Vampires: Scary Monsters? Or Super Creeps?

This section is reserved for Interview with a Vampire. I have not gotten around to reading it yet.

Update: Finished! Finally.

Lots of drama, for one. I detected that homoeroticism everyone was mentioning. Anyways, like anything I read I focus deeply on both character and plot and both elements provided and provided well.

I most admired the main character, Louis, though I found his relationship with Claudia to be rather strange. They are like father and daughter, and yet at the same time their relationship nearly reaches the level of 'lovers' without the actual love-making. Still, aside from that queer relation, Louis was a character that was obviously made to relate to the reader. He thinks most human-like of all the vampires, even after years roll by. Unlike Lestat, he does not take to feeding off of people easily at first and it never quite becomes an easy task later on.

Yet I felt bad for Lestat, despite him being the reason why everyone's lives went to crap. He obviously had his own demons to contend with; he pushed everyone away yet he could not bear being alone. He's that sort of character you wish he simply died by a happy accident but because he's still alive every single time you think he died, you start wanting him to die by any means necessary. You might like him, but he's obviously getting in the way of things and you want him to stop.

They {and I mean Claudia and Louis} get away from him long enough to get on a boat. This is what I don't understand though. They don't get caught. I can't buy the bull that they fed off of rats and the occasional human without arousing suspicion. No one even thought people could be getting poisoned? No one wondered why the frail little girl wasn't among the first to die when a fever's about?

Needless to say, I'm one of those people that can't just take some ambiguous explanation that doesn't fully answer my questions as an answer {which would explain my extreme frustration watching a show like Lost}. I get over it, but in the end it takes away from the experience of being drawn into Rice's world.

I also did see all that religious contemplation we talked about. This woman was obviously Catholic or raised Catholic before she started to slip into doubts and began writing pornos and books about vampires questioning their existence. I can tell that Louis my just be that one character that is a reflection of herself. Claudia is sort of that alter-ego that's not afraid to challenge. Lestat is that inner contempt and fear of hers. Something like all that; I'm no psychologist or psychoanalyst or whatever.

The book was an interesting read, but I liked the movie more {and I can't believe I'm saying that}. I have a hard time getting into the story when it's being told in third-third person. In the movie, you see the interviewer once in a great while. In the story, he's interrupting Louis every other minute. I know that the movie may not convey enough intimacy between the boy and the vampire, but isn't there enough intimacy in this story already? On a scale of 1-10, this book still rates rather high. I'd give it an 8.5. It held my interest, but I'm not all that into romance and if I want to read something scary, I certainly wouldn't be this. I don't care for the issues it brings up such as 'does God/Satan really exist?' and 'am I a monster because I eat people?' because the story itself just seems like an account by some tired old vampire who's trying to scare some thought into some silly little interviewer man.

Going to check AWSC from the library, if it's there. Fortunately I recently read The Hobbit, so I'll probably just watched the animated movie to recap before I type up a review for that.

-Peace out.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and AWESOME?

Read the first three chapters. So far I like it more than the original Jane Austin story, but it's practically the same thing with random zombie action. It's still sort of funny, but you can't quite mask the boring. I still harbor no interest in the relationships.

------

UPDATE

Read success.

A lot more boring than I thought it'd be. Essentially, it was just as I had noticed from the first three chapters--it's the same story I read {or rather read half of} five years ago and I still hate it. The zombies and ninja action were the only highlights. In fact, when I get the chance, I'm going back and whiting out anything that doesn't have to do with zombies or the fighting of zombies and perhaps by then I'll be able to read this story without feeling my boredom irk me so often. Maybe it might work, come of think of it.

But as I said before, my attention kept drifting. It's not like your traditional horror story because it feels way too much like the extra bits were practically copy-pasted in. In a traditional horror story, the mood is set, the people are adjusted to the mood, and nothing else is more important than survival. Meanwhile, in PaPaZ, the mother is still trying to get her daughters married during a zombie invasion. In every and any situation involving zombies, people don't give a damn about marriage. I mean, sure, if their husband's being attacked by the undead, by all means, flip out. But to worry about getting hitched when flesh puppets are dancing the Earth? I can't see it.

I'm one of those sorts that have a very flexible view on zombies themselves. I'm willing to accept the Rage Virus rabies-people into the mix as well as the undead. As long as the individual has no control of his or her actions, only has strength in numbers, is sort of dull in the intelligence department, and craves brains, then that person's a zombie. I guess.

Personally, I make sure I'm prepared for zombies, should they ever be a problem. I make sure I know where the safest rooms are in whichever house I stay in and what sort of long blunt objects I could use as a weapon. You never know, really. If it never happens then what'dya know? I have a plan to defend myself in case of the more common home invasion.

I haven't read Interview with a Vampire yet, but I shall soon. I do not own a copy and so I must get a hold of one. Until then...

-Peace out.

Franken-shteeeen {Mission Accomplished}

Guess what I just finished reading?

So Frankenstein wasn't the most generic piece of horror I have come across in all my years of exposure to the genre. It's certainly different from the movie by leaps and bounds. Frankenstein's the scientist, not the 'monster', and there's no lovable hump-backed lab assistant, no castle, and no crank or thunderclap of life. In fact, Victor isn't even a mad scientist in the spirit of the title. Mad maybe, as the story starts to close; by then he's lost everything and he's probably losing what little is left of his mind. Scientist? Not anymore. He deserts the vials and microscopes after beholding his creation he had bestowed with life.

Despite all that, it's still a good read if you're up to dealing with a stubborn fool in perpetual anguish. It gets frustrating as you read along because so much of it is preventable, but Victor just happens to be that special guy who manages to screw up at every turn like a professional. He claims it was his destiny to be stripped of all that brings him happiness and with an outlook like that, what could you expect? It's understandable that a guy who just discovered the Elixer of Life would be more than eager to test his theory. There's nothing wrong with that. He creates this body that's several times larger than your average man, for reasons I failed to understand, and managed to create what looked like a monster. He could have run his first experiment on an animal, which would have rendered him with less responsibility when the experiment was through, but he had to make a fellow man. No forethought there either. So what did he expect would happen? It looked more like he was setting up for epic failure {and in a sense, he had}.

So the creature is created, and Victor suddenly hates it. I understand just a little horror after you decided to play God and succeeded to your surprise, but that should have worn off or at least turned into an instant termination of the project. He did neither. He handled it like the childish fool he really was. He ignored the monster and eventually it left. Frankenstein had created a monster; not the great hulk of a man himself, but the spark of a series of events that would turn a gentle giant into a lonely and vengeful being.

Even after the events that plagued the creation, he was still willing to reason and rationalize. Now I understand--the creature had by this time murdered Frankenstein's little brother. I get that. Regardless, he explains the circumstances and is willing to compromise with having someone to share his life with. That's all he wanted. He says 'female', but honestly, if Frankenstein had a change of heart and decided to care for his creation, there'd be no need for it. The creature was suffering from loneliness, not the urge to mate. Frankenstein only complies because his creation had to resort to threatening. Even so, the scientist decides to terminate the project and sets of the chain of events that ends in his demise and the death of those he holds dear. Way to go, buddy.

I didn't hate the story though. I actually loved the fact that there was an unexpected character to sympathize with. Normally, I side with the villains in stories because I find their characters to be more interesting, but any character, villain or not, can capture my interest with the right ingredients. In this story, I saw Victor as the villain and the creature as a sort of tragic hero. The creature endured trials of the worst kind being alienated and despised solely due to his appearance. He ended up turning to murder and vengeance due to his creature's lack of care. It's strange how someone like Victor, who had a very good father figure in his life, turned out to be such a bad father to his creation. I pin it to his being young and stupid.

The other characters didn't have to suffer for his epic failure and yet they did. Fortunately this account is fictional and I'll stop feeling bad for the lot in less than a few hours.

Anyways, I hope Walton learns from Frankenstein, though it seems like he was just as full of contempt for the creature as every other man, woman, and child in the book. God forbid you were ugly 'back then', eh?

That's pretty much all I've got to say about it for now. I've other stories to read. Like I've said before, I didn't dislike the book. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. I'm sort of looking forward to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies because I read the original story {or rather read half of it and sparknoted the rest} and thought that perhaps adding zombies to the story was the best thing they could do to save it from being one of the worst pieces of literature I was forced to read.

-Peace out.

This Blog is for EN345

My class is on Thursdays at 8:45AM.

So...here I am.

Going to go read that Frankenstein story now and try hard not to think of Gene Wilder and Puttin' on the Ritz. Won't be too difficult I hope.

-Peace out.