No Child Left Behind has been pulled in ten states, with more states trying to opt out too.  An uninformed parent might think that this is just teachers looking for the easy road so that they don’t have to answer for their test scores.  But it is in fact the opposite.  The teachers who want this law removed are not doing just to avoid headaches—anyone who teaches will tell you there is no way to avoid headaches—but they also believe that this law actually hurts students in general.  The uninformed might then ask, how could a law wanting to leave no kid behind hurt the students? But look at it through this perspective: if no child is left behind, how then does any kid get ahead?  The agenda of pushing it so that all students pass an exam and focuses on just lifting up the lowest rung, or strengthening the weakest link in the chain, also comes brings the phenomenon of neglecting the sharpest tool in the shed.  And eventually that tool becomes dull.

                This dynamic is observable with the recent trend of heterogeneous grouping for the core subjects.  Kids from every point on the intelligence spectrum are placed in the same class.  When I was in school there were levels, my school called them 1, 2, 3 with 1 being the highest.  The benefit of this leveling should be obvious.  The teacher can then plan 3 different lesson plans, ranging in degree of difficulty so that all the students are challenged.  Now it is the just all three levels of students in one classroom moving at the same pace, and all the students are making less progress than before.

                Take a 7^th grade math class of 21 kids.  There are about 7 students were the class is moving too fast and they are not absorbing anything.  Another 7 are not being challenged at all, and are far from their full potential.  While 7 go at about the speed of the class, feeling neither proud nor ashamed for their successes, and just happy with C’s and B’s.  When I was in 7^th grade there were levels, and the highest level was a pre-alegbra class.  Now the smartest students are lumped in with the rest of the student body in an advanced remedial math class, and no one is taking pre-algebra.  How is this progress?

                It is obvious I am for leveling, but to be fair in this discussion I will state the argument of those that are for heterogeneous grouping.  They believe in the idea that the higher end students will help teach the lower end ones, so that as a whole this process is superior than leveling.  The lower ends kids learn because of the help from the higher end students, and the higher end students gain more by also teaching the subject.  Those who agree with this know little in practice of how adolescent students behave, and less about kids in general. 

                While it may be politically correct to call them students, let’s not doubt for a moment that these students are also still children.  Adolescent children do not make their education or the education of their fellow students their top priority.  It goes against biology.  They are going through puberty and all they really care about it acceptance.  They want to be popular, get respect, get laid.  And hell honestly, how many of us ever grow out of that phase? 

                What actually happens in this math class of 21 students, is that the lowest third doesn’t want to look inadequate.  So instead of asking for help they rebel.  They crack jokes or start trouble.  These actions along with hurting their grades also tend to bumps them up on the popular totem for the school.  Now the smart third doesn’t want to look smart to the cooler kids, or act that they are on the teacher’s side, so they in turn laugh at their jokes, take the side of the troubled students, and eventually get pulled down themselves.  The only difference between these two groups is that one of them is still doing their work, even though not challenged.  It’s noticeable when the teacher asks a question and the lowest third doesn’t understand it enough to answer, and the smartest third doesn’t want to show that they do understand it.  So class discussion becomes impotent—nothing gets accomplished.  This leaves the middle third that are happy just to get by and be above those that are failing, and don’t strive to beat the higher students.  The progress of the class becomes a general, tragic malaise. 

                This apathy in the classroom now is horrible.  Congratulations all you educational reformers.  You took a working model and reduced it to a failing situation.  But this is success isn’t it?  Because when no students gets ahead, how could any student be left behind?

Our forefathers that every conservatives does not hesitate to praise—those men where LIBERALS.  It is the Liberty Bell—not the Conservative Bell.  The conservatives where the Tories, the king lovers.  The ones who at the root of everything did not want to challenge the status quo, who feared change.  Being a liberal is a philosophy, it’s not just about collecting welfare.  Welfare recipients are just about collecting welfare.  The Fathers of this country were some of the best liberals in history—where they also the laziest bastards too?

                Boiling down politics to just about money and your own wallet is killing democracy.  Just think about your nation state just in terms of money is political greed if you boil it down.  All you hear is people arguing over who gets what money, who gives what money, how much they want to give, what they want it to do.  There is so much more to governance and life itself and yet people sell out every other principal for just this issue.

                Whether it’s a democrat or a republican government there are still two truths—death and taxes.  I’m not gonna want to pay what I have to in taxes, and I’m going to be pissed when people pay less, or when people get more of it for doing nothing.  But I am also going to die, so I want to live as best as I can before that happens.  So if I get to live in a place where my thoughts are free, I can have a good time, I have as many rights as I can without harming anyone else, guns are accessible but with responsible laws, women have their rights to their body, a religion is not stuffed down my throat, and their crazy rules are not made into laws, wars are not made for money, legislature is not made for profit, and people with different values then mine are not made to hide their life, than I am happy.  If I have to trade more money in taxes to live like this, I don’t give a shit.  I win, because I’m loving this country I’m living in.

                If you disagree with everything the republicans believe in, except in paying less in taxes you are not a conservative but a cheap liberal.  If you disagree with everything the democrats stand for but you’re collecting welfare, you are a broke conservative.  

P.S. Another criticism of conservatives is that liberals are “pussies”—that they afraid to go to war.  The history does not correlate with this myth.  You need only to look at the presidents since the 20^th century and what party they were to see that.  There Democratic presidents in office when we won our great wars: Wilson—WWI, FDR and Truman—WWII, Kennedy did not back down from the Russians during the Cuban Missile crisis, and LBJ got us into Vietnam and some would say he was winning the war before he left office.  If you look at the Republican war time history aside from the first Bush, who won Iraq in under 100 hours, they have been in office during our biggest military embarrassments.  Eisenhower was in office when we tied with Korea, and Nixon was in charge when we ran with our tails between our legs from Saigon. 

Even take a look at the 21^st century.  Under Bush 2.0, 9/11 occurred.  Yes we took down Saddam, but we didn’t need that.  What we needed was Osama bin Laden, and it wasn’t until Obama got in charge that we got him.  Obama also was pulling strings behind the downfall of Khaddafi.  Our successes come with Democrats in office, and we fail with Republicans in charge.  Just because this party supports no form of gun laws, doesn’t mean there are experts in military campaigns. 

You see promoting for a book is kind of pointless.  One thing has always sold books...word of mouth.  If I was a musician I can play you the best song from my album.  If I made a movie or a show I would have a trailer or a commerical for you.  A book however is a different beast.  There is no quick test.  Maybe read the first chapter, the first twenty-pages, but that is still an investment on your part.  

I think that is why most of my books start in a sort of in medias-res.  I feel like I have to get the reader intrigued right off the bat.  I also think this is the best way to start a story in general, but there is still so much pressure to start that first chapter great.

The reviews for Bloodlines has been nothing but positive.  Truth be told, I never get sick of being told that.  What I wonder is how much they are telling other people?  Without a secure major publishing deal, you lose an element of validity.  You lose the ability to take your book to the major newspapers and review sites.  People look at your book and it’s you saying it’s good.  People need a little more faith.

I hate promoting, I hate networking.  Even this blog I feel is five-hundred words I could spend on my next book, but it has to be done.  So let it be written.

I was impressed by the amount of other independent writers out there, putting their books up on the kindle.  Then I read some of their work, some of my peers.  It’s really not interesting, not amazing.  The plots usually don’t have much to them, or the writing is so uninspiring. 

The dilemma is for the midway writer.  Someone who has written something, is not a big deal yet, but also is not crap.  I was just asked today to give some advice to a writer who just finished their book and what to do with it.  Ten years ago when I really had some books down there was only two options—vanity or a traditional deal.

