1. Bram Stoker’s Notes for Dracula: A Facsimile Edition (Robert Eighteen-Bisang and Elizabeth Miller)---wonderful to be able to read Stoker’s notes in his original writing. What’s even more fun is to be able to look at single words/phrases and try to decipher them( Stoker’s handwriting seems rushed and is illegible at times and there are still debates about certain words/phrases). But as a big fan of his work, just visually seeing his writing gave me a special thrill.
2. “The New Annotated Dracula (Leslie S. Klinger with introduction by Neil Gaiman). Klinger just published “The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes” and if the Dracula one is anything to compare it by, they both must be wonderful. Klinger knows his subject matter thoroughly and examines the text fully and completely. It’s going on my reference shelf! Several authors have published the novel with their notes (interestingly Wolf analyzed and published analyses of both Phantom and Dracula but I digress…) but if you’re deciding which to purchase, Klinger’s is among my top favs.
3. “Vampire Wine and Roses: Chilling Tales of Immortal Pleasure” edited by John Richard Stephens. Yes, yes, I know, there are many good compilations of vampire stories. However, this one has some really, really good stories with some stories I haven’t seen in print for a very long time. From Anne Rice to Sting to Voltaire to Stephen King, this is another ‘must have’ for the vampire aficionado’s book shelf.
Take care all,
Christine Prebler
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
“The ‘other’ vampire movie” (Let the Right one in--book review)
Hi all,
Unfortunately, the town I live in does not have a movie theater close by that shows independent movies.
I really wanted to see “Let the right one in” because I’ve heard so much about it. Instead of making a long trip to the nearest big city, I did the next best thing. I bought the book. Written by Swedish writer, John Ajvide Lindqvist and translated by Ebba Segerberg , the writing style was strongly reminiscent of Stephen King ( though King wrote Salem‘s Lot“, the book is not reminiscent of this but rather King‘s use of a young boy (and even, girl) narrator in his many books and stories). Yeah, these are not your rich, dapper vamps. Instead, they’re a little closer to the “30 days of Night” version (have a death smell, cannot control their appetite , must kill each time they feed and morph into something less than human when they change). Except for Eli, the young teen vampire who, through her friendship with a human boy, remembers what it’s like to be human and longs for this mortal life.
Eli moves next to a preteen boy named Oskar who lives in a Stockholm suburb. He gets picked on by bullies at school and daydreams of becoming a mass murderer so he get revenge on them. Yeah, it’s not your run of the mill YA book (I don’t think it was written for teens) but for us adults, “Let..” is an excellent novel. Oskar meets Eli who smells odd and wears the same clothes night after night. He bangs on the wall next to his to ‘talk’ with her when she cannot come out. Oskar and Eli form a tenuous friendship where each one sees something that is attractive in the other. Eli sees her lost human childhood in Oskar while Oskar is drawn to the darkness in her that he has in himself.
The book deals with some heavier subject matter (pedophilia, murder, etc) but also raises some issues with regard to childhood, friendship and love. In Lindqvist’s vampire lore, once someone gets infected, ‘brain like’ cells grow next to someone’s heart and becomes their second brain. Therefore, the person ‘changes’ once they become a vampire and cannot be the same person they were beforehand. Even though the book was dark and disturbing (as was the ending), I do highly rec it for vampire fiction readers. Like many vampire novels “Let..” deals with love and the ability of the undead to love. Unlike most of the vampire novels today, it deals with the darker aspects of love and longing and wanting. And for that alone, it should be read.
Happy Holidays!
Christine Prebler
PS---Some cool stuff being released in Jan (Moonlight and The Tudors, Part II on DVD). And Springsteen's new album in Feb. I can't wait:)
PPS--I was watching the TNT series "The Librarian" (Judas chalice one, yes, and I think that the librarian Indiana Jones idea works well) when I saw an add for Tim Hutton's new program "Leverage". Did anyone catch Christian Kane on the show? He played the young, evil lawyer, Lindsey, at Wolfram and Hart on "Angel"
Unfortunately, the town I live in does not have a movie theater close by that shows independent movies.
I really wanted to see “Let the right one in” because I’ve heard so much about it. Instead of making a long trip to the nearest big city, I did the next best thing. I bought the book. Written by Swedish writer, John Ajvide Lindqvist and translated by Ebba Segerberg , the writing style was strongly reminiscent of Stephen King ( though King wrote Salem‘s Lot“, the book is not reminiscent of this but rather King‘s use of a young boy (and even, girl) narrator in his many books and stories). Yeah, these are not your rich, dapper vamps. Instead, they’re a little closer to the “30 days of Night” version (have a death smell, cannot control their appetite , must kill each time they feed and morph into something less than human when they change). Except for Eli, the young teen vampire who, through her friendship with a human boy, remembers what it’s like to be human and longs for this mortal life.
Eli moves next to a preteen boy named Oskar who lives in a Stockholm suburb. He gets picked on by bullies at school and daydreams of becoming a mass murderer so he get revenge on them. Yeah, it’s not your run of the mill YA book (I don’t think it was written for teens) but for us adults, “Let..” is an excellent novel. Oskar meets Eli who smells odd and wears the same clothes night after night. He bangs on the wall next to his to ‘talk’ with her when she cannot come out. Oskar and Eli form a tenuous friendship where each one sees something that is attractive in the other. Eli sees her lost human childhood in Oskar while Oskar is drawn to the darkness in her that he has in himself.
The book deals with some heavier subject matter (pedophilia, murder, etc) but also raises some issues with regard to childhood, friendship and love. In Lindqvist’s vampire lore, once someone gets infected, ‘brain like’ cells grow next to someone’s heart and becomes their second brain. Therefore, the person ‘changes’ once they become a vampire and cannot be the same person they were beforehand. Even though the book was dark and disturbing (as was the ending), I do highly rec it for vampire fiction readers. Like many vampire novels “Let..” deals with love and the ability of the undead to love. Unlike most of the vampire novels today, it deals with the darker aspects of love and longing and wanting. And for that alone, it should be read.
Happy Holidays!
Christine Prebler
PS---Some cool stuff being released in Jan (Moonlight and The Tudors, Part II on DVD). And Springsteen's new album in Feb. I can't wait:)
PPS--I was watching the TNT series "The Librarian" (Judas chalice one, yes, and I think that the librarian Indiana Jones idea works well) when I saw an add for Tim Hutton's new program "Leverage". Did anyone catch Christian Kane on the show? He played the young, evil lawyer, Lindsey, at Wolfram and Hart on "Angel"
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
“The kids are all right” (review of the movie, Twilight, with spoilers)
Remember that small four book series (and maybe more) called “Twilight”? The one with such a fourth controversial book that fans are still debating its merits (or lack thereof) four months after its official release? Well, if you have been living in our solar system this past year, you know that there is not only a book series but also a movie based on the first book of the same name, “Twilight” that was recently released to theaters across the country.
First though. About the books. The Twilight vampire series, written by Stephanie Meyers was a very romantic series about a young teenage girl (Bella) who moves to Forks, Washington to start a new life with her father (mother and father are divorced). Trying to connect with her police chief father (they hadn’t seen each other for some time and he was distant), Bella falls headlong into the new high school scene, feeling very strange and alone. There are others that feel the same way as she does, however, they aren’t alive. Known as the ‘Cullens‘, the other students think that this family of ‘adopted’ brothers and sisters are odd. Oh, if they only knew how different. Yep, they’re a ‘family’ of vampires. Pieced together from those that he loved (wife, Esme Cullen) and the people that he ‘saved’ from dying (turned into vampires) (Edward Cullen, vampire whom Bella falls in love with almost died from Spanish Influenza), Dr. Carlisle Cullen has sworn off killing humans for their blood and is trying to live with his family quietly in Forks. Wash. Why the vampires want to relive high school and not college again and again (I’d prefer collage and grad school), was always a bit confusing for me but it is a young adult series and the concept (vampires in high school)works well for bringing the undead (and their issues) to the teenagers of today.
With vampires and a “Romeo and Juliette” theme, Meyers’ books touched a deep chord with core audience made up of both teenage girls and people in general who enjoy reading romance fiction. At her best, Meyers writes wonderful romantic passages. And while there is very little sex mentioned (until the fourth book), the passion between the two characters, Bella and Edward is intense and deep and highly sensual. Meyers was (and is, she’s writing about aliens taking over people's bodies (some interesting implications about souls and things) book one is called “The Host”) one of the most original voices I’ve read in a long time. I don’t always agree with her philosophies but then, I enjoy reading authors I both agree and disagree with. Authors who do not share my opinions are often those I choose to read. Their take on ‘issues’ make me think about why I believe such and such. And as both a reader and as a writer, I think those books (and movies) that make you think are a very good thing.
OK, what did I forget? Oh, yeah, the actual movie. Though I confess I read the book a while ago, I did really greatly enjoy Meyers first book, “Twilight” and came away from the book with an impression of not only liking it but of being eager to read the next book in the series. I had heard mixed reviews of the actual movie and so, I went to see it with some measure of trepidation. Because when vampire movies are good, they’re very good. But when they’re bad, they’re…. yeah, very bad. I have to say, though I was well over the average age of the teen audience, I think I really enjoyed it as much as they did.
In the movie, Bella leaves her home since her mother married a minor league baseball player and now wants to travel with him on the road. I’m getting old and my memory of the books are fuzzy but I’m not certain if this was the original setup for why Bella leaves her mother’s house. But, as a plot device, it works. And works well. So, Bella moves from Phoenix, Arizona to be with her police chief father in Forks, Washington. The movie starts out with a nice detail of Bella saving something (a small, delicate cactus plant) from her mother’s place. And really, that’s what’s good about the movie. It’s ‘heart’ is in the right place. I really enjoyed the young actress who played Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart). Under the direction of Catherine Hardwicke (good at showing teenage world, director of “Thirteen”), I think that Stewart gave a well rounded, multi-layered performance, showing both a young woman can be both outwardly clumsy and unsure but yet, shows steely determination underneath when she finds the one she loves and wants to stay with him, no matter the great hurdles that they may face.
I read somewhere that the Twilight movie was not made with a large budget and so, the vampires’ makeup, particularly Robert Pattinson’s as Edward is a little too jarring and tends to distract from the action at hand. There are a few awkward moments of dialogue as well but overall, these are very minor and did not detract from my enjoyment of the movie. The really good parts? Edward roaring in (love to see movies where they underscore vampires’ great driving skills. Hey, vampires should be great drivers. Enormously fast reflexes and been driving a very looong time)just in the nick of time to save Bella from certain violence in his silver Volvo (was interesting to see that they did not replace it with a BMW. Huff’s vampire, Henry in her books has one as well as Bill in “True Blood”. You know, there should be an ad that says “Official car of the undead” but I digress…).
I also enjoyed the fight scene at the end (Meyers’ vampires have no fangs but they do move fast and jump around so they are scary and are reminiscent of werewolves in another teen movie that I enjoyed “Blood and Chocolate”) as well as the end of the movie where Bella ends up, body bruised but still physically able to dance in her prom dress with her vampire lover, Edward (a very Anita Blakish moment). I just wanted to mention that besides the main movie characters (thought the actors portraying the Cullens as well as the evil vampires did a nice believable job), I really thought the actor playing Bella’s father (Billy Burke) was both touching and rough in all the right places. The actor made the character who had the difficult job of becoming a parent almost overnight to a teenage girl whom he had not seen in years and found the relationship difficult to relate to (didn‘t want to drive daughter ‘away‘ from him like he did the mother), very heartfelt and endearing.
In summary, then, I’d give the movie 4 out of five stars and would recommend it to my friends and readers. Even though things and situations were changed in the movie, overall, everything worked and I think that all involved captured the magic of the first Meyer’s book that made the readers (including me) enjoyed in it. The movie, like the book, is extremely romantic, and I think, will fulfill expectations of romantics everywhere (even if you watch the movie first). In fact, watching the movie, made me want to go back to read the books to see what was changed for plotting purposes and what was not.
The title of this blog is called “The kids are all right” meaning that seeing the younger generation’s movies (Twilight and “Blood and Chocolate (older book, adaption of movie is new”), I’m excited about the future of both horror films in general and vampire movies in particular. As I’ve said earlier in this review, “Blood and Chocolate” was a great werewolf movie, bringing depth and sexiness to a supernatural being that had only previously been given to vampires. I really enjoyed "Twilight and will be buying the movie on DVD when it is released. Now, bring on “New Moon”! I’ll be waiting with my popcorn. And with my bottle of “True Blood”. Oh, wait that’s another…..
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Is anyone watching “Sons of Anarchy?” In my opinion, it’s one of the new series with the most compelling writing and characters I’ve seen. If you want the connection to vampires, the executive producer is James Parriott. Ring any bells? Yep, he was responsible for the development of the wonderful vampire series “Forever Knight”.
I began watching “Sons” because I’m a Ron Perlman fan (Beauty and the Beast, Hellboy) but the stories are excellent and his wife, played by the talented actress, Katey Sagal (husband Kurt Sutter developed series as well as series “The Shield” of which I heard other good things but did not watch it) is a looong way from being Peggy Bundy (“Married with Children”). But, much like Forever Knight did, SOA tells the story of a young man trapped in a group he would like to leave. With an evil ‘father’ figure and two love interests (one in and one out of the motorcycle gang), it reminds me a lot of Forever Knight. The stories are hard hitting, the characters intriguing. You go away from each episode thinking about the issues. Yep, great all around. I can’t wait for the next season. The episodes are on “On Demand” on your cable right now. Go and watch. You won’t be disappointed. I promise.
First though. About the books. The Twilight vampire series, written by Stephanie Meyers was a very romantic series about a young teenage girl (Bella) who moves to Forks, Washington to start a new life with her father (mother and father are divorced). Trying to connect with her police chief father (they hadn’t seen each other for some time and he was distant), Bella falls headlong into the new high school scene, feeling very strange and alone. There are others that feel the same way as she does, however, they aren’t alive. Known as the ‘Cullens‘, the other students think that this family of ‘adopted’ brothers and sisters are odd. Oh, if they only knew how different. Yep, they’re a ‘family’ of vampires. Pieced together from those that he loved (wife, Esme Cullen) and the people that he ‘saved’ from dying (turned into vampires) (Edward Cullen, vampire whom Bella falls in love with almost died from Spanish Influenza), Dr. Carlisle Cullen has sworn off killing humans for their blood and is trying to live with his family quietly in Forks. Wash. Why the vampires want to relive high school and not college again and again (I’d prefer collage and grad school), was always a bit confusing for me but it is a young adult series and the concept (vampires in high school)works well for bringing the undead (and their issues) to the teenagers of today.
With vampires and a “Romeo and Juliette” theme, Meyers’ books touched a deep chord with core audience made up of both teenage girls and people in general who enjoy reading romance fiction. At her best, Meyers writes wonderful romantic passages. And while there is very little sex mentioned (until the fourth book), the passion between the two characters, Bella and Edward is intense and deep and highly sensual. Meyers was (and is, she’s writing about aliens taking over people's bodies (some interesting implications about souls and things) book one is called “The Host”) one of the most original voices I’ve read in a long time. I don’t always agree with her philosophies but then, I enjoy reading authors I both agree and disagree with. Authors who do not share my opinions are often those I choose to read. Their take on ‘issues’ make me think about why I believe such and such. And as both a reader and as a writer, I think those books (and movies) that make you think are a very good thing.
OK, what did I forget? Oh, yeah, the actual movie. Though I confess I read the book a while ago, I did really greatly enjoy Meyers first book, “Twilight” and came away from the book with an impression of not only liking it but of being eager to read the next book in the series. I had heard mixed reviews of the actual movie and so, I went to see it with some measure of trepidation. Because when vampire movies are good, they’re very good. But when they’re bad, they’re…. yeah, very bad. I have to say, though I was well over the average age of the teen audience, I think I really enjoyed it as much as they did.
In the movie, Bella leaves her home since her mother married a minor league baseball player and now wants to travel with him on the road. I’m getting old and my memory of the books are fuzzy but I’m not certain if this was the original setup for why Bella leaves her mother’s house. But, as a plot device, it works. And works well. So, Bella moves from Phoenix, Arizona to be with her police chief father in Forks, Washington. The movie starts out with a nice detail of Bella saving something (a small, delicate cactus plant) from her mother’s place. And really, that’s what’s good about the movie. It’s ‘heart’ is in the right place. I really enjoyed the young actress who played Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart). Under the direction of Catherine Hardwicke (good at showing teenage world, director of “Thirteen”), I think that Stewart gave a well rounded, multi-layered performance, showing both a young woman can be both outwardly clumsy and unsure but yet, shows steely determination underneath when she finds the one she loves and wants to stay with him, no matter the great hurdles that they may face.
I read somewhere that the Twilight movie was not made with a large budget and so, the vampires’ makeup, particularly Robert Pattinson’s as Edward is a little too jarring and tends to distract from the action at hand. There are a few awkward moments of dialogue as well but overall, these are very minor and did not detract from my enjoyment of the movie. The really good parts? Edward roaring in (love to see movies where they underscore vampires’ great driving skills. Hey, vampires should be great drivers. Enormously fast reflexes and been driving a very looong time)just in the nick of time to save Bella from certain violence in his silver Volvo (was interesting to see that they did not replace it with a BMW. Huff’s vampire, Henry in her books has one as well as Bill in “True Blood”. You know, there should be an ad that says “Official car of the undead” but I digress…).
I also enjoyed the fight scene at the end (Meyers’ vampires have no fangs but they do move fast and jump around so they are scary and are reminiscent of werewolves in another teen movie that I enjoyed “Blood and Chocolate”) as well as the end of the movie where Bella ends up, body bruised but still physically able to dance in her prom dress with her vampire lover, Edward (a very Anita Blakish moment). I just wanted to mention that besides the main movie characters (thought the actors portraying the Cullens as well as the evil vampires did a nice believable job), I really thought the actor playing Bella’s father (Billy Burke) was both touching and rough in all the right places. The actor made the character who had the difficult job of becoming a parent almost overnight to a teenage girl whom he had not seen in years and found the relationship difficult to relate to (didn‘t want to drive daughter ‘away‘ from him like he did the mother), very heartfelt and endearing.
In summary, then, I’d give the movie 4 out of five stars and would recommend it to my friends and readers. Even though things and situations were changed in the movie, overall, everything worked and I think that all involved captured the magic of the first Meyer’s book that made the readers (including me) enjoyed in it. The movie, like the book, is extremely romantic, and I think, will fulfill expectations of romantics everywhere (even if you watch the movie first). In fact, watching the movie, made me want to go back to read the books to see what was changed for plotting purposes and what was not.
