Complaining about the Guardian’s Top 100 Best Novels

I just saw the new Guardian’s 100 Best Novels of All Time list, created by “170 authors, critics and academics from around the world”, and I was appalled.

The top of the list leans heavily toward what might be called “prestige seriousness”: books that are endlessly taught, endlessly written about, and endlessly admired partly because admiring them signals cultural literacy. So you get the almost ritual elevation of Pride and Prejudice, Anna Karenina, and In Search of Lost Time near the summit. Now, are these important novels? Obviously. But “important” and “greatest reading experiences for actual human beings” are not the same thing. Lists like this often confuse influence, academic prestige, and emotional obligation with vitality. There is a certain kind of literary culture that treats admitting boredom with Proust as if one had confessed to kicking puppies.

The Virginia Woolf saturation is another example: five novels. That is not an accident. It reflects institutional taste. Mrs Dalloway and To the Lighthouse are understandable inclusions, but at some point representation becomes canon maintenance. Woolf is one of those writers whom critics adore discussing almost more than readers enjoy reading. Her importance to literary modernism is unquestionable, but five slots out of a hundred is excessive unless the goal is specifically “the history of high modernist prose technique”.

Tolstoy gets the same treatment. One can defend War and Peace and even perhaps Anna Karenina as monumental works, but when authors start receiving multiple guaranteed spots, the list stops feeling exploratory and starts feeling bureaucratic. It becomes less “the best novels” and more “approved monuments”.

Then there is Jane Austen, with a near-sacred aura surrounding her. She often benefits from a kind of critical inflation in which elegance, irony, and social observation are treated as inherently superior to ambition, imagination, or emotional scale. Pride and Prejudice could be considered well written, even charming and sharp, but it’s basically a story where the heroes are women whose main concern in life is to marry rich men. Does that deserve perpetual placement above wildly more ambitious works from world literature?

The Marilynne Robinson inclusion is almost comically predictable for this sort of list. Robinson occupies a very specific niche in Anglo-American literary culture: quiet, contemplative, Protestant-inflected seriousness written in pristine prose. Critics adore that combination. But outside literary circles, her cultural footprint is tiny compared to many omitted authors. When you see Robinson included while someone like Umberto Eco is absent, you can practically hear the seminar room humming in the background.

The Ernst Hemingway placement is especially revealing. Only one book, and low on the list, suggests a contemporary discomfort with old-school masculine prose and direct emotional architecture. He used to be unavoidable in these canons. Now he feels almost grudgingly retained, like an aging rock band reluctantly invited to the festival because the audience would riot otherwise.

Meanwhile, the omissions are honestly more interesting than the inclusions. No Paul Auster? That is bizarre for a list supposedly interested in literary innovation and postmodern identity games. No Ian McEwan? One can argue about individual novels, but Atonement alone has had enormous literary and cultural impact. No Kurt Vonnegut is another symptom of the list’s discomfort with humor, satire, and speculative fiction. Literary institutions often say they value imagination, but when voting time comes, realism and solemnity dominate. No Jack Kerouac is another classic establishment move. The Beats remain oddly suspect to elite literary culture because spontaneity, looseness, and countercultural energy age badly in academic environments that privilege polish and interpretability. And no Somerset Maugham hurts because he represents something modern literary criticism undervalues: readability. Maugham was one of the great storytellers of the 20th century. But “beautifully constructed and compulsively readable” now counts for less than “structurally interrogates memory and identity through fragmented temporality”.

No Umberto Eco is absurd. The Name of the Rose alone bridges literary fiction, historical fiction, semiotics, detective fiction, philosophy, and popular readability better than half the list combined. No Julio Cortázar and therefore no Hopscotch? That is one of the great modern novels about structure and reader participation. But Latin American literature in English-language canons often gets reduced to the obligatory García Márquez checkpoint. And the absence of Machado de Assis is honestly indefensible if the list pretends global scope. The Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas anticipated modern metafiction decades before many Europeans supposedly invented it. Likewise, no Eça de Queirós means an entire literary tradition barely registers. The Maias is easily worthy of consideration.

