Silly Mike. It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
At this point you’ve invested way too much in pretending to be right to ever be able to just shrug off your error as just one of those things. It’s one reason why your opinions hold so little weight here.
Bill, I went through my Anne Rice phase in college, but really, I only liked Interview and Lestat. Hated, HATED, HATED the movie. Partly because it wasn’t NEARLY as atmospheric as it could’ve been, but mostly because of the casting.
Tom Cruise shouldn’t have been anywhere near Lestat. I can understand stunt casting, but the book had enough of a following that they could’ve gotten someone else, someone who more closely fits the descriptions of Lestat and the butts would’ve been in the seats.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 1, 2007 08:56 PM Jerry, Micha, there’s also, in the same group, The Witch Book.
Yeah, I know. I’ve got that one too.
Posted by: Micha at June 1, 2007 01:48 PM I sincerely would be interested to hear your ideas if you’re interested in sharing.
Well, while I’ve never had a problem with a vampire acting as an aristocrat in the olden days, I’ve never been too found of the rich vampire in modern settings. The problems I always have with a vampire as CEO, rock star, politician or major local figure in modern settings is the obvious one of how you could not get found out living under that kind of spotlights and living with the responsibilities and demands of the lifestyle. There’s just no way to do any of those without getting found out and staked.
For me, a vampire in the modern days would be a Traveler. They would be someone with no fixed address and likely as far off the official records and radar as an illegal immigrant on his first day in the country. Spike (from Buffy) before he went sickly sweet would be a close example of how I would see a modern vampire. However, Lance Henriksen & Bill Paxton in Near Dark would be a hëll of a lot closer to what I think a modern vampire should be.
See, my thing is that vampires are evil, likely amoral and would see people as little more then useful meals on wheels to go. The concept of a vampire that’s not brutal, somewhat vile and a cold killer is a nice oddity here and there, but it’s just becoming too common to find fiction using tragic vampires with a good soul. I do like the odd noble vampire here and there as a change of pace, but just not as the norm.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at June 1, 2007 01:03 PM I’ve certainly enjoyed reading and watching many shows that feature vampire characters that are far more interesting than just your typical monster gets to be.
Yeah, I have as well. Even as I slag on the overabundance of good-guy vampires, I have a collection of books and DVD’s that include those very same things. But an evil vampire can still be interesting. I loved what Henriksen and Paxton did with their roles in Near Dark. They were brutal and cold and dámņ sure interesting characters.
Posted by: Micha at June 1, 2007 01:48 PM Also, are there any fiction books on vampires/witches/werewolves you’d recommend?
Fiction and nonfiction alike:
I pick on some of the concepts in them from time to time, but the early Anita Blake novels really aren’t that bad. An out of print book called American Vampires has some interesting short stories in it. A couple of our dispatchers that I introduced to Anita got into Nancy Collins’s Midnight Blue series. Ok series, but way too hyper-sexual at some points. Not everyone’s cuppa. Robert R. McCammon’s The Wolf’s Hour has an interesting twist on the werewolf. Bill is spot on about I Am Legend. Great movie and Richard Matheson’s novel of the same name is awesome.
An ok nonfiction would be The Embrace by Aphrodite Jones. It’s about the killings in Eustis, Florida from back in 1996. Barnes & Noble Books put out a nice little collection of lore called Forests of the Vampire that deals with Slavic myth.
Oh, and you have to track down a book called Clive Barker’s A-Z of Horror. It’s Clive’s list of books, movies and stories that rate on his lists. It’s a fun read that actually has some really cool pop trivia bits in it.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 1, 2007 10:04 PM Carpenter’s Vampires was about the last good thing he’s done, isn’t it? Sigh.
Just about. Loved the movie, but the book (book came first) wasn’t as well paced. I also liked the way the lead was played in the movie better then how he was written in the book. But it’s not the last good thing Carpenter has done. I may be alone here, but I actually liked Ghosts of Mars once it got past his attempt to do Rashomon. