This weeks interview is a radio podcast with three great novelists. Neil Gaiman (The Sandman, 'Beowulf'), Christopher Paolini (Eragon) and Tamora Pierce (Trickster's Queen) talk about why the fantasy genre appeals to such a wide audience and what it takes to create a memorable fantasy story.
Follow this link , then click "listen" to load the audio player. Enjoy...
Vampires are popular. Breaking news to some of the cave-dwellers out there but common knowledge to everyone else. From Bram Stoker, Anne Rice and JossWhedon, to 'Twilight' and 'True Blood'. It seems everyone is jumping on the vampire band-wagon. For example, the very fact that this post is entitled "Vampire Mythology" means it will attract more readers.
But how should you go about tackling the vampire story?
This is an interesting post from Alex Epstein about genre mythology and how to get it right. He talks about vampire lore. This is something that has gone through various transitions and therefore it's very hard to get right. Here's an example of vampire mythology that doesn't work:
TWILIGHT had a consistent, coherent mythology that did not ring true for me. If all vamps do in sunlight is sparkle, then Edward is not a scary predator, he's just Bella's big sparkly pony. It's fine for teenage girl wish fulfillment; girls need stories about big, powerful ponies that will obey them. But he's not a vampire. Because to me, the vampire mythos is about the power of death, and the seductiveness of evil, and if he can go out in the sun and doesn't have to kill people, then his undeadness lacks all thematic punch. He's not a vampire, he's a "vampire."
I agree. I made my feelings known in this little rant about 'Twilight'. What's scary about a guy who sparkles in the sun? Absolutely nothing! Similarly, take a look at this trailer for 'Twilight: New Moon'. In a rather tense moment, some dude changes into a wolf to save the girl *insert feminism rant here*
But wait! What does he change into? Yes, a wolf. But not a strong, warrior wolf. A.....erm....fluffy, friendly dog! How can you take this guy seriously when he turns into something like that? There's absolutely nothing scary about him in that form - he should have stayed as a half-naked guy!
Epstein also talks about how you can successfully change the vampire mythology canon:
I love when a genre story adds to or convincingly change canon. Canonical vampires are undead, drink human blood, and can't go out in the sun. Optionally, they fear crosses, holy water burns them, and they dislike garlic. In Stoker, as in the Buffyverse, every vamp victim becomes a vamp, but simple math shows that's implausible: there would quickly be a vamp population explosion. So, in Rice, vamps only make vamps by draining their victim and then getting the victim to drink vamp blood. That was a logical improvement to the canon; it made it easier for me to believe that vamps secretly exist in my universe. [UPDATE: I stand corrected about the Buffyverse -- it follows Rice Rules.]
It always gets my back up when no-one seems to know about the shit going on in the world. In the Buffyverse, the government knew. Even the school principal knew! Problem solved. Who knows in 'Twilight'? Erm.......does that come up? Probably not.
Epstein has a final note on what to do if you're writing a genre piece:
If you're working in genre, first, please, make sure you're thinking it through. What would real people do in this situation. Be brave. Pursue the ramifications as far as you can. For vamps to exist in our world without our knowing it, what would the rules of their existence have to be? How are they suppressing our knowledge of their existence? Are they showing up for the first time, as Dracula did in DRACULA -- so, in that case, no one knew about vamps because there hadn't been any in Britain. Do they cut a deal with human society -- do the rich and powerful know that they exist but they're hiding it from us? And so forth.
Interesting post. I'm taking Epstein's advice to my own vampire script.* There's just something about a dark brooding man who sucks people's blood that is irresistible to the ladies! I've been working on my brooding persona ever since 'Buffy' season 1 and I'm yet to be convinced it works in the real world!
* My vamp script is in no way for teenagers! (Just to avoid any "you're a hypocrite" comments)
I recently read Oliver Twist as part of my Victorian Literature module at uni and found it.....interesting......
OLIVER TWIST (CHARLES DICKENS) - 3/5
"Everyone knows the story of 'Oliver Twist', but very few have actually read the book. You get a whole new look at the story this way. And I'm sad to say it isn't a good one (at first glance). My main issue with Dickens is his description - he often spends pages and pages describing in great detail the settings and characters. The reason for this is that 'Oliver Twist' is a Realist Novel. During the Victorian period, the aim of the Novel was to show the world as faithfully as possible. This meant detailed descriptions to show the reader exactly where this story took place. In this, Dickens succeeds. But as a modern reader, do we particularly care for a chapter that does nothing but describes fog ('Bleak House')? Because of this intense attention to detail, what you get is a vivid image of Dickens' real world. But at the same time, you can't help wondering why a lamp is being described to you in such detail! The story could easily be told in half the time. Speaking of..... 'Oliver Twist' was published in Periodicals; you would read a number of chapters each week in a magazine. This meant that (not unlike television in today's terms) Dickens was forced to position 'act-outs' or cliffhangers to keep the reader hooked. It's highly likely that Dickens himself was unaware of what was going to happen week-by-week. It's almost certain that he had no clue how the book would end. These two problems combined result is a poorly paced novel with seemingly pointless anti-climaxes and unlikely plot-points. The hero of the piece is - as most will agree - little Oliver twist, the poor orphan boy never given a chance to achieve his full potential. But look closer and you'll see a clear problem with Dickens' protagonist. He is no hero. Heroes act - they take matters into their own hands and actually do something. Oliver is merely acted on . He is carried through the story by far more powerful and interesting characters. Dickens was aware of this; on many occasions, Dickens drops Oliver in order to pay attention to the other characters. He is constantly forced to revisit his 'protagonist' and the novel consequently suffers. On the positive side, if you're looking to find out about Victorian London, look no further. Dickens accurately portrays 19th Century society, giving an insight into the most intimate of affairs (ever wondered how he knew so much about pick-pocketing and prostitution at the age of 24?) It's important to note, however, that 'Oliver Twist' also acts as a social commentary of the time. London is always portrayed in a bad light and the countryside is idealised beyond words (literally). The only reason the plot develops in this way is to enable Dickens to comment about contemporary issues - the workhouse, The Fallen Woman, the class system/Poor Law, anti-Semitism, identity, imprisonment & power etal. In summary, 'Oliver Twist' is a classic novel. Unfortunately, it's a book known for its story of a young orphan looking for a family. However, it is much better looked at as a Realist novel of the Victorian period, acting as a social commentary on many important issues."
This weeks interview is from Creative Screenwriting and their podcast with 'Zombieland' writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. There are some great insights into horror/comedy, specifically the zombie genre. It's also very interesting to see how Reese and Wernick work together as writing partners.
I was introduced to Goodreads by Michelle. It's a great community of book-readers where you can review, rate and discuss your latest reads. In the future, I'll post my reviews here as we can learn a lot about storytelling from books as well as films!
I read a lot of books (always read the fine print when you sign up for an English degree) so there'llundoubtedly be a lot of reviews popping up. But worry not - they won't always be classic, high literature - I like an action-filled fantasy as much as everyone else!
I've set up a poll to the right asking what your favourite fantasy book/series is. I've had a few ideas for a similar series for a while now - there are plenty of possible routes floating around, but I'm yet to decide on anything concrete.
Please feel free to say what you've chosen and why in the comments section - I'm very interested in what you believe makes a great fantasy story.
This weeks interview is with Michael Halperin ('Star Trek: TNG'). He talks intensively about the importance of Act II - essential for every writer. Enjoy....