No J.R.R. Tolkien is maybe the single clearest sign of bias. One can dislike fantasy, but excluding The Lord of the Rings from any serious “greatest novels” conversation is like discussing cinema without mentioning Kurosawa because samurai movies are “genre”. Tolkien shaped modern storytelling more than many of the approved literary names on the list.

And then, where is Les Misérables? If readability, emotional force, social ambition, historical sweep, and cultural influence matter, its omission is astonishing.

Contemporary literary institutions tend to overvalue books that align with current ideological and aesthetic priorities while undervaluing writers who were massively important to actual readers across generations. These lists often mistake “books that are rewarding to study” for “books that fully justify the existence of the novel as an art form”. Those are not identical categories. A novel can be technically revolutionary and emotionally inert. Another can be messy, uneven, melodramatic, yet unforgettable.

The funniest thing is that the Guardian itself admits the whole enterprise is subjective and argumentative. Which is true. These lists are less maps of literary greatness than x-rays of institutional taste.


Playing Old CRPGs Again: the Divinity series

My plan was to play Larian’s Divinity series next. I had played all the games when they were launched, and was eager to return to the world of Rivellon. Then I found out that the first five games no longer work on an updated Mac computer. Fortunately, the two more recent games still work, Divinity: Original Sin (2015) and Divinity: Original Sin II (2017), and that’s what I’m going to play next, while waiting for the upcoming ninth title in the series, Divinity, which doesn’t have a launch date yet.

These games are very enjoyable and also very large, and it will take me a long time to complete them. Meanwhile, here is what I remember from the story of the previous games. It’s not required to know this to play any of the titles, as they are independent adventures, but it’s interesting to see the connections in the rich and convoluted history and mythology of Rivellon.

Divine Divinity (2002) sets the template: Rivellon is under threat from an apocalyptic force called Chaos, and a shadowy cult known as the Black Ring is working to summon it. You begin as an apparently ordinary adventurer but soon discover that you are one of the Marked Ones, destined to become the Divine, a messianic figure meant to oppose Chaos. The early plot plays like a grounded fantasy mystery (mad healers, undead mages, political intrigue), but gradually expands into something more mythic: false prophets, manipulated wars between races, and a grand conspiracy engineered by the Black Ring. The twist is that Duke Janus, the supposed savior figure, is actually the Demon of Lies, and the player must assume the true role of the Divine after a ritual involving the heirs of the ancient Council of Seven. The game ends with the defeat of Janus and the prevention (or postponement) of Chaos’s return, but with a lingering unease: the forces behind Chaos are not truly gone, merely delayed.

Beyond Divinity (2004) is set about twenty years later and shifts tone and structure. Instead of playing as the Divine, you control a paladin of the Divine Order who is forcibly soul-forged to a death knight by a demon. The two are magically bound (if one dies, so does the other), creating a reluctant partnership that drives the entire story. Most of the game takes place outside Rivellon, in a demon-controlled realm. The core objective is simple but effective: find a way to break the soul forge and return home. Along the way, the uneasy alliance between holy warrior and undead servant evolves into something more ambiguous, culminating in a return to Rivellon, where the death knight reveals deeper ties to the overarching villainy. The game is less about saving the world and more about survival, identity, and the uneasy overlap between good and evil, though it quietly sets up the rise of Damian, one of the central antagonists of later entries.

