Unused Vampire Tropes

Given the popularity of the undead in mainstream media these days (or nights, as the case might be) one hopes a bit more variety might show up in the various movies and t.v. shows of the genre.

Books of course have nearly every trope imaginable, but also (nearly always) have far smaller audiences.  So let us deal with film and television.

Here are some ideas/themes/story elements that I haven't seen yet.  Every single one seems quite viable, enjoyable, full of potential.  And for the record, by no stretch of the imagination are they my own invention.  Each can be found somewhere in undead literature already--but hardly at all elsewhere.  Producers, writers, directors--take note.

• Detective turned vampire.  Oh wait, you say.  What about Angel or Forever Knight or Blood Ties, etc.?  Haven't we seen enough of these?  Actually, no.  All of the above are vampires-turned-detective.  What about someone who is already a detective, perhaps an FBI agent or a regular cop or some such, who becomes a vampire yet continues in his (or her) job?  This has all kinds of possibilities, not least watching the newborn undead learn the truth of their existence (a fascinating process with Jessica on True Blood incidentally) and at the same time solving crimes.
• Vampire Origins.  With the possible exception of the Dracula 2000 trilogy  (which was fun, but made little sense since vampires predate the birth of Christ), this is a startling untapped vein (sorry, sorry) of intrigue, mystery and adventure.  Consider how much Spielberg got out of the Holy Grail and the Lost Ark of the Covenant!  Think also how vampires themselves might view the question.  Would they be any less divided on such than mortal men?
• Undead Secret Masters.  Paranoia is good wellspring of story-telling, if a sad facet of normal human existence.  That is why The X-Files' frankly ridiculous theory about the JFK assassination had "legs"
  
  
  and the so-called "Masonic Conspiracy" about Jack the Ripper has made a couple of thrilling movies (even if the theory itself is nonsense).  But what about a story that explored the notion that a cabal of powerful vampires really do control the world, much as the Illuminati or the Gnomes of Zurich or some such are said to?  It could be they aren't particularly vicious or evil, even.  Our heroes might even work for them, tracking down genuine threats to world order and tasting all the angst that might go along with such a job.
• Bloodlines.  Quite simply, there are different types of vampires--each has their own culture, powers, weaknesses, etc.  Kindred: The Embraced dabbled in this ever so slightly, as did Forever Knight but what about exploring the idea as a genuine story element with real consequences?   How would it be if some vampires burned in sunlight, while others could shapeshift and still others needed to sleep in their original graves, and so on?  Imagine how such bloodlines might interact!
• Mysticism.  Understandably enough, the vampires portrayed on shows like The Vampire Diaries and movies like Let Me In are grounded in the physical.  But what about a totally different direction?  Legends of the supernatural tell much stranger tales--of beings that can be in two places at once, that are in some sense not even matter as we know it, vampires as more akin to blood-drinking ghosts than paranormal predators of humans.  Remember the owls on Twin Peaks?  Or the spookiness of the Let's Scare Jessica to Death?

Boys, Girls and Twilight

Herein is my entry in the Absolute Write Blog Chain for books. Here are the participants:
DavidZahir - http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/
Lost Wanderer - http://www.lostwanderer5.blogspot.com
RavenCorinnCarluk - http://raven.youareannoying.us
Vein Glory - http://podpeep.blogspot.com/
Shethinkstoomuch - http://shethinkstoomuch.wordpress.com
Lady Cat - http://randomwriterlythoughts.blogspot.com

Twilight...
So many folks I know stare dazedly at the statistics. Four books by a Mormon housewife who's never written fiction before -- Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn -- shot to the top of best-seller lists. The first movie, panned by many, transformed the lead actors into stars and media sensations in their own right. Their appearance, especially by Robert Pattinson, sparked near-riots in some places. The second, panned as well, breaks box office records. Stephanie Meyer is hailed as the new J.K.Rowling (whatever that means) even as Stephen King opines she "...can’t write worth a darn." Many agree.

