Moonlightaholics

... and is NOT impressed with Stephenie Meyer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksbl ... ires-scary

Red

Thanks for the information Red. I like to read what Stephen King has to say - particularly since I have about 25 of his novels including some first editions (not signed ones though) but I don't agree with him about Vampires. Anyway to me Moonlight was about the romance not just about Vampires and that is what I loved about it. Again thank you.

Give me Mick, Josef & Co. Mr King can keep the stone cold killers. And Stephanie can keep the sparkly ones.

(One of the comments says that in True Blood they all should attend a sex addicts intervention once in a while. )

Well, once again (sorry to blather on about this, but it's basically my dissertation topic) the approach to vampires is a very gendered argument. The guys (and yes, I know there are exceptions, but I'm speaking generally here) want them to be scary, bloody, and monstrous. The women are more accepting, and in favor of, the romanticized versions.

I'm certainly interested to see King's new vamp comic...I used to be a very avid reader of his work. That said, I'm sorry, but Salem's Lot reads like a parody of Dracula --he was very deliberately pointing up the more ludicrous aspects of Stoker's work. And the vampires in that, are less scary than the revolting ghosts in the haunted house where the king vampire, uh, lives.

Lucky

If my choices are Twilght and Salem's Lot, then King's got the edge (even though I'm not crazy about SL). He's made no secret of how little he thinks of S.Meyer's writing (maybe the two of them should co-write something. The monsters can bleed sparkly blood while being terrifying )

This makes me think of an interview that Lauren Hutten did when the Twilight film came out on DVD. She's a grandmother, and when her granddaughter asked if she'd watch a vampire movie with her, she said sure -- expecting a horror movie, or at least something Dracula-like. After the movie ended, and the kiddo was in an Eddie-fueled tween daze, granny switched off the TV, found a handful of "real" vampire movies (which she had the kid watch), and told her if she brought up sparkly vampires again, she'd be tempted to smack her with a shoe. (no actual children were smacked with footware...)

It all comes down to taste. Do you want the rat-like Nosferatu vampires who spread like the plague or do you want the kind that can pass for human? I actually like the ones in the middle that look human, but can be very, very, scary. It's a different dynamic to look in the face of something beautiful and find something hideous hiding behind its eyes.


On a side note, with all the notable Hollywood deaths in the last week or so, I thought I'd add this to the thread. Stephen King's long time agent died suddenly and unexpectedly in his sleep at the first of the week. I'm not sure if they've yet determined a cause. )

It seems to me that all vampire stories are really human stories. Vampires are merely the device to tell the tale.
Where vampires are little more than bloodlusting killers, whether handsome or horrible, the story is about humans hunting down monsters to protect innocents. Where vampires are more nuanced, the story addresses human issues from an outsider's prospective.
It's really a difference in taste and interest. I don't care much for vampires that could just as easily be some other generic monster. That's not usually the kind of story I'm interested in. I also don't find pure romantic fluff as compelling when the vampire is not much more than a teddy bear (or the perfect fantasy man). I like stories of vampires with conflicting desires who can be truly dangerous, yet because of their nature, can never completely resolve their internal turmoil.
The argument about which kind of vampire is the 'correct' one is hilarious. Read what you like and don't read the rest. Simple.

Everyone sees it a little differently and it is entirely subjective (of course). One of the most irrestable things about Moonlight to me was the fact that vampirism was treated like it was a divergent branch on humanities family tree and that they, like us, were capible of great good and great evil. The different abilities and what they choose to make of them was fascinating. Then again, entirely subjective.

I don't remember much about Salem's Lot. I think it was another of the vampires=evil plots, much like most of Buffy.

jen wrote: I don't remember much about Salem's Lot. I think it was another of the vampires=evil plots, much like most of Buffy.

Salem's Lot... same thought as Buffy... does not compute...

You're related to that guy at the video store who said Allan Quartermain was okay for a total rip-off of Indiana Jones, aren't you...

eris, Salem's Lot was originally published in 1976, a LONG time before Buffy. So the analogy doesn't hold up.

Lucky

librarian_7 wrote:eris, Salem's Lot was originally published in 1976, a LONG time before Buffy. So the analogy doesn't hold up.

Lucky

That's the point.

Allan Quartermain was first pubbed in the 1880's, a LONG time before Indie ever feared snakes.

Someone saying that SL is like most of Buffy is like saying AQ was a rip-off of a movie that came along a century after the fact.

(Or those lovely tweens who whine that Sookie and Bill are a rip-off of Edward and Bella's telepathic connection )

eris! You're so right.

I like vampires who are people. Vampires who are evil by their very nature bore me. They're so predictable.

I love Stephen King---and don't get me started about Salem's Lot, because I will not shut [/b]up. I read that book for the first time as a teenager and it profoundly affected me. Opened my eyes to a different kind of writing (previously had been a Flowers in the Attic kinda kid) that scared the crap out of me!! I vividly recall being curled up in bed, convinced vamps were scratching at my window after staying up half the night reading that book.

I also have a first edition of The Stand--another classic King book, imo. I have scads of his books, up until about 10 years ago or so, when I stopped reading him. No reason, the appeal just wasn't there any longer. The last book of his I read was Lisey's Story.

I respect his talent, although I may disagree with his idea of what makes the 'best' vampire. I love many different kinds, and I know that this will make Eris wanna shoot herself and me, but even the sparkly ones. All for different reasons. Some for sentimental reasons. Some because they scared the crap out of me. Some because I fell in love with them. Some because they were written so damn captivating, I couldn't help but love them.

So, whether it's Moonlight, Twilight, Black Dagger Brotherhood, Lestat or any other, they all have appeal to people for various reasons.

Whether you agree with his take or not, one thing is for certain, that man has a way with words. I adore his Entertainment Weekly column for it's honesty, humor and deftness with words.

If I am recalling correctly, he raved about The Passage (a vampire book that came out either earlier this year or late last)

I've got my feet in both camps.
I am a SK fan from way back.
I loved Salem's Lot, re-read it fairly recently, and am VERY interested in this new story of his. American Vampire.
There is plenty of room within my little brain for scary and romantic.

So lighten up Stephen dear, you're just getting old and cranky!

O gosh, now I'm going to have to add Salem's Lot to that ever growing pile next to my bed of books I've somehow missed. I did read some King over the years but quit after The Stand, which scared me to death.

eris wrote:

librarian_7 wrote:eris, Salem's Lot was originally published in 1976, a LONG time before Buffy. So the analogy doesn't hold up.

Lucky

That's the point.

Allan Quartermain was first pubbed in the 1880's, a LONG time before Indie ever feared snakes.

And a long time before he moved to Port Charles, too.