By the time of Divinity II: Ego Draconis (2009), the world has moved forward (and sideways). The Divine (Lucian, implied to be the hero of the first game) is gone or mythologized, and the new threat is Damian, a powerful figure with demonic ties and a personal vendetta rooted in past events. You play as a Dragon Slayer, trained to eradicate dragons, but quickly gain dragon powers yourself (already a sign that the moral lines of the series are shifting). The story revolves around rediscovering your lost memories, understanding the truth about dragons, and confronting Damian, who is building an army to conquer Rivellon. His motivations are not purely evil. They stem from betrayal, loss, and manipulation, particularly involving Lucian and a woman named Ygerna. The game reframes earlier lore: the Divine is no longer a clear savior figure, dragons are not simply enemies, and the world is shaped by cycles of conflict rather than a single apocalyptic threat. It’s the point where Divinity starts becoming morally ambiguous rather than mythically straightforward.

There was a rerelease called Divinity II: The Dragon Knight Saga (2010), which included the original game plus the expansion Flames of Vengeance. The key addition was narrative closure. After the events of Ego Draconis, your character becomes a Dragon Knight and is trapped within a magical tower, where the story shifts into a more contained but more introspective final act. The conflict with Damian reaches its conclusion here, though in typical Divinity fashion, the resolution is not clean or absolute. The expansion leans heavily into themes of manipulation, destiny, and cyclical war, suggesting that Rivellon’s problems are structural, not temporary. In practical terms, this version is the canonical endpoint of the “original era” of Divinity storytelling.

Divinity: Dragon Commander (2013) was both clearly part of the series and oddly detached from it. Chronologically, it comes first, set thousands of years before the other games, during the collapse of a unified empire in Rivellon. You play as the half-dragon heir to the empire, tasked with defeating rival claimants and preventing a demonic power (Corvus) from taking control of the world. The story mixes political intrigue, civil war, and personal decision-making, with outcomes shaped by alliances and ideology. So, is it really part of the same series? Technically, yes. It shares the same world (Rivellon), recurring concepts (dragons, demons, power struggles), and long-term thematic concerns (cycles of rise and collapse). But in practice, it feels more like a mythic prehistory, a distant legend rather than a direct prequel. Its gameplay (strategy + politics + dragon combat) and tone are so different that it reads less like a chapter in an ongoing narrative and more like a foundational myth that the later games loosely build upon.

Taken together, these games don’t form a clean, continuous saga. Instead, they resemble layers of storytelling added over time: a classic “chosen one vs. evil” beginning, a darker companion piece, a morally ambiguous reinvention, and finally a retroactive mythic origin. The continuity exists, but it’s flexible, almost folkloric. That looseness is part of what allowed Larian to eventually reinvent the series with Original Sin. But the DNA of everything that came later (the Divine, the ambiguity of good and evil, the cyclical nature of power) is already present in these early, rougher games.

Now, let’s play Divinity: Original Sin.

Favorite Science Fiction Novels, 1970-1979

  • Tau Zero (1970), by Poul Anderson
  • The Dancers at the End of Time (1972), by Michael Moorcock
  • Time Enough for Love (1973), by Robert A. Heinlein
  • The Forever War (1976), by Joe Haldeman
  • The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (1979), by Douglas Adams

In chronological order.

The First Creepy

In the late 1950s, American horror comics were effectively dead, or so it seemed. The moral panic that followed the publication of Seduction of the Innocent and the subsequent creation of the Comics Code Authority had wiped out the most creative and subversive publishers of the previous decade, most notably EC Comics. The lurid, poetic, and morally cruel horror stories of Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, and The Haunt of Fear vanished almost overnight, taking with them an entire generation of writers and artists who had perfected the form.

One man saw opportunity where others saw only a graveyard. James Warren, head of Warren Publishing, had already achieved unexpected success with Famous Monsters of Filmland. That magazine, launched in 1958 and edited by Forrest J Ackerman, proved that there was a large, underserved audience hungry for horror, not just in sanitized, Code-approved form, but in its full gothic, macabre glory. Importantly, Famous Monsters was not a comic book. It was a magazine.