The problems with a traditional are simply just getting one.  Agents are so tough with what they approve.  Then they still have to get a deal from a publisher, then they still have to have their book get noticed and sell.  The good side to that is the validity of your book.  It will get reviewed from major newspapers.  It will get in major bookstores.  I problem I ran into with my first book Social Studies. 

The problem with vanity press is that it’s a dead end.  Not only did you just do the equivalent of the porn of writing, but the prices of vanity presses are usually so high that your book is pretty much unsellable.  Basically your book will be sold to your family, so just give up.

The e-reader give you the chance to get your book out there for free.  To get it heard, to get some feedback, but it is not the end of the line.  You need the backing of a big house.  You need the backing of a big publisher.  That is why I’m going to take some time away from the Litcave, to try to secure a major deal for Bloodlines.  The reviews have been great.  It’s time for the rest of the world to know what everyone is so happy about.

But that does not mean that I genuinely believe there is one great father, who decided to send his only son, and then not give a shit for the most part except for the fourth quarter of games Tim Tebow is playing in.  Being a Florida State, fan I am already not inclined to like Tebow.  Him preaching "God is great" on the sidelines of a game were defensive players aim to inflict pain on the opposing team is a little of a distorted perspective to say the least.  Now don't get me wrong, I love football.  I just don't love God.

Not the Yahweh one.  The one Christianity is based around.  I am not an atheist.  I feel an atheist’s argument that since all the current religions are wrong than there must be no god is the equivalent of an astrologist saying that since there is no life on the other planets in the solar system aside from Earth, than there must be no life on other planets in the universe.  Just because everything so far is bullshit, doesn't mean everything is bullshit.  Atheists scold the religious for thinking they could know the answer to what happens to us after we die.  Then they go and answer it themselves.  Hypocrisy is not exclusive to only those of faith.

I feel passionately about my belief as would any religious follower.  What I believe, I feel is the only acceptable faith.  I’m an agnostic.  There is something, but we don’t know.  Call it a cop out, but it is an informed one.  My study of history leaves me to not accept any current faith.  The historiography of all of them are shot, there are missing pages, other sides of the story, bullshit, and also corruption of the men who run them.  Taking any religion seriously word for word by the holiest texts is the surest way to find a moron.  I’m not saying if you believe in Jesus you are a moron, I respect that fully.  And I think he, like Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, may be part of solving this riddle to life beyond death.  But to respect everything in that book is just logically wrong.  The Romans kept what books they wanted and discarded the rest.  Where is the divinity in that?  Even if Jesus is the son of God, the true messiah, his word is not in what Christians call the new testament.  That is the word of Rome circa 4^th century, to keep their people faithful.  (Which by the way once Rome accepted Jesus, they weren’t saved.  They were raped and pillaged by barbarians.)

If there was any religious message I was trying to get out in Bloodlines I guess it was that you can’t take these holy books so sacred—they are not infallible.  The book of Judas might be right.  I really have nothing against religious people, but I respect the ones that say “I believe in but…” That’s good, that shows me you are capable of individual thought, and already there is a chance for me to respect your opinion. But that is not every type of Christian.

There are the Evangelical ones, the Pat Robertsons, who think God punished America in 9/11 for our acceptance of gays because of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  These people are loaded with so much hate, they look for any type of validation to pour it out.  The ones who feel they are justified to kill an abortion doctor, or the ones who argued for slavery 150 years ago.  These people are not just misguided, they are evil, and yet they are able to find in a holy book their motivation.  I know this doesn’t count for all Christians, but these Christians still count.

Then there are the clueless ones, the dumb ones.  The Tebows, who feel God has nothing better to do than help a bunch of millionaires that work for billionaires play a ball game, while genocide happens every day in some part of this world.  If God does get involved in our lives, he better develop some perspective.  I wouldn’t do that, and I can’t be smarter than God.

There are also those that are afraid.  The sheople.  Or how they like to be called the faithful.  They decide what is right and wrong, not by their own moral compass, but what the Bible tells them.  Or at the least that is the show they put on.  But their sins behind closed doors are viler than anything you might have done in your existence.  The Catholic clergy is a prime example of this one.       

But the worst are the combination of all 3.  They are dumb, they are afraid to go against the church, and they have the hate to go along with anything backed by the church.  Angry, stupid people who are dedicated followers.  Can you think of a worse waste of life?  The people of this ilk are epitomized by the viewpoint of creationism.

Creationism is argued by the people who believe in that this explanation to creation of the universe should be taught in schools alongside evolution.  The difference between creationism and evolution is that creationism has been proven utterly and completely wrong.  After the lesson on creationism what’s covered next—the geocentric model of the universe.  “Children the sun revolves around us.  And day and night tell us which side of the Earth the sun is on, because our planet is also flat.”

With all the countless physical, geographical, evidence out that there were dinosaurs and the world is billions of years old anyone who questions that should not be thought of as religious, has “having faith,” but as over the rainbow fucking crazy.  Sterilize these people.  I have to admit their existence alone does cast some doubt to Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory.  People believe the world is 6000 years old and created in only 6 days.  And we have to respect this? We have to allow this to be taught in school alongside the actual history of our world.  Evolution may not be 100%, but it is 100% that creationism did not happen, so move on.  There are bones of these creatures called dinosaurs.  This has been proven wrong.

Now, I am not saying that these discoveries disprove God.  In fact, I have said for years that the “steps” in Genesis actually follow the actual evidence—first no earth, then earth was just water, than animals than people.  If Christians want to admit that is an analogy and days just meant millions of years they would have a much better argument—I’m sorry, they would actually have an argument—but that is the type of higher thinking organized religion does not allow.  Instead they want people protesting schools about their right to have their belief in creationism taught in schools.  I’m sorry what right is that. The constitution does not say “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit to be an Idiot.”  They have as much right to push for creationism to be taught in school as they do with saying gravity does not exist and Oswald acted alone.  (But JFK is a whole other blog.)

This idea of the world is wrong, it has been proved wrong, move past it.  I respect the difference of faiths, the difference of opinions, but not the difference of facts. 

Political leaders say they are creationists either because it is their own belief or for the votes, but I think anyone who believes this should not be allowed to vote nonetheless hold public office.  You obviously cannot comprehend evidence presented before you.  Christ they shouldn’t even be allowed to be on juries.

But yes, I did just use Christ.

No, I won’t edit it.

I do believe in the guy for something.  I do believe in something.  But we just don’t know what and until we do—if we ever do—we can’t use scripture for the basis of law, morals, or to define the workings of the universe.  If there was any message in Bloodlines, it was to question everything, think for yourself.  In my eyes the Gospel of Judas holds as much validity at the Gospel of Mark.  Either can be wrong, right, or maybe a mixture of both.  If there was a supreme being out there who gave us life, he would want one thing from us.

To think for ourselves. 

The truth about the start World War II, is not anti-Semitism or the evil of Hitler.  It was a product of how the allies treated Germany at the end of WWI.  I am not in any way defending Hitler, and trust me in the alternate reality of this history Hitler would still be a sick piece of shit.  He just wouldn’t have been also a leader of millions of Germans. 

            You see, you gotta conquer but you can’t control.  You have to win the battle but the tell the other nation, “Look, you're gonna be my bitch, but I’m going to treat you so good, you’re gonna love it.”  All the great empires, the Roman Republic, Cyrus, Alexander, maintained their empires because while they ruled a land they also bettered the land.  Peoples' lives were better.  Sure they were second class citizens, but shit they had roads. 

            On the other side empires that milked their colonies: England, French, Eastern European Communism, all lost them to the hands of the colonists. If you make the rules unwinnable, people will break the rules.  If you make people’s lives unlivable, they will take lives.  That is how a revolution is born.  People have to be willing to kill.  The Germans had to pay 5.8 billion Francs for fire wood.  That style of living will make you see red. 

            Hitler was evil incarnate.  The lowest of lows.  Hitler’s lack of a soul is never in question when we think of World War II.  What is, is how a nation of people could have followed him—loved him.  They couldn’t live by the rules of Versailles and survive.  They revolted against that, which in turn was Europe, which at that point was basically the world.  "Fuck it, let’s build an army, let’s reclaim some boundaries, let’s blame the Jews."

            Ideas are ideas, powerful, but still just crazy ideas.  Hitler would just be a drunk at a bar, if people were not willing to listen.  Willing to kill.  If Germans in the 1920’s had been given a respectable terms of surrender, like Japan after World War 2 (could not have an army, they would be protected) and most important avoided the war debt, the average citizen would not want war.  Total war.

            Total war is the most honest action a nation can take.  The populace is participating and fighting this war.  It is choosing the war and standing for what it stands for.   Because if the people are already taken up arms, their either going to fight the war, or fight the people making them fight the war--their own country.  Ask Nicolos II of Russia.  The total wars fought in America, American people (myself included) stand by the wars.  The Revolution, The Civil War, WWII.  It is the other wars (Vietnam, Spanish, Iraq) that I and other people call these wars into question.

            The German people are not blameless, but they are excusable.  Even some Southern Americans still talk about rising up against the north just of the treatment during Reconstruction.  The lesson to be taken here is not just about World War II causes, but that after conquest it is imperative to be a mother country and notn an empire.  It is better to be loved than feared.  People do crazier shit when they are scared.  They risk a lot less when they are happy.  How we should leave Iraq, is not our trademark rape the land and make the people worthless workers, but allow them to flourish.  Allow them to see how great this liberal democracy concept really is.  We are hurting too much to give generously to other countries, and I'm not against making some money off this country, but don’t exploit it.  Or our Children will fight one of the deadliest wars and die on a sand dune in Babylon.  Let them see the tyranny of their old ways, before they see the greed of ours.     

I also liked it because in this story the reader will find themselves actually cheering for a vampire, but at the same time these are not the dumbed down PG-13 rated vampires.  There are the real deal.  Killers, murderers, but also warriors.  The conflict of this book is not that vampires are bad and humans are good. But that vampires are bad and good, and humans are just at their mercy.

It is a thriller, action-adventure.  The historical references are there, but they are used to give some validity to the curse of the vampires.  The references are intertwined with suspense like the way they are with the Dan Brown novels.  There is also mention of the templars, Church history, and Europe in general.

Ther basic plot also is an imitation, and in that way a form of flattery to Stoker's novel.  Vlad, who has been fighting this vampire war for years against his brother Radu, meets a woman who reminds his of his dead wife when he was a human.  He falls instantly in love, but knows he cannot be with her unless he is a human.  The chance comes up for him to be a human again, but first he must make the world safe for humans by destroying Radu.  This is where the drama ensures.

Silver is a weakness for vampires and so silver coated bullets are used to kill them.  This alllows for alot, and I mean alot, of shoot-outs in the novel.  The book is violent, and it is also gory.  You cannot have a story where the characters drink blood to survive and make it PG-13.  That's just preposterous.  These are not teenage vampires looking for a prom date.  These are vicious warriors looking to enslave the world or save it.  All the chips are on the line in this one.

Overall I think this is one of the best vampire books ever written, and that is not just me tooting my own horn.  As a fan of vampires this is the kind of book I would be looking for right now.  Something with action, suspense, and makes me feel that the entire mythos of vampires has not taken are wrong turn down mertro-sexual ville.  Also, who better to be the main character in a vampire novel than Dracula himself?

This story is more of what you can expect from a Drew D'Amato fix.  Supernatural suspense.  Social Studies was a social commentary.  While I have ideas for a few more they are very few and far between.  Ideas like this though, is where I seem to have too many and not enough time to get them all out on paper.  This is really the start of the D'Amato Dominion, and I hope you enjoy it Faithful Supporter.

The first draft was written after college, written as a novel, when i had decided to go back to writing novels instead.  I knew novels required much more research than a movie script, so I did my research and from learning about the actual life of the guy I found my adversary for him--his brother Radu.  They were enemies as humans.  What better universal conflict is there than brother vs brother?  It goes back to the Bible.  Also from learning about his life I discovered the Order of the Dragon.  Here was Vlad actually in a secret order--I now also had my source for what gave him and his brother the power to be a vampire.  

When i finished it 2001 there were some differences then from the finished version.  In the 2001 version they lived in Philadelphia, not California.  The original version contained some explanation for the many vampire legends, but no where near as much research as in the final version.  Also my entire writing talent was no where near as mature as it is now.

The book was rejected by everyone I sent it to (and I sent it to a lot of people).  Part of it might have been my skills were not up to par to compete with commercial fiction, and part of it might have been vampires were not as big as they were then as they were now. I moved on and started working on Social Studies with the feeling I just had to come up with another idea.  But there was a reason why the first novel I wrote after college was a vampire one--I knew they would always be popular.

2 years ago when I inked the deal for Social Studies, I offered the published Bloodlines and Social Studies. They chose to go with the latter, because though vampires were popular, my vision of vampires were not in line with the what was selling then.  Most of the vampire works were supernatural-erotica.  Vampire porn--True Blood, Twilight, Vampire Diaries.  The vampires were young andsexy.  They were love stories, sex stories, and the characters happened to be vampires.  Most of these works didn't stay true to any of the vampire rules except that the vampires had fangs and drank blood.  The publishers were right, my book was not like these--thank God.  So instead i gave them Social Studies, but Bloodlines was next in my queue to work on.  I was not writing this book for tweenagers, I was writing this for vampires fans--true vampire fans.  There is violence, Christian symbols, and not only do I stay true to most of the lore, I even explain some of the legends.  I publish it now hoping that the masses are sick of these tiger beat vampires and want to stick their teeth into some real blood.

My next blog will explain more about the plot and some of the history mentioned in this book.  For now I wanted you to know my motivation to write this story.

Stephen King states there are three descending levels of fear: terror, horror and then the gross-out.  First he goes for terror which is the absolute strongest feeling of fear one can get from a work of fiction.  The next phase is horror, which kind of comes over you once you realize what the monster is (and once you learn what this source of the evil is, an how impossible it may be, you somehow feel a little less fear. It's not as powerful as when in the phase of terror.)  You can compare the terror/horror dynamic to watching Jaws, before you see the big fake mechanical shark, and then after you see it.  The next level is simply the gross out, which is just shock value/revulsion.  I agree with him on these levels. but unlike him, I never try to go for the gross out.

I was never interested in those movies that just showed gross ways to die, mindless zombies, or other mindless forms of fright.  To me real terror is mental.  The Omen scared the shit out of me, because as a young kid I firmly believed in jesus, so why not the antichrist too?  i remember checking my brither's hair for 666 when he was sleeping one night. If you can't believe there is any chance of the fear being real, how can you be afraid?  The truth is Jaws instilled more genuine fear than all of the Friday the 13th movies combined.

While there are fans out there who love horror films, and support them, I think the truth is they really like dark comedies.  They sit there watching the Halloweens or the Nightmare on Elm Street series with smiles on their faces cheering for the villian.  That to me is not terror.  H.P. Lovecraft is Terror, Stephen Kig is Terror, The Exorcist is terror.  That is fear.  And it takes the right circumstances to feel fear.  You have to believe in the threat, and it helps to be alone, vulnerable and powerless.   This is the situation I was in when I came up with the idea for Suffer The Little Children.

I had a summer job painting classrooms in the public schools in town.  I was alone from the rest of the crew, painting a room, when I got the thought of a ghost, but not just any ghost, but a child's ghost.  A haunted school.  Dead kids under the age of 10.  It seemed one of the scariest ideas to me.  Fans of pet semetary can understand.  The thought chiled my bones, and i quickly went to find the rest of the crew.