The title of this blog is called “The kids are all right” meaning that seeing the younger generation’s movies (Twilight and “Blood and Chocolate (older book, adaption of movie is new”), I’m excited about the future of both horror films in general and vampire movies in particular. As I’ve said earlier in this review, “Blood and Chocolate” was a great werewolf movie, bringing depth and sexiness to a supernatural being that had only previously been given to vampires. I really enjoyed "Twilight and will be buying the movie on DVD when it is released. Now, bring on “New Moon”! I’ll be waiting with my popcorn. And with my bottle of “True Blood”. Oh, wait that’s another…..
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Is anyone watching “Sons of Anarchy?” In my opinion, it’s one of the new series with the most compelling writing and characters I’ve seen. If you want the connection to vampires, the executive producer is James Parriott. Ring any bells? Yep, he was responsible for the development of the wonderful vampire series “Forever Knight”.
I began watching “Sons” because I’m a Ron Perlman fan (Beauty and the Beast, Hellboy) but the stories are excellent and his wife, played by the talented actress, Katey Sagal (husband Kurt Sutter developed series as well as series “The Shield” of which I heard other good things but did not watch it) is a looong way from being Peggy Bundy (“Married with Children”). But, much like Forever Knight did, SOA tells the story of a young man trapped in a group he would like to leave. With an evil ‘father’ figure and two love interests (one in and one out of the motorcycle gang), it reminds me a lot of Forever Knight. The stories are hard hitting, the characters intriguing. You go away from each episode thinking about the issues. Yep, great all around. I can’t wait for the next season. The episodes are on “On Demand” on your cable right now. Go and watch. You won’t be disappointed. I promise.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Fangs this Fall (True Blood Series on HBO)
Hi all,
Yep, summer’s almost over and autumn’s just around the corner. And while I’m not a regular tv watcher (I’m either writing or reading or on the net), I am excited this year because, once again, there’s another vampire series in the lineup. Called “True Blood”, it’s based on Charlaine Harris’ “Dead” series and stars Anna Paquin (yes, the little girl from the movie, The Piano for all us old-timers out there. As an aside, I’d love to see Sam Neill portray a vampire character someday in a movie or tv series but I digress.)
Anyway, I’ve been watching the sneak previews on HBO called “Blood Copy” (think they’re up to 11 episodes now) and they’ve been both funny (‘friends don’t let friends eat friends‘) and thought provoking (‘God hates fangs’) . I’ve seen a short ‘making of’ the series as well and so far, things look good. I even like the folksy character of Bill, the Civil War veteran (looks pretty average until he shows his fangs) since he’s described as such in the Harris’ books. There also seems to be a bit of “Buffy’ mixed into the flavor of the show, particularly when Sookie (Paquin) answers “I’m just a waitress” to the question of “what are you?” I also think I caught a flash in the program of master vamp, Eric, who looks like a head vamp should.
I must confess though, I go into every vampire show now with a measure of tempered excitement. You see, I’ve lived through many, many good vampire shows and their subsequent cancellations. Here is a list of the following vampire shows that I’ve watched (and liked, and were cancelled).
1. Cliffhanger Series (Michael Nouri played Dracula who ‘moonlighted’ as a college prof). I remember watching that series and liking the idea of a more ‘moral’ vampire. Bringing in the mother of the girl in love with Dracula as a vampire added an interesting touch as well. Though the vampires couldn’t help but to kill their victims for their blood, it was one of the first series that suggested that there might be something to want to live/become undead for.
2. Dark Shadows--I’ve seen much of the original black and white episodes and though Frid did a wonderful job, most of my memories of the show center around the ‘91 remake with Ben Cross. I confess, I was a big Cross fan back in the day (he did a small budget vampire movie called “Nightlife” in addition to doing the tv series “Far Pavilions”. MM Kaye is a wonderful writer and I rec “Far Pavilions” and “Shadow of the Moon” most highly). In my opinion, Cross did a fine Barnabas Collins opposite a sexy Joanna Going but unfortunately, unlike the original which ran for five years and 1225 episodes, the revival only ran 13 episodes. Perhaps the original had too big of faings to follow but in any case, this vampire series got the ax (or the stake, whichever you prefer).
3. The Kindred---Based on the novels, this series was another good one, I thought, but again, was short lived. I liked the bar owning vampire, Lily Langtree as well as the ‘prince of the city’, Julian Luna. It’s sad the actor (Mark Frankel) portraying the sexy vampire was killed in a motorcycle accident soon after the series was cancelled. There were many interesting things about the series (vampires were grouped into different ‘clans’ which explained the differences among the literary vampires). For example, Luna belonged to the business class of vampires called the Ventrue while the rat like vampires belonged to the Nosferatu clan. Each of the clans had a leader who sat in on meetings about vampire business and ‘voted’ for their interests. The analogy of this series of vampires being akin to the Mafia was another interesting idea and again, I wished that there were more episodes.
4. Dracula, the Series. This was a quirky vampire series done primarily for kids on Saturday mornings. Geordie Johnson did a nice job of portraying a very three dimensional Dracula character and Geraint Wyn Davies who was to play vampire Nick on FK was, in this show, the son of the main vampire hunter turned vampire on the show. Davies did a rather lighthearted job of the role and at times, in the beginning of FK, it was hard to see this actor as the very serious Nick. But Davies is a great actor and it didn't take me long to be convinced.
5. Forever Knight--started out as Crimetime after Primetime. Gained a huge following that probably became one of the first fans to translate their love of the series to the net. Great show. If you only want to watch one vampire show, this is the one to see in my opinion. The writers went through many of the issues surrounding vampire lore (religion (don't get me started on the vampires not being able to get into heaven unless they are human episode), suicide, love, loss, etc. I was a big Lacroix fan (PN Elrod, a wonderful writer of another great vampire series wrote two books with the actor who portrayed Lacroix, Nigel Bennett, though the books were not based on the immoral vampire character but a rather, more noble one). Liked the books and rec them highly as well:)
Though I didn't agree with much of the philosophy and wanted to throw a shoe at the tv sometime during each episode, this was the first vampire show that made me want to think more about the issues. And therefore, that's smart tv:)
6. Buffy and 7.Angel. Two of the most successful vampire series. There was much I enjoyed about the series (Spike for one) but I thought that vampires being possessed by demons (when humans ‘lost’ their soul, they gained a demon and were immortal) was a limiting factor when the concept of ‘moral vampires’ was introduced in the series. In any case, it ran for quite some time and provided me a good reason to not only watch tv every week but also, to buy a larger one as well (and a better VCR).
8. Port Charles---I think I was between jobs at the time and ended up watching some daytime tv. And lo and behold, there were vampires on tv. Was great to watch Caleb and Livy negotiate vampire love and desire. Since this was a soap opera, there were many sexy scenes though it wasn’t all fluff. Now and again, there were some questions about morality and vampires that Caleb (Michael Easton) had to deal with. And somehow, men always look sexier wearing fangs:)
9. Ultraviolet--I’m a huge Philip Quast fan (I so wish I could have seen him portray “Juan Peron” in “Evita’) and bought this series solely because he was in it. It was a British series and Quast played a Catholic priest who is dying of cancer. Needless to say, he has some issues to wrestle with as he runs an organization that is trying to find out what the vampires want from us humans these days. It’s a very complex series and presents the watcher with many issues to sort though. Just when you’re ‘sold’ on what the humans have to say about the vamps, a vampire character is introduced and turns it all on its head. Wonderful series, amazing acting. Again, very sad that it was also so short.
10. And 11.Moonlight and Blood Ties---These were two recent series which didn’t last very long either. I really liked Kyle Schmid as Henry (is an amazing actor. I couldn’t believe that he was so young because he had imbued the character with the ‘old soul’, been there, done that qualities which I don’t really see in many young actors/actresses these days. However, what was good was that Schmid kept just enough ‘youth’ in the character, actor was really in his 20s, so that every now and then, one could see a trace of the teenager that the mortal Henry must have been like before his conversion to immortality all those years ago. Blood Ties was on Lifetime, didn’t have that big of a budget and fans were unhappy with a number of things, including the fake looking monsters, the lack of street kid Tony and the never resolved (even a little) tensions between Mike, Vicki and Henry. In one story, Henry listened to Vicki when she thought he wouldn’t and as a reward, she allowed him to feed from her when they were in an elevator. Sexiest scene in the series. Too bad there weren’t more of them.
Moonlight had good characters too (liked Beth, Mick and Josef) and some in jokes (there was a “Lost Boys’ reference in there one week) but the story arc seemed uneven and the death of Beth’s human boyfriend was sudden and very shocking. Though the viewer understood that the human boyfriend was there to fill the ‘other guy’ role, the actor playing Josh did a very nice job and I really came to feel sympathy for him when he realized Beth was in love with Mick. I don’t remember if the writers knew that the series was being cancelled before killing off the human boyfriend but things after that seemed disjointed at best (would have been more interesting in this writer’s opinion if mortal was made immortal). At least, however, the last episode had a somewhat satisfying wrap up.
Am I done? This is all the series I can think of at the moment. But lately, it has been tough for some Sci-Fi series, even ones that did not center on vampires. The Dresden Files was cancelled which I thought was sad. I particularly liked Mann, (another actor who portrayed Javert in addition to Quast) as a ghost.