That distinction mattered enormously. Magazines were exempt from the Comics Code. They could depict horror, death, irony, and moral ambiguity without oversight. Warren realized that by publishing a horror comic in magazine format, he could revive EC’s spirit without running afoul of censorship. It was a bold gamble, but one rooted in a shrewd understanding of both the law and the audience.

To make this new venture viable, Warren needed more than a loophole, he required talent. And the talent was waiting. Many of the finest creators from EC had been underemployed or forced into other genres since the collapse of the horror market. Creepy would become their refuge. Writers like Archie Goodwin, whose elegant, economical scripts would soon define the magazine’s tone, and artists such as Joe Orlando, Jack Davis, Reed Crandall, and Frank Frazetta found themselves reunited in spirit, if not in name, with the EC tradition.

The magazine format itself shaped what Creepy would become. Larger pages allowed for more ambitious layouts and more breathing room in the artwork. Black-and-white printing, often seen as a limitation, turned out to be a strength. Freed from the garish color separations of 1950s comics, artists leaned into atmosphere: heavy shadows, stark contrasts, and finely modulated grays. Horror in Creepy was no longer about shock alone: it was about mood, dread, and inevitability. The influence of classic illustration, pulp magazines, and even film noir is visible on nearly every page.

In short, Creepy was not conceived as a nostalgic revival but as an evolution. It took the narrative cruelty and ironic sting of EC horror, stripped away the juvenile trappings of the comic book format, and re-presented it as something more sophisticated.

When Creepy #1 hit newsstands in early 1964, it announced itself in a way that was, at first glance, almost perverse. Instead of murky shadows, dripping blood, or gothic decay, the cover was bright. Loud, even. On a vivid yellow background, a drawing of almost comical monsters crowded around Uncle Creepy, the host, while he reads from the magazine itself. For something explicitly designed to resurrect serious horror comics, this seemed like a contradiction.

The cover, illustrated by Jack Davis, was a calculated piece of misdirection. Warren Publishing understood the visual language of newsstands. Horror magazines competed for attention against lurid detective pulps, glossy movie magazines, and sensationalist tabloids. A dark, understated cover would have vanished in the visual noise. The shock of color was not a betrayal of horror but a hook: it forced the eye to stop, then invited the reader to discover that the interior was something very different indeed. There was also precedent. EC Comics, for all their macabre sophistication, often used bright, almost cheerful colors on their covers to heighten the contrast between appearance and content. Creepy #1 follows that logic, signaling continuity with EC while updating it for a magazine audience that was older, savvier, and less patient with subtlety on a crowded rack.

Opening the magazine reinforced this dual strategy. The inside front cover introduced Uncle Creepy, the magazine’s host and narrator, rendered against another unexpectedly bright background. Like EC’s Crypt Keeper, Vault Keeper, and the Old Witch before him, Uncle Creepy was a master of ceremonies, a knowing guide through tales of doom and irony. But where EC’s hosts reveled in puns and gallows humor, Uncle Creepy struck a slightly different tone: less manic, more sardonic, more amused than gleeful.

Uncle Creepy was not merely an homage, he was a statement of intent. His presence anchored the magazine in the EC tradition while establishing Creepy as a curated experience rather than a random anthology. Each story was not just presented but introduced, framed by a voice that understood the mechanics of horror (with a disturbing sense of humor) and shared a conspiratorial relationship with the reader. This was horror as performance, with the reader invited backstage.

Visually, the contrast between the cover and the interior could not have been sharper. Once past the opening pages, the magazine plunged into dense black-and-white artwork: heavy shadows, meticulous linework, and a deliberate pacing that trusted the reader’s imagination. The large format allowed for dramatic splash pages and carefully composed panels, while the absence of color pushed artists to emphasize texture, lighting, and facial expression. The result felt closer to classic illustration or cinematic storyboarding than to conventional comic books.

This dissonance, between the lurid, almost playful exterior and the somber, controlled interior, became one of Creepy‘s defining traits. The magazine lured readers in with spectacle, then rewarded them with atmosphere. It was an editorial sleight of hand that worked precisely because it respected its audience’s intelligence. Creepy #1 was saying, in effect: we know what you expect from horror, and we are going to give you something better.

