Vampires. They are the tyrannical terror of the undead world, the horror that can not always be detected for they often hide behind a mask of beauty and charm. But how did they become this way? How has literature evolved them into these seductive creatures?
That is where our reading came in. Though Dracula introduced the vampire as a charming count, Anne Rice took her stories further. Not only do her books bring forth the beauty and majestic quality that vampires have developed. Not only that but vampires become personable in Interview with the Vampire. Louis tells his horrifying and yet mystifying story to Daniel who becomes entranced by it. Louis does not seem evil... but rather the victim of a curse as he sees it... while it is also described as a gift. He tells of how he feeds and how Lestat taught him how to feed.
Louis does not seem like the monster that vampires are described as. Even Lestat whom Louis comes to despise is not a truly nefarious character. We come to see that there is something hidden in Lestat's past as to why he is the way he is. If you read more The Vampire Lestat, you come to find that that is true. His maker forced vampirism on him but instead of hating himself and what he had become, he cherished the gift and sought to enjoy the life that had been given to him.
So why is it that people like me have such a fascination with these beings? These creatures of the night? Do they live some sort of morbid fantasy that we all have? Is it that by putting a name on a monster that looks so like ourselves that we can feel more human? I saw vampires as a higher evolution of humans. Immortal, not as frail and the predator that could hunt us and keep us in check. That is a point I believe Lestat made in the Vampire Chronicles- trying to teach Louis that "God kills indiscrimanently and so shall we. For no creature under God is as we are, none so like Him as ourselves." I think that truly lies in the point of view that I think of them as. An evolution, an adaptation and the closest to immortality that humans could ever get.
But is immortality really worth that weight of your soul? I guess it would depend on how it was that you saw your kills. Marius taught Lestat (who then teaches Louis) that you are to kill only evil doers. Use your mind powers to find those who commit wrong and kill only them.
It is an interesting moral dilemma.
But I think it is best to end with one of the major quotes from the film... one that I truly find interesting.
"The world changes, we do not, there in lies the irony that finally kills us."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Scourge
This week's discussion is on zombies. Yes, the all popular can-never-have-too-many-games-or-movies-about-it-monster (which is very true; zombies make everything better. Like pirates.)
First of all, though the zombies did make the book more interesting, it is still Jane Austin at its core and so kinda, no pun intended, frightfully boring. Other than the momentarily amusing points where Elizabeth's character has been made more interesting by her involvement in the deadly arts, I still had to fight my way through the book.
However, I think if the plot of the zombies had been pushed more... other than a minor inconvenience to people, then it might have been better.
I think the most unfortunate part of this story was that it was just like the original with simply the inclusion of zombies in the mix. It made it more fun but... truly... it didn't affect the story any. I would have rather the book have carried beyond the original story that people all know and "love". But let us move onto the zombies. Why do we love zombies? I think it is for the same reason that people who play Dungeons and Dragons like goblins or World of Warcraft players like trash mobs- you can kill a bunch of them at one time and do an epic battle in efficient time. I mean, most movies or games you don't have a one on one battle with a zombie.
No, it's an entire room full of them and your mastery of the beheading arts will allow you to slay zombies until you escape! Or until you fall and your friends leave you behind while your now zombified teammates eat you alive.
The most wonderful parts of zombie stories is that not everybody survives in them. Actually, most of the time only one or two characters out of a group survives (if that). The book we read... nobody died. That greatly disappointed me. It always kills me when an author can not off one of his or her characters to make the book have more impact.
In conclusion, I expected more but was not wholly disappointed. Maybe the lack of fun pace in the book destroyed my attentions.
First of all, though the zombies did make the book more interesting, it is still Jane Austin at its core and so kinda, no pun intended, frightfully boring. Other than the momentarily amusing points where Elizabeth's character has been made more interesting by her involvement in the deadly arts, I still had to fight my way through the book.
However, I think if the plot of the zombies had been pushed more... other than a minor inconvenience to people, then it might have been better.
I think the most unfortunate part of this story was that it was just like the original with simply the inclusion of zombies in the mix. It made it more fun but... truly... it didn't affect the story any. I would have rather the book have carried beyond the original story that people all know and "love". But let us move onto the zombies. Why do we love zombies? I think it is for the same reason that people who play Dungeons and Dragons like goblins or World of Warcraft players like trash mobs- you can kill a bunch of them at one time and do an epic battle in efficient time. I mean, most movies or games you don't have a one on one battle with a zombie.
No, it's an entire room full of them and your mastery of the beheading arts will allow you to slay zombies until you escape! Or until you fall and your friends leave you behind while your now zombified teammates eat you alive.
The most wonderful parts of zombie stories is that not everybody survives in them. Actually, most of the time only one or two characters out of a group survives (if that). The book we read... nobody died. That greatly disappointed me. It always kills me when an author can not off one of his or her characters to make the book have more impact.
In conclusion, I expected more but was not wholly disappointed. Maybe the lack of fun pace in the book destroyed my attentions.
Creation
The past week, which I nigh forgot to speak about, is in reference to the first book required to read: Frankenstein.
I think when reading it I was surprised for though the story speaks of much horror and fear, the story is not truly terrifying. Actually, as we talked about in class, it seems a conscious (or perhaps subconscious?) reaction to family, need and creation. In the story Frankenstein creates a monster and when it truly lives, he is in fear and abandons it as if ignoring the problem will make it go away. I just remember thinking that the character shows an incredible lack of foresight into what he will do with his creation. After all, if you worked so hard on such a project, would you not think on what you will do with it when it is completed and works?
Apparently not. Frankenstein abandons the creature to itself and its lack of knowledge about the world around it. Which is not right for it spawns incredible anger and resentment in the monster. The monster goes from being gentle and observing to what it is called and considered- a monster.
But does that account for the horrors that the creature begins to set into motion? Is his disdain for the life that Frankenstein made for him fully responsible for his brutality? He did learn things in his time alone, enough to find himself in possession of moral fiber. Was it his fault he began to kill? I think that if he truly had the eloquence that he was written with that he could have found a way to live without killing a child and then an innocent woman. I think that it was very convenient for him to blame Frankenstein rather than deal with the idea that he may have to live and survive on his own without troubling his maker. That does not absolve Frankenstein of blame but when he decided not to build a mate for this creature, he at least tried to prevent putting more horror into the world.
But, perhaps, if he was going to play God and make this creature, he could have continued to do so and destroyed it rather than wait for the doom that would be bestowed upon him.
In a way, this story I believe influenced Anne Rice's Taltos race... and how in the Mayfair Witches (and later in the Vampire Chronicles), they did not wish to deal with the Taltos race and the horrors they were beginning to bestow upon the world. It is a very... disturbing pattern that I often see in novels. It almost seems like a form of mercy upon the creatures.
But sometimes mercy isn't always deserved for the wicked.
I think when reading it I was surprised for though the story speaks of much horror and fear, the story is not truly terrifying. Actually, as we talked about in class, it seems a conscious (or perhaps subconscious?) reaction to family, need and creation. In the story Frankenstein creates a monster and when it truly lives, he is in fear and abandons it as if ignoring the problem will make it go away. I just remember thinking that the character shows an incredible lack of foresight into what he will do with his creation. After all, if you worked so hard on such a project, would you not think on what you will do with it when it is completed and works?
Apparently not. Frankenstein abandons the creature to itself and its lack of knowledge about the world around it. Which is not right for it spawns incredible anger and resentment in the monster. The monster goes from being gentle and observing to what it is called and considered- a monster.
But does that account for the horrors that the creature begins to set into motion? Is his disdain for the life that Frankenstein made for him fully responsible for his brutality? He did learn things in his time alone, enough to find himself in possession of moral fiber. Was it his fault he began to kill? I think that if he truly had the eloquence that he was written with that he could have found a way to live without killing a child and then an innocent woman. I think that it was very convenient for him to blame Frankenstein rather than deal with the idea that he may have to live and survive on his own without troubling his maker. That does not absolve Frankenstein of blame but when he decided not to build a mate for this creature, he at least tried to prevent putting more horror into the world.
But, perhaps, if he was going to play God and make this creature, he could have continued to do so and destroyed it rather than wait for the doom that would be bestowed upon him.
In a way, this story I believe influenced Anne Rice's Taltos race... and how in the Mayfair Witches (and later in the Vampire Chronicles), they did not wish to deal with the Taltos race and the horrors they were beginning to bestow upon the world. It is a very... disturbing pattern that I often see in novels. It almost seems like a form of mercy upon the creatures.
But sometimes mercy isn't always deserved for the wicked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)