After looking at all these failed series, one has to wonder, “Is there hope for “True Blood”? I hope so but when making a vampire series one has to watch out for a couple of things. The characters must be adapted from page to screen, not necessarily rigidly so but imbued with enough of the traits to make those of us who’ve read the series to go “OK, that’s how I imaged he/she would look/act”. And how much of the character traits/quirks should the writers keep? It’s always tough to figure out what will translate well from the page to the screen but while I’m certain that the writers for “Blood Ties” thought it was a small thing, I know I was not the only one disappointed to see Henry driving a Jag instead of his trusted BMW.
So, OK, you got the characters and you think you’ve got them looking and acting like they did in the novels. But then, comes the hardest part, the story lines. Keeping them interesting and insightful to BOTH vampire and non vampire fans alike can be the biggest challenge. I know some people who watched “Forever Knight” and were bored with the show but I always enjoyed it for the issues they raised. For example, the vampire suicide episode (vampire actor/playwright decides she’s lived too long and commits suicide by burning in the sun) was a ‘quiet’ episode but one with much meaning to a vampire fan like me. Would non vampire fans wanting to watch a show for pure entertainment be drawn to it? I dunno. And that’s one of the difficulties. To be able to write strong, compelling episodes that vampire fans will want to discuss and debate while everyone is entertained in the process. I don’t think these two ideas (well, three if you layer in the romantic aspects/relationship writing into the series) that I’ve presented are incompatible with each other. But it must be difficult to write to achieve that balance and thus, this is probably the determining factor of whether the series lives or dies or goes to video and becomes undead. Sorry, I couldn't resist:)
True Blood starts Sunday, Sept. 7 on HBO. The stakes (sorry about the pun) are high but the cast is talented and the channel is ‘big’ enough so that I’m betting the production budget is fairly good for each episode. Let us all hope that the stories are not only interesting to us vampire fans but compelling to the regular tv watcher as well. I really enjoy vampire tv series because each one has a different philosophy on immortality and even watching a 'bad' vampire series (is there really one?) it’s interesting as a writer, to see each ‘take’ on it. In any case, tv series provide a short respite from writing. And we all need that every now and again. Let’s hope True Blood has the run that Buffy did. Although, if it does, I think I’m going to need another job just to pay my cable bill. Ah, well, maybe I’ll buy less books. See, now that really is fiction:)
Take care all,
Chris
PS--I also like to watch “The Tudors” and really enjoy the series. It’s not for the kids but has wonderful adult writing and circumstances. Anyway, just wanted to add that Jeremy Northam who portrayed St. Thomas More in the series also seems like an actor who could do a wonderful vampire character as well:)
Yep, summer’s almost over and autumn’s just around the corner. And while I’m not a regular tv watcher (I’m either writing or reading or on the net), I am excited this year because, once again, there’s another vampire series in the lineup. Called “True Blood”, it’s based on Charlaine Harris’ “Dead” series and stars Anna Paquin (yes, the little girl from the movie, The Piano for all us old-timers out there. As an aside, I’d love to see Sam Neill portray a vampire character someday in a movie or tv series but I digress.)
Anyway, I’ve been watching the sneak previews on HBO called “Blood Copy” (think they’re up to 11 episodes now) and they’ve been both funny (‘friends don’t let friends eat friends‘) and thought provoking (‘God hates fangs’) . I’ve seen a short ‘making of’ the series as well and so far, things look good. I even like the folksy character of Bill, the Civil War veteran (looks pretty average until he shows his fangs) since he’s described as such in the Harris’ books. There also seems to be a bit of “Buffy’ mixed into the flavor of the show, particularly when Sookie (Paquin) answers “I’m just a waitress” to the question of “what are you?” I also think I caught a flash in the program of master vamp, Eric, who looks like a head vamp should.
I must confess though, I go into every vampire show now with a measure of tempered excitement. You see, I’ve lived through many, many good vampire shows and their subsequent cancellations. Here is a list of the following vampire shows that I’ve watched (and liked, and were cancelled).
1. Cliffhanger Series (Michael Nouri played Dracula who ‘moonlighted’ as a college prof). I remember watching that series and liking the idea of a more ‘moral’ vampire. Bringing in the mother of the girl in love with Dracula as a vampire added an interesting touch as well. Though the vampires couldn’t help but to kill their victims for their blood, it was one of the first series that suggested that there might be something to want to live/become undead for.
2. Dark Shadows--I’ve seen much of the original black and white episodes and though Frid did a wonderful job, most of my memories of the show center around the ‘91 remake with Ben Cross. I confess, I was a big Cross fan back in the day (he did a small budget vampire movie called “Nightlife” in addition to doing the tv series “Far Pavilions”. MM Kaye is a wonderful writer and I rec “Far Pavilions” and “Shadow of the Moon” most highly). In my opinion, Cross did a fine Barnabas Collins opposite a sexy Joanna Going but unfortunately, unlike the original which ran for five years and 1225 episodes, the revival only ran 13 episodes. Perhaps the original had too big of faings to follow but in any case, this vampire series got the ax (or the stake, whichever you prefer).
3. The Kindred---Based on the novels, this series was another good one, I thought, but again, was short lived. I liked the bar owning vampire, Lily Langtree as well as the ‘prince of the city’, Julian Luna. It’s sad the actor (Mark Frankel) portraying the sexy vampire was killed in a motorcycle accident soon after the series was cancelled. There were many interesting things about the series (vampires were grouped into different ‘clans’ which explained the differences among the literary vampires). For example, Luna belonged to the business class of vampires called the Ventrue while the rat like vampires belonged to the Nosferatu clan. Each of the clans had a leader who sat in on meetings about vampire business and ‘voted’ for their interests. The analogy of this series of vampires being akin to the Mafia was another interesting idea and again, I wished that there were more episodes.
4. Dracula, the Series. This was a quirky vampire series done primarily for kids on Saturday mornings. Geordie Johnson did a nice job of portraying a very three dimensional Dracula character and Geraint Wyn Davies who was to play vampire Nick on FK was, in this show, the son of the main vampire hunter turned vampire on the show. Davies did a rather lighthearted job of the role and at times, in the beginning of FK, it was hard to see this actor as the very serious Nick. But Davies is a great actor and it didn't take me long to be convinced.
5. Forever Knight--started out as Crimetime after Primetime. Gained a huge following that probably became one of the first fans to translate their love of the series to the net. Great show. If you only want to watch one vampire show, this is the one to see in my opinion. The writers went through many of the issues surrounding vampire lore (religion (don't get me started on the vampires not being able to get into heaven unless they are human episode), suicide, love, loss, etc. I was a big Lacroix fan (PN Elrod, a wonderful writer of another great vampire series wrote two books with the actor who portrayed Lacroix, Nigel Bennett, though the books were not based on the immoral vampire character but a rather, more noble one). Liked the books and rec them highly as well:)
Though I didn't agree with much of the philosophy and wanted to throw a shoe at the tv sometime during each episode, this was the first vampire show that made me want to think more about the issues. And therefore, that's smart tv:)
6. Buffy and 7.Angel. Two of the most successful vampire series. There was much I enjoyed about the series (Spike for one) but I thought that vampires being possessed by demons (when humans ‘lost’ their soul, they gained a demon and were immortal) was a limiting factor when the concept of ‘moral vampires’ was introduced in the series. In any case, it ran for quite some time and provided me a good reason to not only watch tv every week but also, to buy a larger one as well (and a better VCR).
8. Port Charles---I think I was between jobs at the time and ended up watching some daytime tv. And lo and behold, there were vampires on tv. Was great to watch Caleb and Livy negotiate vampire love and desire. Since this was a soap opera, there were many sexy scenes though it wasn’t all fluff. Now and again, there were some questions about morality and vampires that Caleb (Michael Easton) had to deal with. And somehow, men always look sexier wearing fangs:)
9. Ultraviolet--I’m a huge Philip Quast fan (I so wish I could have seen him portray “Juan Peron” in “Evita’) and bought this series solely because he was in it. It was a British series and Quast played a Catholic priest who is dying of cancer. Needless to say, he has some issues to wrestle with as he runs an organization that is trying to find out what the vampires want from us humans these days. It’s a very complex series and presents the watcher with many issues to sort though. Just when you’re ‘sold’ on what the humans have to say about the vamps, a vampire character is introduced and turns it all on its head. Wonderful series, amazing acting. Again, very sad that it was also so short.
10. And 11.Moonlight and Blood Ties---These were two recent series which didn’t last very long either. I really liked Kyle Schmid as Henry (is an amazing actor. I couldn’t believe that he was so young because he had imbued the character with the ‘old soul’, been there, done that qualities which I don’t really see in many young actors/actresses these days. However, what was good was that Schmid kept just enough ‘youth’ in the character, actor was really in his 20s, so that every now and then, one could see a trace of the teenager that the mortal Henry must have been like before his conversion to immortality all those years ago. Blood Ties was on Lifetime, didn’t have that big of a budget and fans were unhappy with a number of things, including the fake looking monsters, the lack of street kid Tony and the never resolved (even a little) tensions between Mike, Vicki and Henry. In one story, Henry listened to Vicki when she thought he wouldn’t and as a reward, she allowed him to feed from her when they were in an elevator. Sexiest scene in the series. Too bad there weren’t more of them.