What ultimately justified Warren’s gamble was not the format, the hosts, or the marketing, but the material itself. Creepy #1 does not feel like a tentative experiment. It reads like a confident declaration that serious horror comics were not only viable again, but capable of artistic ambition beyond anything attempted in the 1950s. Each story, while uneven in impact, contributes to that claim. Creepy would show better stories over the years, but this first batch established the foundations for both the writing and the art.

Voodoo, with art by Joe Orlando and story credited to Russ Jones and Bill Pearson (Jones had a history of attaching his name to things he did not create, and his authorship here is contested), opens the magazine with a statement of intent. It draws on colonial anxieties and Western fears of the exotic in a way that is very much of its time, yet unusually restrained. Rather than reveling in caricature, the story uses voodoo as an atmosphere, an unseen, inevitable force that punishes arrogance and exploitation. Orlando’s shadows are oppressive, his compositions deliberate, and his faces expressive without becoming grotesque. The horror is not flashy, it creeps in slowly, accumulating dread rather than delivering shock. As an opening piece, Voodoo reassures the reader that Creepy is not interested in cheap thrills, it wants to unsettle.

H2O World shifts from occult horror to speculative fiction, immediately broadening Creepy’s scope. Larry Ivie’s script explores a familiar EC-style irony: humanity has evolved beyond war, but it’s destined to repeat the same mistakes. The real star is Al Williamson. His clean, almost classical linework gives the alien world a sense of solidity and plausibility. His precision makes the story feel less like fantasy and more like speculative fiction, and the stark black-and-white art enhances the sense of isolation and inevitability. It is horror by implication rather than monstrosity.

Vampires Fly at Dusk, written by Archie Goodwin, is emblematic, from its vampire theme to the ironic twist at the end. Reed Crandall’s classy art, with beautiful hatching, demonstrates perfectly how the intelligent use of black-and-white pencil and ink is well suited to the genre.

Werewolf is historically and artistically pivotal. It is the final multi-page comic-book story illustrated by Frank Frazetta, who would soon become the definitive fantasy cover artist of the late 20th century. The story itself, by Larry Ivie, is spare and almost mythic, focusing less on plot than on mood and transformation. Frazetta’s art dominates every page. His figures feel sculpted rather than drawn, his use of black space heavy and tactile. The werewolf is not merely a monster but an embodiment of primal violence and fatalism. Even by modern standards, the imagery feels powerful.

Bewitched returns to psychological horror, centering on obsession, manipulation, and self-delusion. Larry Ivie’s script is economical, almost cruel in its withholding of sympathy from its protagonist. Gray Morrow brings a sleek, modern sensibility to the story. His figures are elegant, his compositions clean, and his women particularly expressive. The horror here is internal rather than supernatural, and Morrow’s polished style reinforces that shift.

Success Story is the issue’s sharpest satire. A thinly veiled attack on Don Sherwood and his notorious use of ghost writers and ghost artists, most famously in Dan Flagg, the story skewers narcissism and exploitation with barely disguised contempt. Goodwin’s script is biting, and Al Williamson matches it with sleek, cinematic visuals. Williamson’s mastery of pacing and facial expression makes the satire sting. The supernatural element feels almost secondary, the real horror is professional cynicism and moral emptiness. Curiously, Williamson drew the characters to resemble himself, Archie Goodwin, and artist Angelo Torres.

Closing the issue, Pursuit of the Vampire, written by Archie Goodwin and illustrated by Angelo Torres, feels like a deliberate echo of classic EC morality tales. The hunter and the hunted blur, and the story builds toward an ending that feels less like a twist than an unavoidable reckoning. Torres’s art follows a similar style to Reed Crandall in Vampires Fly at Dusk, almost as if vampires attract dark shadows and beautiful hatching.