The idea has stayed with me over the years and what you have before you is the final version of that fear.  I hope your skin pricks a little.  It's only a short story, its small, but so are the ghosts in this story.

The story itself is a different style than my other works, and only this and Social Studies so far has no element of supernatural in it.  It is a gangster story, about making off with dirty money, loaded with suspicious characters.  The mob, dirty cops, dirtier politicians, gangs, drug dealers, and of course an adulterous wife. The action is quick and in your face.  The span of the story is only a few days and not much time for a pause to relax once it starts.  Like the first line of the story, "It happened fast." 

The style of the prose is also a style I am still trying to experiement with.  I like to call it brutal staccato. Short sentences, one sentence paragraphs, look here, check that, vibe this.  I am giving my best Elroy Leonard try.  Readers of his "Underworld USA Trilogy" can definitely see his inspiration.  I want to be in your face, and brutal, because this is the kind of story for that.  

It takes place in my hometown of New Haven.  Anyone from the area will notice the references.  I want you to read it quick, to take it all in, but with this new style the prose might appear strange to some.  It took me longer than my other works to flush out the editing just right, and to get the wording smooth. This style takes out as much description as possible.  Keep it short, simple, and of course brutal.  

It was originally intended to be a full novel and titled "A Week in New Jersey," but when I got down to the nuts and bolts of it, what was published was really all that was needed.   It is a story of dirty money and one big hustle.  Blowing it up to 500 pages would be gluttonous of me.  I don't write a lot of stories about hustlers, cons and dirty deals.  I think that is more so because I have enough personal experience of it myself.  I know the saying is to write what you know, but there is another element here.  Though I am sure Martin Scorsese and Mario Puzo know gangsters from personal experience, I don't think either of them had much experience being gangsters.  Or someone like Quentin Tarantino or Elmore Leonard for that matter.  Because in their works they are able to glorify the life of a gangster.  They make a hero in their works.  Trust me, in this world there are no heroes.  I like to have a clash of good versus evil in my works and there is not much good in this type of life.  

This is why I don't think more stories like this will be coming from me.  It's not what normally pours out onto my computer.  But still this idea came to me in a dream years ago, and I never got it out of my head.  I am glad to have it now on the printed page.

DD 

The first story "Welcome to the Machine", gets its title from the Pink Floyd song.  I had written this story years ago.  I was so proud of the twist at the end, that I even gave a version of the story in its infancy to Stephen King when I met him years back at a book signing.  I really enjoyed the twist at the end and hope you do to.  It is a story in the not too distant future of a corporation creating a time machine, and the power that comes from something like this.  It is written in first person, told in the form of a journal by one of the scientists working on the project.  This story will also mark the first introduction of "The Corporation." This mega company that takes over America and most of the world in my upcoming "Capitalism trilogy."  The machine itself plays a central role in the second novel of the series titled "Pandora."

The second story is "2 Minutes to Midnight," which this title comes from the Iron Maiden song.  It has nothing to do with a newborn in a womb, or what any of the lyrics of that song is about.  11:58 p.m. is a time when all the action in the story takes place.  It is also written in first person.  It is a twist on the traditional ghost story.  I had written this one also years ago, and think it is one of my stronger ones.  I do not want to reveal too much, but it might give you something more to think about what those sounds mean that go bump in the night.

I also included in each of these stories the first chapter of my upcoming novel "Bloodliines."  The novel is slated for a Halloween release date, though probably will be bumped up a little earlier to catch all the Halloween buzz.  This novel will also be exclusive to the kindle, and blogs will be soon to follow to delve into the plot and characters of this novel, which is also the first part of a trilogy.  Maruno is working on the cover design, and my lawyer is working on securing the rights to the quotes in the book.  (There is only one this time.)  Follow me on twitter @drewdamato or check in on here to find more updates for dates of future releases.