wikipedia articles. This will not do.

Film-related or not, I may take it upon myself to correct this deficiency. Expect either an omnibus article on Bolt's collective work, or smaller individual essays, in the next month or two. This requires research, thought and time that might be better employed, but what the hell. Any fellow who owns Adrian Turner's Bolt biography, Sabine Prufer's The Individual at the Crossroads, all of Bolt's stage plays *and* a blog is an expert at wasting time.

On the off-chance any reader is keen on helping, research and formating suggestions are welcome.

In the meantime, don't fret. I have a decent backlog of movies to review this week, including a classic horror flick, a Tom Cruise vehicle and a Ridley Scott movie that's actually good. Stay tuned.

Jesus Peace Not Hippie Peace

"Now, which is it gonna be: read Groggy's blog or get a dislocated elbow?"

Notice a certain stetson-doffing hippie cretin in the most popular posts column today? That's because A.V. Club linked my Billy Jack article in a discussion of pop culture fashion. This garnered said article a gobsmacking 1,900 pageviews in the past 24 hours. For basis of comparison, the next most popular article has 115 pageviews in the past week.

Heck, these single-day pageviews alone make it the 5th most popular post in this blog's four year history. I knew my strategy of sloth and inertia would eventually pay off. Plus Tom Laughlin has finally justified his existence.

So yeah, thanks for the link A.V. Club, it's very much appreciated. Don't be strangers.

Busy weekend ahead, with new reviews Sunday or Monday. Happy Easter if I'm not around.

England is looking well

"You mustn't concern yourself with Blogger, my dear. Ladies should be concerned with pretty things. Photobucket is pretty. Imageshack is pretty. Certain posts on Listverse are pretty..."

Occasionally Groggy manages to have someone else publish his writings. The excellent site Listverse published my list of Top 10 Worst Generals in British History. At least one character from this film features, and I avoided a lot of obvious picks for the esoteric and bizarre. All that and I worked in a Flashman quote.

Review of Mutiny of the Bounty (1962) coming soon!

Not fit to post a Facebook note!

"If that's a review, then I'm a Turk's arse!"

Work has caught up with me again, my brother (and some friends) have been home for spring break, and I'm struggling to find time for movie-watching. I did watch In the Heat of the Night over the weekend and will try and review it as soon as I have the mental stamina. Meanwhile, a few things to consider...

Groggy's latest blog reconstruction is for The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968). I was able to give my A Man for All Seasons review a quick polish, but this post was so congested I had to start from scratch. Possibly harder than writing a new review so what the hell am I complaining about anyway?

You know that awful-looking John Carter adaptation they've been advertising like crazy? While it's a bit early to tell for sure, it seems to have sank like a stone at the box office. Haw haw.

Adam at Icebox Movies has an outstanding review of an old Groggy favorite, The Day of the Jackal.

Our friend Tim at Just Hit Play has some interesting reviews of late, most notably a take on The Taking of Pelham 123 and an laudatory review of John Wayne's The Alamo, Groggy's childhood favorite.

Finally, there's DVD Savant's review of The Deer Hunter. He's a bit leery about the film, finding a lot of thematic and structural flaws, but is mostly positive. You lot know my take on it: it's fucking terrible.

I may do a redux of my Coming Attractions feature for the upcoming summer movie season. The problem is I can't claim to be excited about anything being released.

That's it for now, my Cherrybums. Will get back to something substantial soon, I promise!

In Like a Lion

Welcome to March! There's one more stop on the Tudor train and we'll move on to other eras. I hope you've enjoyed exploring these films as much as I've enjoyed blogging them. Rest assured I'll return for more some day.

Meanwhile, Groggy has a backlog of Netflix and TiVo recordings to catch up on. For first-time viewings, I'm interested in checking out Dog Day Afternoon, Ill Met By Moonlight, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and That Hamilton Woman in the near-future. I also hope to rewatch a few classics, including The African Queen, The French Connection, The Manchurian Candidate and 12 Angry Men. Faithful readers know I'm a capricious blogger, however, so don't hold me to that list.

Reconstructing Sir Thomas

I was hoping for a triple-bill of Elizabeth I films this week, but Netflix is being cranky. Instead, I opted to polish off my old review of A Man for All Seasons. That piece used to be an incoherent mess, and hopefully I've made it readable. Typically my pre-2010 reviews are pretty awful, and if time permits I might do it for other favorites. Any comments or constructive criticisms on this score are welcome.

Groggy Dundee, Some Day You'll Hang!

A few months ago I facetiously wondered if Hollywood was going to reboot the classic Western show The Rifleman as their next remake.

Well, waddya know, CBS is planning to do just that.

Now let's hope they don't take me up on the second part of the offer, e.g. vampires. If that happens, I might have to eat some white ketchup to induce vomiting.

P.S.: Happy Veterans' Day! I'm too tired for a substantial post but rest assured I appreciate your service.

Bye-bye Mr. Nice Duck

Today is my 23rd birthday, and I'd like to thank my readers for the greatest gift of all: Not forcing Howard the Duck onto my Popular Posts feature for the first time ever.