Taken together, the stories of Creepy #1 form an astonishingly cohesive debut. There is a range (occult, science fiction, satire, gothic), but also a consistent intelligence and confidence. This was not a revival act, tentatively feeling its way forward. It was a statement. If Creepy #1 had failed, it would today be remembered as a curious footnote: a brave but doomed attempt to revive a form that history had already buried. Instead, it succeeded, and in doing so, reshaped the landscape of American horror comics for more than two decades.

Favorite Science Fiction Novels, 1960-1969

  • Solaris (1961), by Stanislaw Lem
  • The Man in the High Castle (1962), by Philip K. Dick
  • Cat’s Cradle (1963), by Kurt Vonnegut
  • La Nuit des Temps (1968), by René Barjavel
  • The Left Hand of Darkness (1969), by Ursula K. Le Guin

In chronological order.

28 Days/Weeks/Years: Rage, Ruin, and Rewriting the Infected

When 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle, 2002) appeared, it did not simply revive the zombie film. It replaced it with something leaner, faster, and more psychologically pointed. The infected were not undead bodies driven by hunger but living humans stripped down to a single overwhelming impulse. That conceptual precision gave the film its force. The famous opening, Jim (Cillian Murphy) waking alone in a hospital and wandering through an emptied London, has often been compared to the later beginning of the tv series The Walking Dead, but the resemblance is mostly structural. In Boyle and Garland’s film the hospital is not just a place between life and death: it is the threshold between civilization and the revelation of what lies beneath it.

The Rage virus is crucial because it keeps the horror grounded in biology and behavior rather than folklore. The infected do not feed, do not organize, and do not build anything. They attack because they are pure discharge. Their violence is expressive, not instrumental. That makes them terrifying in the short term but unsustainable in the long term, a detail the film quietly emphasizes when it suggests that many of them will eventually starve. Rage, in this world, cannot create a new order. It can only burn through the existing one.

This biological logic supports the film’s moral argument. The true threat is not the infected but what remains of human society once restraint is removed. The soldiers Jim encounters are not functioning as representatives of a system, they are men cut loose from it. Their brutality is feudal and personal, an attempt to reconstruct power through domination and control. The film’s vision of “man preying on man” operates on the smallest scale: a handful of individuals reverting to coercion and sexual violence as a survival strategy. The infected are the eruption of rage, while the soldiers are its conscious counterpart.

28 Weeks Later (Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, 2007) shifts the level of analysis. Its extraordinary opening, in which Don (Robert Carlyle) abandons his wife in order to escape, makes cowardice rather than cruelty the initiating sin. From that moment onward the film is concerned less with individual moral collapse than with the logic of systems. The repopulation of London under NATO supervision is presented as a triumph of procedure: biometric screening, containment zones, surveillance. The disaster that follows is not the result of sadism but of institutional thinking. When the military begins shooting civilians it is acting according to a doctrine in which the distinction between infected and uninfected has become operationally irrelevant.

The presence of the United States military has often been read as an accusation, as if the film were suggesting that only Americans would be capable of such a response. In practice the choice functions as a cinematic shorthand for global containment power. The Americans represent the machinery of intervention, the external force that arrives with logistics, firepower, and the ability to leave. Britain becomes a managed disaster zone. The emotional distance this creates is essential: the violence is not personal, and no one enjoys it. It is procedural, the endpoint of a security logic that treats human beings as variables. In the context of the mid-2000s, with its preoccupation with “collateral damage” and the trade-off between safety and civil liberties, the film reads as a study in how systems abandon ethics in the name of efficiency.

The graphic novels that bridge the two films expand this perspective rather than altering it. They move across scattered survivor communities and emphasize the slow normalization of cruelty. Their importance lies in reinforcing the central idea that the Rage virus does not create monsters so much as remove the structures that allow people to pretend they are not capable of monstrosity. Throughout this phase of the series the infected remain a biological event. They cannot form a culture. They are the negative image of one.