Moonlight had good characters too (liked Beth, Mick and Josef) and some in jokes (there was a “Lost Boys’ reference in there one week) but the story arc seemed uneven and the death of Beth’s human boyfriend was sudden and very shocking. Though the viewer understood that the human boyfriend was there to fill the ‘other guy’ role, the actor playing Josh did a very nice job and I really came to feel sympathy for him when he realized Beth was in love with Mick. I don’t remember if the writers knew that the series was being cancelled before killing off the human boyfriend but things after that seemed disjointed at best (would have been more interesting in this writer’s opinion if mortal was made immortal). At least, however, the last episode had a somewhat satisfying wrap up.
Am I done? This is all the series I can think of at the moment. But lately, it has been tough for some Sci-Fi series, even ones that did not center on vampires. The Dresden Files was cancelled which I thought was sad. I particularly liked Mann, (another actor who portrayed Javert in addition to Quast) as a ghost.
After looking at all these failed series, one has to wonder, “Is there hope for “True Blood”? I hope so but when making a vampire series one has to watch out for a couple of things. The characters must be adapted from page to screen, not necessarily rigidly so but imbued with enough of the traits to make those of us who’ve read the series to go “OK, that’s how I imaged he/she would look/act”. And how much of the character traits/quirks should the writers keep? It’s always tough to figure out what will translate well from the page to the screen but while I’m certain that the writers for “Blood Ties” thought it was a small thing, I know I was not the only one disappointed to see Henry driving a Jag instead of his trusted BMW.
So, OK, you got the characters and you think you’ve got them looking and acting like they did in the novels. But then, comes the hardest part, the story lines. Keeping them interesting and insightful to BOTH vampire and non vampire fans alike can be the biggest challenge. I know some people who watched “Forever Knight” and were bored with the show but I always enjoyed it for the issues they raised. For example, the vampire suicide episode (vampire actor/playwright decides she’s lived too long and commits suicide by burning in the sun) was a ‘quiet’ episode but one with much meaning to a vampire fan like me. Would non vampire fans wanting to watch a show for pure entertainment be drawn to it? I dunno. And that’s one of the difficulties. To be able to write strong, compelling episodes that vampire fans will want to discuss and debate while everyone is entertained in the process. I don’t think these two ideas (well, three if you layer in the romantic aspects/relationship writing into the series) that I’ve presented are incompatible with each other. But it must be difficult to write to achieve that balance and thus, this is probably the determining factor of whether the series lives or dies or goes to video and becomes undead. Sorry, I couldn't resist:)
True Blood starts Sunday, Sept. 7 on HBO. The stakes (sorry about the pun) are high but the cast is talented and the channel is ‘big’ enough so that I’m betting the production budget is fairly good for each episode. Let us all hope that the stories are not only interesting to us vampire fans but compelling to the regular tv watcher as well. I really enjoy vampire tv series because each one has a different philosophy on immortality and even watching a 'bad' vampire series (is there really one?) it’s interesting as a writer, to see each ‘take’ on it. In any case, tv series provide a short respite from writing. And we all need that every now and again. Let’s hope True Blood has the run that Buffy did. Although, if it does, I think I’m going to need another job just to pay my cable bill. Ah, well, maybe I’ll buy less books. See, now that really is fiction:)
Take care all,
Chris
PS--I also like to watch “The Tudors” and really enjoy the series. It’s not for the kids but has wonderful adult writing and circumstances. Anyway, just wanted to add that Jeremy Northam who portrayed St. Thomas More in the series also seems like an actor who could do a wonderful vampire character as well:)
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Immortal character, mortal feelings...
Hi all,
Probably like some of you reading this blog today, I saw last week’s episode of ‘Moonlight’ and, as a longtime writer of vampire fiction, found one part particularly resonant. At the end, when Beth and Mick are on the roof eating (well, she is) after he has turned back into a vampire, Mick tells Beth that things will be more complicated now (read: their relationship) because he’s once again a vampire. And her response is a good one. She tells him that it’s himself, not the vampire thing standing between them. Watching the episode, I had to agree with her. Mick's vampirism has nothing to do with preventing him to get closer to Beth. It's just an excuse that Mick can conveniently 'hide' behind when Beth demands intimacy. Perhaps, Mick is afraid of getting hurt. Perhaps, Mick is unsure of whether he could be the lover that Beth needs. In any case, the thing that is keeping him from being lovers with Beth is not his lack of mortality. Far from it. It has more to do with who Mick was as a mortal and who he still is inside. Beneath the fangs, so to speak:)
And that got me to thinking.
I write vampires (and about their condition) without putting a morality judgment on them, that is, I don’t see being a vampire, a bad or a good thing. My vampire characters don’t kill to feed. If they did, I might have to amend that latter statement. But anyway, I want to write about vampires and have their vampirism as just being another facet of their character. In other words, I am more interested in how they deal with life, death, love, etc. than just how they feel about being immortal. True, their problems may stem from their immortal condition (have vampire hunters chasing them) but many things that they experience, humans experience it as well (love, loss, what makes every day worthwhile). And more interestingly, how are these shared issues (my vampires are parents as well, Mina has biological child by deceased husband, Jonathan Harker) are dealt with in different (or even in similar ways) by the immortals.
And furthermore, how the vampires' mortal feelings will affect their judgment. Does the age of the vampire matter in how they deal with issues they've dealt with once long ago as humans? I think this depends on the individual vampire. Whatever the age though, even old, old vampires still have a memory or hold onto a piece of what they were like before they changed. Well, that's how I write my vampire characters, at least:)
I’ve discussed the idea of immortality with many of my online buddies. And, as I’ve said to a few, once one crosses over into immortality, they now are harder to kill but becoming a vampire doesn’t solve all their problems. It just creates a new set of problems that must be dealt with (and through writing, explored). And that’s what I find so interesting. Not the problems that center around vampirism (most of my vampires are ‘happy’ being vampires). But, rather, exploring through my writing how they now, as immortals, have to deal with some of the same (love, death, loss, parenting) and different (chased by vampire hunters) as humans do. What is also interesting to consider as a writer is how does one’s immortality affect decisions/situations that they’ve dealt with before as a mortal and now, have to deal with again as an immortal. For example, Vlad the Impaler (Dracula), as a mortal had a wife (two wives, according to some history texts) and children. For this writer, it will be exciting to have him deal with these issues he’s formerly dealt with as a mortal. Because now, as of the second book, he has both a partner, Mina and an ’adopted’ child, Quincey.
Some people say “you can’t go home again”, meaning, once you’ve lost something, it’s gone forever and you can’t get it back, whether it be a feeling, a person or a situation. Other people say that yes, it is possible. Still others feel that yes, you can try to recreate a situation, feeling, emotion, etc. and sometimes, you can even get it back, better than before. What is the truth? I dunno. Answering that question and those like it is why I write. In any case, it is something to consider as I continue writing my Dracula-Phantom series.
Take care all,
Chris
Probably like some of you reading this blog today, I saw last week’s episode of ‘Moonlight’ and, as a longtime writer of vampire fiction, found one part particularly resonant. At the end, when Beth and Mick are on the roof eating (well, she is) after he has turned back into a vampire, Mick tells Beth that things will be more complicated now (read: their relationship) because he’s once again a vampire. And her response is a good one. She tells him that it’s himself, not the vampire thing standing between them. Watching the episode, I had to agree with her. Mick's vampirism has nothing to do with preventing him to get closer to Beth. It's just an excuse that Mick can conveniently 'hide' behind when Beth demands intimacy. Perhaps, Mick is afraid of getting hurt. Perhaps, Mick is unsure of whether he could be the lover that Beth needs. In any case, the thing that is keeping him from being lovers with Beth is not his lack of mortality. Far from it. It has more to do with who Mick was as a mortal and who he still is inside. Beneath the fangs, so to speak:)
And that got me to thinking.
I write vampires (and about their condition) without putting a morality judgment on them, that is, I don’t see being a vampire, a bad or a good thing. My vampire characters don’t kill to feed. If they did, I might have to amend that latter statement. But anyway, I want to write about vampires and have their vampirism as just being another facet of their character. In other words, I am more interested in how they deal with life, death, love, etc. than just how they feel about being immortal. True, their problems may stem from their immortal condition (have vampire hunters chasing them) but many things that they experience, humans experience it as well (love, loss, what makes every day worthwhile). And more interestingly, how are these shared issues (my vampires are parents as well, Mina has biological child by deceased husband, Jonathan Harker) are dealt with in different (or even in similar ways) by the immortals.
And furthermore, how the vampires' mortal feelings will affect their judgment. Does the age of the vampire matter in how they deal with issues they've dealt with once long ago as humans? I think this depends on the individual vampire. Whatever the age though, even old, old vampires still have a memory or hold onto a piece of what they were like before they changed. Well, that's how I write my vampire characters, at least:)
I’ve discussed the idea of immortality with many of my online buddies. And, as I’ve said to a few, once one crosses over into immortality, they now are harder to kill but becoming a vampire doesn’t solve all their problems. It just creates a new set of problems that must be dealt with (and through writing, explored). And that’s what I find so interesting. Not the problems that center around vampirism (most of my vampires are ‘happy’ being vampires). But, rather, exploring through my writing how they now, as immortals, have to deal with some of the same (love, death, loss, parenting) and different (chased by vampire hunters) as humans do. What is also interesting to consider as a writer is how does one’s immortality affect decisions/situations that they’ve dealt with before as a mortal and now, have to deal with again as an immortal. For example, Vlad the Impaler (Dracula), as a mortal had a wife (two wives, according to some history texts) and children. For this writer, it will be exciting to have him deal with these issues he’s formerly dealt with as a mortal. Because now, as of the second book, he has both a partner, Mina and an ’adopted’ child, Quincey.