Please do your humble blogger a favor by keeping it this way.

Saddle Up

My past few reviews have been of Westerns, and this is no coincidence. I'm approaching 100 articles on my favorite genre, and because of my love of round numbers...



...I'll be undertaking a Western Round-Up to try and reach this formidable figure by the end of the year (if not sooner).

I don't want to make a checklist because I'm an impulsive viewer who selects the films I watch mostly at random. However, between TCM, Netflix, iTunes and my upcoming birthday there should be more than enough oaters to go around. Stay tuned.

Three years and counting!

Today is the 3rd anniversary of starting this blog!

It's hard to contemplate everything that's happened since then - three years of college, a girlfriend, a change of majors, and hundreds, if not thousands of movies (the 423 reviews are just the tip of the iceberg). Now I'm a college grad with a full-time job, holding out hope that I can find a writing job (and if possible get back to Pittsburgh).

Unfortunately, my job is still preventing me from watching many movies. I bought Three Kings on DVD at an FYE for cheap, so maybe I can squeeze in a viewing (and review) of that soon. If nothing else, I can wait for my brothers to go back to college so I have access to a huge backlog of movies on TiVo.

Again, thanks to all of my loyal readers for helping to make my blog a modest success, especially dshultz, Jack L., larma and Matt S. I welcome all comments and discussions, so all of your contributions are appreciated. Just know that my plate is full and I can't really follow your suggestions as much as I'd like. Also, I haven't the foggiest why you love Howard the Duck so much, but beggars can't be choosers.

Here's to another year of film watching and blogging - and hopefully something even more exciting down the road!

The Real World

Well, the impossible has happened: I have a full-time job.

This is good for me in the money department, especially since my parents are letting me stay at home for awhile. However, this also means that I'll have little or no time in the immediate future for movie-watching. To compensate, I might review some movies I last watched in the distant past (eg. two months ago), or even tweak some old IMDB comments. Then again, I could always fall back on random thoughts that pop into my head, but God knows there are enough of those blogs and I'm not clever enough to maintain one.

Anyway, see you around! If I don't get to post much soon, well, there are 421 extant reviews for you to re-read. Or you can check out blogs that are actually good in the Friends and Interests column.

The End of the Road

Well, I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh yesterday. The ceremony wasn't anything special - long, with a middling speaker and a not-very-attentive audience - but it's a huge milestone. I'm done with college, even if I'm not yet ready to face the "real world," and have some big decisions to make. I'm still not sure it's completely sunk in, but I can still reflect on my time at college.

I went into the University of Pittsburgh hoping to be a film major, with my dreams of being the next David Lean. I had an interesting class watching Sergio Leone and Dario Argento flicks in my first time, and a few other nice ones. Then sophomore year, I took an avante garde class that really put me off. Combined with a useless Photoshop class at Pittsburgh Filmmakers, an impossible class/work schedule in general and something like a nervous breakdown, and I changed course and became a History major.

The strongest memory of my time as a film student was standing at a bus stop in a blizzard, trying to balance a box with a camera, a light adjusting board, a tripod and a book I'd just ordered off Amazon at the same time. Then I drop the book into the snow, ruining it, and drop everything else too. And while I'm bending down to try and pick it all up... a bus drives past and ignores me, leaving me stranded there for another hour. All for a video that, it turns out, didn't develop because I was sold a defective film cartridge. Ah, memories.

Do I regret changing my major, not following my dreams more thoroughly? Not really. I've always had intellectual reservations about getting involved in film rather than doing something practical, but I might have overlooked that if it hadn't been for my classes. I enjoyed talking about film until I was asked to analyze the Freudian significance of thirty minutes of flashing red-and-white lights. I enjoyed shooting stuff, until I kept getting broken cameras and defective cartridges. I enjoyed editing footage, until I had to spend twelve hours developing, transfering and editing an emergency project two days after the final class. (I'll admit I never enjoyed developing the film stock - God bless digital photography!) I know real filmmakers go through far worse, so it's good they weeded me out early.

I still love writing about films, as this blog demonstrates. My attempt at writing for the Pitt News didn't work out for various reasons, and there doesn't seem much demand for film critics right now. If I could land a gig somewhere writing about film, that would be awesome, but I'm not holding my breath when it's hard enough to find a "real job."

A plus side is that, for the next few weeks at least, I'll have plenty of time for movies and blogging. I watched Paul Verhoeven's Black Book over the weekend, and time and Netflix allowing, you can expect reviews of Executive Action, Friendly Persuasion, Mildred Pierce and The Prisoner of Shark Island in the next week. Don't touch that dial.

500th Post!

This is Groggy Dundee's 500th post! I can't believe it's been almost three years since I started this blog, and that it's going stronger than ever. Thanks to all my readers; I appreciate all of your comments and feedback.

I ought to mention that I'm two weeks away from graduation. For this reason, you should expect posting to drop off a bit until I finish with this college thing.

Also, I now have an account over at Suite101, in an attempt to earn a few extra pennies of spending money. Click here to give it a look; I'll be trying for one article a week.