The conceptual break arrives with 28 Years Later (Danny Boyle, 2025). Here the infected are no longer short-lived explosions of aggression but a persistent population capable of feeding, reproducing, and organizing under figures such as the Alpha, Samson. The film does not provide a medical mechanism for this transformation. The absence is striking because the earlier films derived so much of their authority from a pseudo-epidemiological realism. What replaces that realism is mythic logic. The infected are no longer patients but a people.

This shift alters the dramatic conflict. The earlier films were structured around the opposition between ethical and non-ethical modes of being, between the fragile discipline of civilization and the release of rage. In 28 Years Later the tension becomes something closer to civilization confronting a rival form of humanity. The survivors who live in isolated, ritualized communities are themselves no longer recognizably modern. Both groups have taboos, territories, and inherited knowledge. The difference between them is not sanity but cultural form.

Samson embodies this change. In the first film rage erased identity, but here it produces continuity. He is less a host of a pathogen than a figure out of post-apocalyptic myth, a body that has endured long enough to become an origin. The film’s interest lies in inheritance and memory, in what happens when a generation is born into a world where the old categories no longer apply. The Rage virus becomes an environment rather than an event.

For viewers whose engagement with the series was rooted in its earlier materialism, this can feel like a rupture rather than an evolution. The hospital corridors, quarantine procedures, and questions of moral choice under pressure give way to temples, alphas, and ritual encounters. The infamous gang of blond youths in The Bone Temple (Nia DaCosta, 2026) illustrates the problem. Their stylized ultraviolence evokes A Clockwork Orange, but Kubrick’s droogs are the product of a functioning society and exist within a debate about free will and state control. In a world where society has already vanished, the reference imports the surface of that imagery without its philosophical weight. It becomes pastiche rather than argument.

The same is true of the sequence in which Dr. Ian Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) shares a drug-induced communion with Samson. In the new mythic framework the scene is meant to collapse the boundary between human and infected, to suggest that the two are parallel continuities rather than enemies. Yet this requires the abandonment of the biological and ethical logic that defined the earlier films. What was once a study of behavior under extreme conditions becomes a symbolic encounter between cultures.

Seen across the entire span, the series traces a movement from shock to system to legend. 28 Days Later asks what remains of morality when the structures of daily life vanish. 28 Weeks Later asks what happens when the structures return in a form that values control over humanity. 28 Years Later asks what becomes of those questions once enough time has passed for the original world to lose its authority. The infected, who began as a metaphor for the unsustainability of rage, end as a competing branch of the future.

Whether that transformation is experienced as a bold expansion or as the abandonment of a coherent project depends on what one valued in the first place. The early films offered a precise and unsettling thesis: that the apocalypse is not the triumph of monsters but the revelation of how little separates civilization from its opposite. The later films are interested in something else entirely, the emergence of new forms of life after the collapse has lasted longer than memory. It is less a continuation than a metamorphosis, a change not only in subject but in the language with which the subject is approached.

Favorite Science Fiction Novels, 1950-1959

  • The Day of the Triffids (1951), by John Wyndham
  • More Than Human (1952), by Theodore Sturgeon
  • The Demolished Man (1952), by Alfred Bester
  • Fahrenheit 451 (1953), by Ray Bradbury
  • Childhood’s End (1953), by Arthur C. Clarke
  • The End of Eternity (1955), by Isaac Asimov
  • The Stars My Destination (1956), by Alfred Bester
  • A Canticle for Leibowitz (1959), by Walter M. Miller Jr

In chronological order.

Yet More Dungeons & Dragons Superheroes

Some people asked me if all my superhero conversions to Dungeons & Dragons were from Marvel characters. Well, here is a batch of DC characters adapted to the world of Faerûn.