But millions of teenage girls do not. Some of those teenage girls aren't in teen-aged (or even necessarily female) bodies. Something about Twilight appeals to the teen girl in people -- including a couple of co-workers of mine well into their twenties. One also adores "torture porn" a la Saw or Hostel. So another stereotype goes crashing to the ground. Good riddance, say I.

Still, the whole saga of Meyer's books (as opposed to the saga in the books) drops jaws and stirs envy, especially by better writers with not a tiny percentage of her success (or--now--bank account).

Like me.

Here's the thing, though. Meyer actually accomplished quite a nice feat of characterization in her novels. Bella Swan should have been a Mary Sue yet is not. The interplay between the various and sundry people in the books makes sense and they all seem "alive." Some criticism of the books frankly seems trivial--I myself prefer my vampires with fangs and not sparkles, but this is her fictional world and her explanations make sense so give it a rest, already. Her writing style is readable, not at all beautiful or elegant or particularly polished. But it works. Her plots are obvious and become moreso as the series progresses. The world she's made is a fun urban fantasy, not up to the level of Harry Potter but perfectly okay in its own right.

But the characters stand out. And given the way fans divide up into teams based on their faves indicates that is what drives all the mania. Something about them struck a chord. Which in turn, at least so I believe, says something about boys and girls right now.

Starting with the Boys--it seems clear that (apart from the whole vampire fandom going on, which applies to True Blood and The Vampire Diaries as well as loads of others right now) what has got girls in a tizzy is the nature of this romance. Edward Cullen (our undead Mr. D'Arcy) is as passionate a teenager as one might imagine. He would kill for Bella. Without her he wants to die. At the same time, Edward is in the grip of near-overwhelming desires, especially for Bella. He openly says he wants to kill her, longs to suck ever drop of blood from her body. Yet he controls himself so totally he can kiss her. Indeed, he often overreacts in his efforts to protect and care for this girl (let us face it, Edward Cullen is a drama queen--but then, after nine decades as a 17-year-old virgin methinks this is forgivable). In other words (are you listening, my younger fellow males?) Edward Cullen is everything about a teenage boy thrown into sharp relief but then made positive. He is driven by urges he cannot control, but somehow does. He is attracted to the point of almost being a Stalker, but genuinely loves. He is awkward about how to show his feelings, but uses gallantry as a fallback. Edward is the ultimate fantasy for every teen girl (well, the straight ones, anyway) who wants a romantic leading man to treat her like a princess. And why is this such a strong fantasy? Well, I don't think too many males are even trying to be gallant these days.

When my late fiancee came home from the hospital, I had set up christmas lights all over her apartment because she loved them and didn't like bright, direct light. The look on her face was something I still treasure. When I've related that story, women almost invariably look amazed and pleased. Men look puzzled and impressed. Therein lies a divide between the genders in our culture right now, or so I maintain. Somewhere along the line women have developed a genuine hunger for romance, for gallantry. And men have developed an aversion to same, lest they be seen as "girly" or "gay" or some variation of not-manly. This is a very foolish notion that has crept into men's thinking and habits.

Twilight offers a vicarious feeding to that hunger on the part of girls (or the girlish part of women) longing for that kind of love story--a central Myth (note the capital 'M') in our collective dreams.

But now, Girls--this all says something about you, too. Bella Swan epitomizes what I think most people think they really are--the outsider, the stranger who doesn't quite fit in, the lonely one even surrounded by more-or-less friends. Yet isn't it telling that in this, a wildly successful book (and now film) series about wish fulfillment in the romance department, Bella falls in love with two men whose beauty is literally superhuman? Edward looks like the marble statue of a greek god come to life, while Jacob is the incredibly hunky guy-next-door with muscles a-rippling and heat actually emitting from his six-foot-plus form in waves. Wow. Just a little superficial maybe? I don't want to deny anyone their eye-candy, but when the fantasy so resolutely includes physical perfection, methinks therein lies another reason for a thirst unquenched. Twilight fits only-too-easily into our common habit of judging by appearance, falling in love with the surface rather than the substance.

I should also point out parenthetically that a passionate love story between human and vampire offers plenty of adult, more sophisticated opportunities--many of which enjoy strong audience loyalty. Nick and Natalie. Henry and Vicky. Eli and Oscar. Bill and Sookie. Twilight is fun and all, containing some rather more sophisticated ideas than many give it credit for (Bella as an Influence without power comes to mind), but the love story itself needn't have been quite so simplistic. But then, if it weren't, neither would it show off quite so clearly this trend in our own gender relations now would it?

Vampire Taxonomy (Review)

A few weeks back I was honored with a request to do a review, in this case of the book Vampire Taxonomy: Identifying and Interacting with the Modern-Day Bloodsucker by Meredith Woener. My reaction was mixed to this news--pride at the compliment, worry they might be disappointed with my opinion, coupled with some trepidation. The premise seemed straightforward and fun enough. Suppose for a moment that vampires were real, that to some extent the swelling numbers of books, t.v. series, movies, etc. about them represent a source of genuine knowledge. What follows is a self-help book for those dealing with the undead.

So far, so good. Only...I've seen stuff like this before. Or cousins of it as a genre. Generally, what I felt upon reading them was disappointment.

Reading this book, though, I was very pleased to discover a lack of precisely what had bothered me elsewhere. The author, for example, actually knows quite a bit about vampire fiction and remembers the telling details. To give an example of how this can sometimes work out, another "nonfiction" book about vampires recently described the title character of LeFanu's Carmilla as hunting down and feasting on men. Ms. Woener, on the other hand, gets her facts right. She gives a broad overview of vampires from Dracula to Edward Cullen with most points in between. Different types and powers, including reactions to sunlight or relatively contagiousness of undeath, are spelled out logically. More, she does so with an easy-to-read style that avoids the same jokes over and over again (she even finds what seems like seven dozen different ways to say "you might end up dead", nearly always avoiding cliches or doing a fairly clever spin on them). She's not in love with her own wit, or at least not that it shows, so her humor doesn't get in the way of the content.

Brava!

As to content--there are several sections, each dealing with different aspects of the nosferatu. Initially, it is all about types of vampires: Romantic (Hemophage remanorum), Villainous (Hemophage sceleratus), Tragic (Hemophage tragicus), Halfies (Hemophage dimidium--those not yet completely turned or 'enjoying' one vampiric parent) and Child (Hemophage iuvenus). The last two chapters deal with vampiric society or societies, and the last with how do we--humans--live in a world with the undead. This last includes some straightforward advice about romantic relationships involving an undead partner. It finishes up with some advice in case of a vampire takeover of the world (unlikely, but at the very least the attempt might be made which would be trouble enough).

Do I have any quibbles? Well, yes. For example, there's the bit in the next-to-last chapter about the scenario wherein you get tipsy and mention to your vampire boyfriend how a certain bully was so mean in middle school, whereupon the next day you learn said bully fell/was dropped from a very tall building, sans most of their blood. The author assumes the reader's reaction will be one of guilt. Mentioning this scenario to a co-worker, she thought if her boyfriend were a vampire and had done that she'd reward him as lavishly, as sensually and as imaginatively as her gratitude and mere mortal body could manage. Ms. Woener's sense of humor is just a tad vanilla.

Likewise, I'm just a tad disappointed she didn't mention the titular hero of Young Dracula in her work, especially regarding Halfies and/or Tragic Vampires (with Vlad's family all examples of Villainous). But that is entirely personal.

Overall, I was quite impressed. To someone, like myself, who knows vampires and their portrayals in fiction of all media, this very nearly qualifies as a reference guide. It spells out many of the tropes and archetypes, the considerations inherent in same, as well as (this is rare) not trying to force portrayals to fit a scheme. An interesting and intelligent discussion of the Vampire Detective is one of many little diversions that pepper the book.

Intelligence, knowledge, humor, wit and readability--asking for much more seems greedy.