I've learned that there is a new television series coming out called Dracula. I've looked at some of the promotional material and I have to say that I have mixed feelings. This is partially because I particularly enjoyed reading the book (despite my avoidance of horror literature and film) and I worry about how they treat the original work. But that is a common fear for any adaptation and not a valid reason to dislike something. I do have to say that I am curious about the way that Dracula is portrayed and the way they take the story. It is highly unlikely that I will watch the new drama, however. One reason is that I'm not a big serial drama consumer. The second is that I do not appreciate watching overly sexual television or film. The last reason is that I don't have any way to receive television signals - and I'm perfectly happy about that. Now, I mentioned how I have mixed feelings about the idea of the new Dracula take - this is because I think that evil should be portrayed as such.
I have to agree with Tracy Hickman. In a Writing Excuses episode from 2009 he expressed his resistance against the popular rise of vampires by saying: "Vampires are monsters, and they should be monsters, and they've turned into cute, cuddly, hunks. And I object to that. I think that's actually ill serves women, because what we've done is, we've taken this monstrous cliche, the idea of the monster man as a warning -- a cautionary tale for women and turned it into a chick-flick." In the original Dracula story, by Bram Stoker, Dracula is a creature that steals infants from their mothers to drink their blood, kills without hesitation, and is intent on dominating others - by forcing them to drink his own blood. He is methodical, cunning, vicious, and worst of all charming - the mask he uses to cover his viciousness. Some may say that he is justified by his love of country and his desire to preserve it, but the question is "justified to what?" Character has grown stronger over the years as others have interpreted him and his power and abilities have grown. Yet, I see no situation in which he himself would seek redemption. I suppose the new series could feature an anti-hero as our main character. I can't say that I've ever really got into those however. So what is this interest in the macabre [dealing with death] romance?
Dan Wells, in his novella Night of Blacker Darkness, may demonstrate another part of the equation. Wells' vampires are weaklings who cannot overpower an adult. They are easily overcome by any strong smell (one was turned away by a sharp cheddar cheese once) and are quite pathetic. They claim to have started the Gothic movement "to romanticize the concept of the powerless victim." (Their problem now is that all they got are moody young women who start book clubs. Really, the book is hilarious.) If you take the idea of Tracy's "monster man" and combine it with Dan's "helpless victim," I wonder if you get the recent surge in paranormal romance. The same Dan Wells, along with his brother Rob, put together a fun list of "Which monster would be the best boyfriend?" Dracula scored below Mr. Hyde and above the Phantom of the Opera. He was docked down the list because he already has three wives already. But lets not forget that he is a monster.
Now, despite this line of thinking, I must confess to quite enjoying the movie Hotel Transylvania which features Dracula as an over-protective father, trying to keep his daughter safe from the terrors of humanity. Perhaps I feel more comfortable with this Dracula because he is such a complete opposite of Bram Stocker's. Or maybe it's the fact that I can be empathetic to his situation (I found out that my 5 year old already has a cadre of boys following her around and I want to buy a shot gun). Or perhaps because there is such a need to suspend disbelief for everything else, I can excuse such a portrayal of evil as "misunderstood." Whatever the reason, you may call me a hypocrite for liking one alternate version of Dracula while disparaging another. With that said, I know what to do with vampires, regardless of if they're named Dracula or not.
[picture citation]
Or you can always read Larry Corriea for some suitable ways to get rid of them. My personal favorite is plastic explosives. I would love to see a Twilight / MHI crossover. And yes, I've read both series.
I have to agree with Tracy Hickman. In a Writing Excuses episode from 2009 he expressed his resistance against the popular rise of vampires by saying: "Vampires are monsters, and they should be monsters, and they've turned into cute, cuddly, hunks. And I object to that. I think that's actually ill serves women, because what we've done is, we've taken this monstrous cliche, the idea of the monster man as a warning -- a cautionary tale for women and turned it into a chick-flick." In the original Dracula story, by Bram Stoker, Dracula is a creature that steals infants from their mothers to drink their blood, kills without hesitation, and is intent on dominating others - by forcing them to drink his own blood. He is methodical, cunning, vicious, and worst of all charming - the mask he uses to cover his viciousness. Some may say that he is justified by his love of country and his desire to preserve it, but the question is "justified to what?" Character has grown stronger over the years as others have interpreted him and his power and abilities have grown. Yet, I see no situation in which he himself would seek redemption. I suppose the new series could feature an anti-hero as our main character. I can't say that I've ever really got into those however. So what is this interest in the macabre [dealing with death] romance?
Dan Wells, in his novella Night of Blacker Darkness, may demonstrate another part of the equation. Wells' vampires are weaklings who cannot overpower an adult. They are easily overcome by any strong smell (one was turned away by a sharp cheddar cheese once) and are quite pathetic. They claim to have started the Gothic movement "to romanticize the concept of the powerless victim." (Their problem now is that all they got are moody young women who start book clubs. Really, the book is hilarious.) If you take the idea of Tracy's "monster man" and combine it with Dan's "helpless victim," I wonder if you get the recent surge in paranormal romance. The same Dan Wells, along with his brother Rob, put together a fun list of "Which monster would be the best boyfriend?" Dracula scored below Mr. Hyde and above the Phantom of the Opera. He was docked down the list because he already has three wives already. But lets not forget that he is a monster.
Now, despite this line of thinking, I must confess to quite enjoying the movie Hotel Transylvania which features Dracula as an over-protective father, trying to keep his daughter safe from the terrors of humanity. Perhaps I feel more comfortable with this Dracula because he is such a complete opposite of Bram Stocker's. Or maybe it's the fact that I can be empathetic to his situation (I found out that my 5 year old already has a cadre of boys following her around and I want to buy a shot gun). Or perhaps because there is such a need to suspend disbelief for everything else, I can excuse such a portrayal of evil as "misunderstood." Whatever the reason, you may call me a hypocrite for liking one alternate version of Dracula while disparaging another. With that said, I know what to do with vampires, regardless of if they're named Dracula or not.
[picture citation]
Or you can always read Larry Corriea for some suitable ways to get rid of them. My personal favorite is plastic explosives. I would love to see a Twilight / MHI crossover. And yes, I've read both series.
No comments:
Post a Comment