Batman
Race: Human
Class: Rogue (Inquisitive) / Monk (Shadow)

  • Batman’s defining trait is that he is only human. No divine blood, no arcane mutation, just discipline, preparation, and will. In D&D terms, humans best represent relentless self-perfection and adaptability. His legend is built, not inherited.
  • Inquisitive Rogue represents investigation, deduction, and battlefield awareness.
  • Way of Shadow Monk provides stealth, sudden mobility, and fear-based presence.
  • Special ability: Prepared for Everything – once per long rest, Batman may declare that he anticipated a specific threat, gaining advantage on all rolls against it for one encounter.

Green Arrow
Race: Half-Elf
Class: Ranger (Hunter) / Fighter (Battle Master)

  • Half-elves bridge civilization and wilderness, nobility and exile. Green Arrow’s identity as both privileged aristocrat and hardened survivor fits this duality perfectly.
  • Ranger grants tracking, survival, and precision archery.
  • Battle Master Fighter allows trick shots, disarming strikes, and battlefield control.
  • Special Ability: Trick Shot Arsenal – once per turn, he may apply a maneuver effect to a ranged attack without expending superiority dice (limited uses per rest), representing specialized arrows.

The Flash
Race: Air Genasi
Class: Monk (Way of the Open Hand)

  • Air Genasi embody speed, motion, and elemental wind. Flash’s powers become a mystical attunement to the Plane of Air, not temporal science.
  • Monks already operate beyond normal physical limits. Open Hand emphasizes speed, control, and battlefield repositioning without overt magic. Ki becomes velocity mastery.
  • Special Ability: Blinkstep – he may move through enemy spaces without provoking opportunity attacks and can take the Dash action as a bonus action every round, flavored as near-teleportation.

Catwoman
Race: Tabaxi
Class: Rogue (Thief)

  • Tabaxi are natural climbers, agile, curious, and feline in demeanor.
  • Thief Rogues excel at climbing, stealing, infiltration, and improvisation. Catwoman avoids combat when possible and escapes when necessary — she survives by skill, not force.
  • Special Ability: Cat’s Escape – once per short rest, she may disengage, dash, and hide in a single turn, even in plain sight, representing uncanny agility and misdirection.

Wonder Woman
Race: Aasimar (Protector)
Class: Paladin (Oath of Glory)

  • Wonder Woman is explicitly divine-touched. Aasimar provide celestial heritage without full godhood, preserving her role as both champion and bridge between worlds.
  • Oath of Glory champions heroism, strength, and inspiration. She is not a crusader or zealot, she is a living ideal. Her combat prowess and moral clarity are inseparable.
  • Special Ability: Lasso of Sacred Truth – a divine relic that compels honesty and restrains foes. Mechanically, creatures restrained by the lasso cannot lie or benefit from illusion effects.

Green Lantern
Race: Elf (High or Astral)
Class: Paladin (Oath of the Watchers)

  • Elves embody discipline, focus, and long-term commitment. Their calm emotional control contrasts perfectly with the raw willpower required of a Green Lantern analogue.
  • Watchers Paladins defend reality itself from extraplanar threats. Their power is fueled by vigilance and resolve, a perfect analog for will-powered constructs.
  • Special Ability: Ring of Living Light – a sentient relic that creates spectral constructs (weapons, barriers, tools) limited only by the wielder’s concentration and imagination. Constructs vanish if the wielder’s concentration falters.

Favorite Science Fiction Novels, 1900-1949

  • The Lost World (1912), by Arthur Conan Doyle
  • A Voyage to Arcturus (1920), by David Lindsay
  • Brave New World (1932), by Aldous Huxley
  • At the Mountains of Madness (1936), by H.P. Lovecraft
  • Who Goes There? (1938), by Don A. Stuart
  • The Invention of Morel (1840), by Adolfo Bioy Casares
  • Donovan’s Brain (1942), by Curt Siodmak
  • Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell

In chronological order.

« Older posts

© 2026 Zander Dulac

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