June 25 1828 -- So long as this country is cursed with slavery, so too will it be cursed with vampires.
Thus reads one line from one of Abraham Lincoln's supposedly secret journals. For Abraham Lincoln is a vampire hunter.
At least, he is in the novel Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by Seth Grahame-Smith. It is a novel I find very hard to put down. It is a breath of fresh air from what vampires have become in our contemporary popular culture.
What has become of the vampire?
Deconstruction has made us view old things in new ways, but it has also made us question, even go against, the very truth of absolute good and evil so much so that everything is now blurred.
Such is what happened with vampires.
Up to the mid-twentieth century, vampires are considered evil, spawns of "an evil alchemy of the blood." The very concept of creatures feeding exclusively on blood is abominable biblically speaking (See Genesis 9:6; Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:23. I'm guessing this is the basis for Bram Stoker's concept of "Dracula."). Then there came those who, bored by the status quo and enamored by the dark and seductive beauty of such gothic creatures, embraced a more gothic and vampiric lifestyle.
Then came, in the late twentieth century, a more postmodern approach to vampires as seen in popular media. In his movie Bram Stoker's Dracula, Francis Ford Coppola transformed Bram Stoker's hate-filled iconic vampire into one who is more romantically tragic. Roughly, Dracula is still the malevolent bloodthirsty creature that he is in Stoker's novel, but only because he is a victim of his own zeal, of a highly dogmatic religion, and of his own overwhelming grief that dared curse God Himself. What is interesting in this treatment is that vampirism is evil and the outcome of cursing God. In the end, Vlad was redeemed by God through Mina's love and is thus freed from his vampire persona as he died.
Running parallel to this is Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles catapulted by The Vampire Lestat, which is actually Book 2 of the Vampire Chronicles. (Side note: I almost bought the painted Vampire Lestat graphic novel. But I was a college kid with meager funds.) Like Coppola, Rice still kept the vampire's malevolence but made it sexy, seductive, and very appealing in a very primal way. In a sense, Rice presented the beautiful side of evil. I confess that I haven't read any of them, but judging by how it was presented in movie form and from comments of my friends who did read it, it seemed very graphic yet strangely appealing. Yes, I did see the movie, and it's not a movie I'd like to see again. Too much gore than horror, in my opinion.
And then there was Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was first played by Kristy Swanson in the movie and then by Sarah Michelle Gellar in the hit TV show that made the franchise a cult favorite to this day. I loved that series! The lines between good and evil were fairly clear, though the treatment of vampires is a curious one. According to my good friend Darlene, who is a big Buffy fan, Buffy has three types of vampires: (1) the vampires who are evil, like it that way, and get their butts kicked and their hearts staked by a slayer; (2) the vampires who seek redemption for themselves, though still technically evil because they are soulless (e.g. Spike); and (3)those rare few vampires who are cursed/blessed (depending on your point of view) with having a soul and thus are constantly seeking forgiveness for their sins as vampires (e.g. Angel). For all its occultic faults, Buffy the Vampire Slayer does stick to the idea that vampires are primarily evil with some who are exceptions in being good.
The next logical step is to reduce the significance of the malevolence further by making it a foil in the development of young love as in the case of Stephanie Meyers' Twilight series. I presume that this is also the case in the TV show The Vampire Diaries. Although some of the antagonist vampires were clearly terrifying in their power and malice, frankly, I feel that the vampire in these novels has lost its menace and therefore emasculated and become quite pathetic, both as a monster and as a literary character. Yes, Edward Cullen is a tragically romantic figure in this series, but he is nowhere near the epic-grade romantically tragic figure of Prince Vlad Draculea in Coppola's movie.
Then came Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
This book just floored me. This is as postmodern as it can get! The Great Emancipator, a vampire hunter? Edgar Allan Poe, a vampire fan? This I just have to read! It is a very good American Frontier adventure, though it does have its slow parts. It is ingenious how the author, Seth Grahame-Smith, weaved together history and myth and came up with a very entertaining story. It's amazing how he came up with certain concepts like how slavery and vampirism are intertwined, how many landowners wanted to maintain the legality of slavery because their vampire patrons (or they, being vampires themselves) wanted a social system wherein they can grow their "food" undisturbed and unopposed, and how the American War of Independence had vampire backers. Yeah, it sounds ludicrous now as I say them; but it felt like it made perfect sense as I read through the book, which is a testament to how Smith drew this reader into the story.
Abraham Lincoln as a man who grew up in the frontier is actually believable as a vampire hunter. His height would cause him to be thin, and thus keep his musculature minimal. But just because he's thin doesn't mean he isn't strong. And when you wield an ax to chop wood every day, you tend to get strong. And if you were as driven as Abe to train yourself to . . . I'm not telling. Let's just say the character development of Abe Lincoln in this book is like a cross-pollination of Bruce Wayne and Buffy Summers.
Smith's writing style is also of note. He employed some of Stoker's epistolary style (Dracula is a series of letters, journal entries, news reports and other material that is cobbled together to form the story.) by switching from third person to first person (excerpts from supposedly Lincoln's secret journals) which works well to have that "authentic" feel. He even placed period photographs and illustrations to further effect this feel.
Technical and plot comments aside, what made this book a breath of fresh air is its treatment of vampires. Smith made them malevolent again, scary and deadly creatures that either made you run and hide, or take up an ax, crossbow or flintlock to hunt them down. Despite these, Smith still maintained a view that evil resides in who you are rather than what you are. Yes, there are friendly vampires in this book, but they are made in such a way that you, just like Abe, are never sure if they are good or evil. In a way, vampires can be just as evil as the exploitive landowner, only, their peculiar state makes them more predisposed to evil than the ordinary man.
I simply love this book. It has revived in me my long lost desire to stay up late and read well into the early hours in the morning.
Then I'll look for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies!
this is intruiging. now i wana read too :( - violet
ReplyDelete