Some people say “you can’t go home again”, meaning, once you’ve lost something, it’s gone forever and you can’t get it back, whether it be a feeling, a person or a situation. Other people say that yes, it is possible. Still others feel that yes, you can try to recreate a situation, feeling, emotion, etc. and sometimes, you can even get it back, better than before. What is the truth? I dunno. Answering that question and those like it is why I write. In any case, it is something to consider as I continue writing my Dracula-Phantom series.
Take care all,
Chris
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Vampires, souls and sentiency: Or why zombies are so blanking scary.
Hi all,
I may be dating myself (I’m almost 40 these days) but if you ever get some time, watch some episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the next series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (the Dax character who has the brain of a man and the body of a woman is just such an incredibly rich, complex character) . I forget which episode and year (someone reading this blog may remember and if so, I thank you for it) but anyway, there was a wonderful episode about determining whether the android Data was sentient. It was a beautifully crafted episode from a writer’s point of view because it showed how an robot could be ‘human’ in everything but flesh and blood. Though Star Trek never took sides with religious issues, the fact that Data was declared sentient brought up the idea that he could also have a soul (an interesting idea from the religious angle of things).
Anyway, as a writer of vampire fiction, I’ve always been more interested in writing about sentient vampires. Not necessarily moral vampires since being sentient has nothing to do with morality. But vampires who remain essentially ‘themselves’ after they change, yeah, those are the type of vampires I enjoy writing about.
I just saw “30 Days of Night” and enjoyed it but most of the vampire characters (with the exception of the lead vampire character) only seemed partially sentient, if at all. And the human male character who was changing slowly into a vampire character after being bit was afraid of changing and of losing himself. And yeah, I can definitely understand the horror of this idea.
As a person, it is a scary thing to lose one’s sense of self. I never experienced it firsthand but rather, second hand, with my father who had a stroke. For two years, my mother and I were his primary caregivers and though he knew who we were until he passed away, there were times in the hospitals where he was not himself nor did he know who I was. It was a very scary thing to witness and it was extremely heartbreaking to try to speak to him at these times (when he did not know who I was).
And that’s why I think zombies, non-sentient/semi-sentient vampires are so scary and disturbing. Because on a primal level, one sees the characters and unconsciously is reminded of the diseases (such as dementia, Alzheimer’s) that can affect a human person’s sentiency. For all the Star Trek fans out there, that’s also probably why the Borg were so darn upsetting (as was Picard‘s morphing into Locutus). The Borg were like zombies in a way since one lost their sense of self (We are the Borg, you will be assimilated) when they were captured. 7 of 9 (and a Star Trek episode about the capture of a Borg child) brought sentiency back to the Borg characters and though they never lost their scariness, some did become humanized and we, as television viewers began to want to understand them as a race rather than just to be blanking afraid of them. In other words, when we could see the Borg as individuals (again, only the characters that I previously mentioned), we felt a ‘connection’ to them and felt that they could almost be understood. Well, some of them anyway. The others, yeah, you just need to escape from fast. Very fast.
That brings me back to vampires and sentiency. It is a scary thought to think of becoming immortal means losing one’s sentiency or sense of self. Even if one does not lose it completely (some vampires in the movie “30 Days of Night” seemed semi-sentient), being in a twilight state can seem even scarier to some. And I’m with that group. If becoming a vampire means giving up one’s sense of self, then, nope, I’d not sign on the dotted line. However, as I’ve said before, being a sentient vampire has nothing to do with how ‘moral’ a vampire character is or isn’t. Vampires can have a sense of self. And they can also be some mean SOB’s. But somehow, even seeing a cruel, evil vampire, while scary, is, in my opinion, less scary than seeing non-sentient beings. And they are interesting characters to write as well. Which is always a good thing:)
Take care all,
Chris
I may be dating myself (I’m almost 40 these days) but if you ever get some time, watch some episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the next series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (the Dax character who has the brain of a man and the body of a woman is just such an incredibly rich, complex character) . I forget which episode and year (someone reading this blog may remember and if so, I thank you for it) but anyway, there was a wonderful episode about determining whether the android Data was sentient. It was a beautifully crafted episode from a writer’s point of view because it showed how an robot could be ‘human’ in everything but flesh and blood. Though Star Trek never took sides with religious issues, the fact that Data was declared sentient brought up the idea that he could also have a soul (an interesting idea from the religious angle of things).
Anyway, as a writer of vampire fiction, I’ve always been more interested in writing about sentient vampires. Not necessarily moral vampires since being sentient has nothing to do with morality. But vampires who remain essentially ‘themselves’ after they change, yeah, those are the type of vampires I enjoy writing about.
I just saw “30 Days of Night” and enjoyed it but most of the vampire characters (with the exception of the lead vampire character) only seemed partially sentient, if at all. And the human male character who was changing slowly into a vampire character after being bit was afraid of changing and of losing himself. And yeah, I can definitely understand the horror of this idea.
As a person, it is a scary thing to lose one’s sense of self. I never experienced it firsthand but rather, second hand, with my father who had a stroke. For two years, my mother and I were his primary caregivers and though he knew who we were until he passed away, there were times in the hospitals where he was not himself nor did he know who I was. It was a very scary thing to witness and it was extremely heartbreaking to try to speak to him at these times (when he did not know who I was).
And that’s why I think zombies, non-sentient/semi-sentient vampires are so scary and disturbing. Because on a primal level, one sees the characters and unconsciously is reminded of the diseases (such as dementia, Alzheimer’s) that can affect a human person’s sentiency. For all the Star Trek fans out there, that’s also probably why the Borg were so darn upsetting (as was Picard‘s morphing into Locutus). The Borg were like zombies in a way since one lost their sense of self (We are the Borg, you will be assimilated) when they were captured. 7 of 9 (and a Star Trek episode about the capture of a Borg child) brought sentiency back to the Borg characters and though they never lost their scariness, some did become humanized and we, as television viewers began to want to understand them as a race rather than just to be blanking afraid of them. In other words, when we could see the Borg as individuals (again, only the characters that I previously mentioned), we felt a ‘connection’ to them and felt that they could almost be understood. Well, some of them anyway. The others, yeah, you just need to escape from fast. Very fast.
That brings me back to vampires and sentiency. It is a scary thought to think of becoming immortal means losing one’s sentiency or sense of self. Even if one does not lose it completely (some vampires in the movie “30 Days of Night” seemed semi-sentient), being in a twilight state can seem even scarier to some. And I’m with that group. If becoming a vampire means giving up one’s sense of self, then, nope, I’d not sign on the dotted line. However, as I’ve said before, being a sentient vampire has nothing to do with how ‘moral’ a vampire character is or isn’t. Vampires can have a sense of self. And they can also be some mean SOB’s. But somehow, even seeing a cruel, evil vampire, while scary, is, in my opinion, less scary than seeing non-sentient beings. And they are interesting characters to write as well. Which is always a good thing:)
Take care all,
Chris
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Vampires and Religion: Apples and Oranges?
Hi all,
As you might know from reading my Dracula-Phantom series, I am interested in the intersection of immortal beings and theology. I just wanted to discuss two thoughts with respect to this.
First: Til death do us part? Or is a marriage dissolved once a human becomes a vampire?
Several months ago, there were a couple of good discussions that I read on several “Moonlight” blogs about this idea, in other words, is Mick still considered married in the eyes of God even though he became a vampire? I’ve heard both for and against and just wanted to add my opinion on the matter. I write vampires as being sentient beings and not changing their personality as they enter immortality. Though having lived a long life, the vampire’s personality may change and shift, though these changes I show as ones that are affected by what happens after they become a vampire (their responses to conflicts in their long life). Therefore, since I ‘see’ immortals as still possessing their own ‘souls’ so to speak, that is, intrinsically being the same person before and directly after the change (though their long life, not their vampirism may ultimately affect their personality), I also would think that they would consider themselves spiritually ‘bound’ to their respective partners (definition of marriage in Christianity) even after their ‘death’. So yeah, I feel that the human now vampire doesn’t get ‘out of’ his/her marital obligations by just becoming immortal. In my opinion the ‘til death do you part’ refers more to the true death, not to immortality, which is just way to be alive
The other topic about vampires and religion that I‘ve always thought about is the idea of “Do all vampires go to heaven?” in other words, could an immortal being be “OK” in the eyes of their creator even though they’re a vampire? I’ve always been a person who thought that doing good works and helping out one’s fellow human being would count the most about where one would be ‘good enough’ for heaven. Therefore, I’d say “yeah, I think a vampire could go to heaven?” Would it be ‘tougher’ for him/her to ‘get in’? Probably. But then, if you read the Bible, Jesus says that it’s tough for rich people as well. So then, a vampire just has to work a bit harder.
If you’ve watched the great vampire television series that aired in the mid-90s (and is now on DVDs) called “Forever Knight” they aired an episode where Nick Knight (vampire cop) ‘died’ for a few minutes and met an angel. The angel told him that he could not get into heaven unless he became human again. It was a wonderful, thought provoking episode (as were most of the episodes of the show) but ultimately, I find that I have to disagree with their philosophy.
So, those are just some of my views on vampires, religion and immortality. As I’ve said, I’m always interested in these types of issues so expect to see more in my future blog posts.
Take care all,
Chris
As you might know from reading my Dracula-Phantom series, I am interested in the intersection of immortal beings and theology. I just wanted to discuss two thoughts with respect to this.
First: Til death do us part? Or is a marriage dissolved once a human becomes a vampire?
Several months ago, there were a couple of good discussions that I read on several “Moonlight” blogs about this idea, in other words, is Mick still considered married in the eyes of God even though he became a vampire? I’ve heard both for and against and just wanted to add my opinion on the matter. I write vampires as being sentient beings and not changing their personality as they enter immortality. Though having lived a long life, the vampire’s personality may change and shift, though these changes I show as ones that are affected by what happens after they become a vampire (their responses to conflicts in their long life). Therefore, since I ‘see’ immortals as still possessing their own ‘souls’ so to speak, that is, intrinsically being the same person before and directly after the change (though their long life, not their vampirism may ultimately affect their personality), I also would think that they would consider themselves spiritually ‘bound’ to their respective partners (definition of marriage in Christianity) even after their ‘death’. So yeah, I feel that the human now vampire doesn’t get ‘out of’ his/her marital obligations by just becoming immortal. In my opinion the ‘til death do you part’ refers more to the true death, not to immortality, which is just way to be alive
The other topic about vampires and religion that I‘ve always thought about is the idea of “Do all vampires go to heaven?” in other words, could an immortal being be “OK” in the eyes of their creator even though they’re a vampire? I’ve always been a person who thought that doing good works and helping out one’s fellow human being would count the most about where one would be ‘good enough’ for heaven. Therefore, I’d say “yeah, I think a vampire could go to heaven?” Would it be ‘tougher’ for him/her to ‘get in’? Probably. But then, if you read the Bible, Jesus says that it’s tough for rich people as well. So then, a vampire just has to work a bit harder.
If you’ve watched the great vampire television series that aired in the mid-90s (and is now on DVDs) called “Forever Knight” they aired an episode where Nick Knight (vampire cop) ‘died’ for a few minutes and met an angel. The angel told him that he could not get into heaven unless he became human again. It was a wonderful, thought provoking episode (as were most of the episodes of the show) but ultimately, I find that I have to disagree with their philosophy.
So, those are just some of my views on vampires, religion and immortality. As I’ve said, I’m always interested in these types of issues so expect to see more in my future blog posts.
Take care all,
Chris
Thursday, March 27, 2008
“The Coffin vs. Bed debate: Do more 'moral' vampires sleep in beds?
Hi all,
Just one question for all the writers reading this blog. Where does your vampire sleep? Notice, I didn’t ask about with whom. That’s material for another post:)
But yeah, so does your immortal character sleep in a bed or in a coffin. Because the more and more I’ve thought about it recently, the more it reflects and affects the character. Let me provide some examples. In my Dracula-Phantom universe, my Dracula character first starts out using a coffin (as in the Stoker book). However, once Mina comes to live by his side, he switches to a bed. While making love in a coffin can be thrilling and fun once in awhile, I decided to have my vampire characters sleep in a bed (though the pillow and mattress are filled with dirt from his country) because I thought it would not be comfortable for two beings to sleep in a confined space night after night. Intuitively, I also felt that by sleeping in a bed, Dracula could begin to ‘reconnect’ with his humanity. And the more I think about this idea, the more I feel I made the correct decision.
There were two very well written vampire series on television recently. One was Blood Ties and the other, Moonlight. It was interesting to see that while both vampires are ‘moral’, they have different sleeping arrangements. Henry (BT), sleeps in a regular bed, though he does have cool shades that block out the sunlight. Mick St. John (Moonlight) must sleep in a freezer-like coffin, it seems, to maintain his immortality. What made me really think deeply about how where one’s vampire character sleeps and how it affects/reflects their character was the wonderful recent episode of “Moonlight” where Mick becomes human for awhile and one of his favorite things to do, besides eating all different types of food, is sleeping on his couch with a blanket. This action makes the character feel more human and we, as viewers, also get the sense that being able to do something that the character has done back when they were human (sleep in a bed) is comforting and important for them to feel more mortal. Finally, the fact that Mick must sleep every night in a freezer will eventually affect his intimate relationship (if they move toward one) with Beth. This detail provides a 'road block' of sorts for Mick to become totally intimate with Beth. Certaintly, the vampire character has the ability to make love, but both he and Beth cannot spend the entire night together in bed. To stay immortal, Mick must return to his coffin. Again, a small detail (Mick must sleep in a coffin) can affect the chacter's life (intimacy with Beth).
How do famous vampire authors deal with this bed vs. coffin idea? Much like other issues, it varies. Anne Rice (The Vampire Chronicles) has her vampire characters sleep in coffins while interestingly, Laurell K. Hamilton (Anita Blake series) has her vampires able to sleep and make love in beds with mortals during the evening hours but prefer to move to the coffin to sleep in during the daylight (presumably, when their souls ‘depart’ for the day).
So, is there a connection between being a ‘good’ vampire and sleeping in a bed? Do all ‘evil’ vampires sleep in coffins? I’d have to think more about this (what books and movies I’ve seen and such) but I don’t think it divides neatly among these lines. However, I do think that a bed allows one’s vampire character to be able to feel more ‘mortal’. Will this cut down on his/her body count, I. e., will the feeling of being closer to their mortality allow them to possess a conscience and therefore, have them not kill as much as they do? Perhaps and then again, maybe not. As a writer of vampire fiction, I just find that it is interesting when writing your immortal characters to think about where they sleep and then, how that will affect their overall emotions.
So, I guess, I’ll end this blog by reasking the same question “Where does your vampire character sleep?”. And then, I’ll add another question. “How does this sleeping arrangement match and affect his personality?” Again, this is just a small issue in writing vampire fiction but one I find interesting to think about.
Take care all,
Chris
Just one question for all the writers reading this blog. Where does your vampire sleep? Notice, I didn’t ask about with whom. That’s material for another post:)
But yeah, so does your immortal character sleep in a bed or in a coffin. Because the more and more I’ve thought about it recently, the more it reflects and affects the character. Let me provide some examples. In my Dracula-Phantom universe, my Dracula character first starts out using a coffin (as in the Stoker book). However, once Mina comes to live by his side, he switches to a bed. While making love in a coffin can be thrilling and fun once in awhile, I decided to have my vampire characters sleep in a bed (though the pillow and mattress are filled with dirt from his country) because I thought it would not be comfortable for two beings to sleep in a confined space night after night. Intuitively, I also felt that by sleeping in a bed, Dracula could begin to ‘reconnect’ with his humanity. And the more I think about this idea, the more I feel I made the correct decision.
There were two very well written vampire series on television recently. One was Blood Ties and the other, Moonlight. It was interesting to see that while both vampires are ‘moral’, they have different sleeping arrangements. Henry (BT), sleeps in a regular bed, though he does have cool shades that block out the sunlight. Mick St. John (Moonlight) must sleep in a freezer-like coffin, it seems, to maintain his immortality. What made me really think deeply about how where one’s vampire character sleeps and how it affects/reflects their character was the wonderful recent episode of “Moonlight” where Mick becomes human for awhile and one of his favorite things to do, besides eating all different types of food, is sleeping on his couch with a blanket. This action makes the character feel more human and we, as viewers, also get the sense that being able to do something that the character has done back when they were human (sleep in a bed) is comforting and important for them to feel more mortal. Finally, the fact that Mick must sleep every night in a freezer will eventually affect his intimate relationship (if they move toward one) with Beth. This detail provides a 'road block' of sorts for Mick to become totally intimate with Beth. Certaintly, the vampire character has the ability to make love, but both he and Beth cannot spend the entire night together in bed. To stay immortal, Mick must return to his coffin. Again, a small detail (Mick must sleep in a coffin) can affect the chacter's life (intimacy with Beth).
How do famous vampire authors deal with this bed vs. coffin idea? Much like other issues, it varies. Anne Rice (The Vampire Chronicles) has her vampire characters sleep in coffins while interestingly, Laurell K. Hamilton (Anita Blake series) has her vampires able to sleep and make love in beds with mortals during the evening hours but prefer to move to the coffin to sleep in during the daylight (presumably, when their souls ‘depart’ for the day).
So, is there a connection between being a ‘good’ vampire and sleeping in a bed? Do all ‘evil’ vampires sleep in coffins? I’d have to think more about this (what books and movies I’ve seen and such) but I don’t think it divides neatly among these lines. However, I do think that a bed allows one’s vampire character to be able to feel more ‘mortal’. Will this cut down on his/her body count, I. e., will the feeling of being closer to their mortality allow them to possess a conscience and therefore, have them not kill as much as they do? Perhaps and then again, maybe not. As a writer of vampire fiction, I just find that it is interesting when writing your immortal characters to think about where they sleep and then, how that will affect their overall emotions.
So, I guess, I’ll end this blog by reasking the same question “Where does your vampire character sleep?”. And then, I’ll add another question. “How does this sleeping arrangement match and affect his personality?” Again, this is just a small issue in writing vampire fiction but one I find interesting to think about.
Take care all,
Chris
Sunday, February 24, 2008
“When a vampire‘s home is not their castle”
Hi all,
Though my first novel takes place in the late 1800s (and my second will be a continuation of the first), I have drawn up a timeline whereby I bring the characters of my Phantom-Dracula universe in the present day. As a writer, I think about where my vampire characters would be living in this, the 21st Century. Though the immortals in my universe are fairly rich (start out with some money and interest can really grow in a couple of hundred years), many live in one of the most famous cities in the world, New York City.
If you’ve ever visited New York, you know that the city is not homogenized, in that each neighborhood is different. For example, one can be wealthy but live on the monied, trendy Upper East Side or for the quieter, more suburban well off, the Upper West Side is always a good choice. Further down the island of Manhattan, one has Chelsea, SOHO and even, the Bowery. Each neighborhood may have similar living options (coops, town homes, brownstones, etc), yet, the surroundings make each one unique. The West Village is thought to be hip and trendy, yet the buildings are low and there are many families living there as well.
As I think about my characters, I try to decide where I see each of them living. For example, I think Dracula and Mina would definitely live on the Upper East Side. Not only is there glamour and exclusivity but the houses, mansions, are very much like castles. And though there is that glitz, there is the feel of being very private with high cast iron gates and such. So, a vampire as infamous as Dracula can live the high life and have his security too.
Extending this idea beyond vampire characters and even beyond New York, I do think it is important for writers to think about where their characters might reside. A house or a condo? A studio or a large house with many bedrooms? Urban or Suburban? Do they drive a car? What kind? How many? Does the character live with a lover, wife, husband, children, extended family, pets? If you decide that your character has a house or an apartment in a particular area, such as Manhattan, what does it look like? What color are the walls, the kitchen, even? Hey, even though Dracula and Mina are vampires, they do entertain humans every now and then and it is nice to have a grand dining room.
If these questions get you thinking, which they should, you might want to consider some others. Is the characters’ home neat? Messy? Do they collect many books? What kinds? Does your character have hobbies? And if so, which rooms reflect them? In other words, if one has a character that enjoys gardening for example, he/she may own a home that has a nice garden. Again, these are just some of the questions one as a writer must consider when deciding to create a home (or if they’re rich and undead, maybe two or three or four or more homes) for them.
I have some real estate friends in my life and they say that a home is reflective of a person’s personality. Walk through a home and you can get a sense of who the people are, what they like to do. For example, I enjoy reading and writing so my home is filled with shelves and shelves of books. Mostly fiction but there are nonfiction sections as well.
If you’re an author then and writing about your characters, one day, take a virtual mental tour of your characters’ house, even if only in your mind, not necessarily writing about it on paper. Make some notes in your writing notebook as you go. What do you see? What are the things that are most noticeable about the house? What catches your ’eye’? Are they in agreement with the character’s outer personality or are there things perhaps, that they have that not everyone knows about. For example, I am a longtime Springsteen fan and have several shelves as well as some posters of the rock superstar. Because I spend my time reading, writing and talking about vampires and romance, people are not always aware of that I also like rock music too.
You’ll have to excuse me now while I leave to take my mental tour of what I think Dracula and Mina’s New York City mansion would be like. I will be taking my time and looking where I step. Because there’ll always be a few wolves. The New York city inspectors think they’re dogs. Ah, yes, it would be fun to be a vampire in the City:)
Take care all,
Chris
Though my first novel takes place in the late 1800s (and my second will be a continuation of the first), I have drawn up a timeline whereby I bring the characters of my Phantom-Dracula universe in the present day. As a writer, I think about where my vampire characters would be living in this, the 21st Century. Though the immortals in my universe are fairly rich (start out with some money and interest can really grow in a couple of hundred years), many live in one of the most famous cities in the world, New York City.
If you’ve ever visited New York, you know that the city is not homogenized, in that each neighborhood is different. For example, one can be wealthy but live on the monied, trendy Upper East Side or for the quieter, more suburban well off, the Upper West Side is always a good choice. Further down the island of Manhattan, one has Chelsea, SOHO and even, the Bowery. Each neighborhood may have similar living options (coops, town homes, brownstones, etc), yet, the surroundings make each one unique. The West Village is thought to be hip and trendy, yet the buildings are low and there are many families living there as well.
As I think about my characters, I try to decide where I see each of them living. For example, I think Dracula and Mina would definitely live on the Upper East Side. Not only is there glamour and exclusivity but the houses, mansions, are very much like castles. And though there is that glitz, there is the feel of being very private with high cast iron gates and such. So, a vampire as infamous as Dracula can live the high life and have his security too.
Extending this idea beyond vampire characters and even beyond New York, I do think it is important for writers to think about where their characters might reside. A house or a condo? A studio or a large house with many bedrooms? Urban or Suburban? Do they drive a car? What kind? How many? Does the character live with a lover, wife, husband, children, extended family, pets? If you decide that your character has a house or an apartment in a particular area, such as Manhattan, what does it look like? What color are the walls, the kitchen, even? Hey, even though Dracula and Mina are vampires, they do entertain humans every now and then and it is nice to have a grand dining room.
If these questions get you thinking, which they should, you might want to consider some others. Is the characters’ home neat? Messy? Do they collect many books? What kinds? Does your character have hobbies? And if so, which rooms reflect them? In other words, if one has a character that enjoys gardening for example, he/she may own a home that has a nice garden. Again, these are just some of the questions one as a writer must consider when deciding to create a home (or if they’re rich and undead, maybe two or three or four or more homes) for them.
I have some real estate friends in my life and they say that a home is reflective of a person’s personality. Walk through a home and you can get a sense of who the people are, what they like to do. For example, I enjoy reading and writing so my home is filled with shelves and shelves of books. Mostly fiction but there are nonfiction sections as well.
If you’re an author then and writing about your characters, one day, take a virtual mental tour of your characters’ house, even if only in your mind, not necessarily writing about it on paper. Make some notes in your writing notebook as you go. What do you see? What are the things that are most noticeable about the house? What catches your ’eye’? Are they in agreement with the character’s outer personality or are there things perhaps, that they have that not everyone knows about. For example, I am a longtime Springsteen fan and have several shelves as well as some posters of the rock superstar. Because I spend my time reading, writing and talking about vampires and romance, people are not always aware of that I also like rock music too.
You’ll have to excuse me now while I leave to take my mental tour of what I think Dracula and Mina’s New York City mansion would be like. I will be taking my time and looking where I step. Because there’ll always be a few wolves. The New York city inspectors think they’re dogs. Ah, yes, it would be fun to be a vampire in the City:)
Take care all,
Chris
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Writing tip: Don’t write in a ‘static’ universe
Hi all,
Well, the holidays are almost over and people are getting back into the regular daily routine. And sometimes, things just seem so ‘blah’. That emotion can be transmitted into one’s writing and make it feel flat/lifeless.
Even if you’re working on a novel about plot A, you can still take some time out and think about your characters. Now, it’s easier to think about them and how they’d react over the holidays (Christmas, New Year’s, etc.). However, one should take some time and just think what a normal day with one consists of. Do they go to school, work? What classes do they take? What do they talk to their friends about? Do they stop at the local food store after work? What do they buy? I was talking once with a friend and we both agreed that no matter what characters/universe you’re writing about (yeah, even including vampires though they’d probably buy food for their guests, not themselves), you should be able to write at least one story about them going food shopping. Or if not writing it, be able to picture it in your mind.
I guess then, what I’m trying to say is that as an author, in order to write more vibrant characters, you should know them fully inside and out. Not only their likes and dislikes in a general sort of way but also, more intimate details. What sort of tea do they like? Do they use milk, lemon or both? And just how do they avoid those pesky vampire hunters in aisle 10? Yep, I guess vampires do have their own unique problems:)
Anyway, writing about a character’s daily routine will let you, as an author, feel closer to your character and be able to write them more fully (with more feeling) in subsequent stories, novels etc. if you allow yourself time to think about the sometimes mundane things that a character experiences in their life. And sometimes, that even includes writing your characters going food shopping:)
Take care all,
Chris
Well, the holidays are almost over and people are getting back into the regular daily routine. And sometimes, things just seem so ‘blah’. That emotion can be transmitted into one’s writing and make it feel flat/lifeless.
Even if you’re working on a novel about plot A, you can still take some time out and think about your characters. Now, it’s easier to think about them and how they’d react over the holidays (Christmas, New Year’s, etc.). However, one should take some time and just think what a normal day with one consists of. Do they go to school, work? What classes do they take? What do they talk to their friends about? Do they stop at the local food store after work? What do they buy? I was talking once with a friend and we both agreed that no matter what characters/universe you’re writing about (yeah, even including vampires though they’d probably buy food for their guests, not themselves), you should be able to write at least one story about them going food shopping. Or if not writing it, be able to picture it in your mind.
I guess then, what I’m trying to say is that as an author, in order to write more vibrant characters, you should know them fully inside and out. Not only their likes and dislikes in a general sort of way but also, more intimate details. What sort of tea do they like? Do they use milk, lemon or both? And just how do they avoid those pesky vampire hunters in aisle 10? Yep, I guess vampires do have their own unique problems:)
Anyway, writing about a character’s daily routine will let you, as an author, feel closer to your character and be able to write them more fully (with more feeling) in subsequent stories, novels etc. if you allow yourself time to think about the sometimes mundane things that a character experiences in their life. And sometimes, that even includes writing your characters going food shopping:)
Take care all,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
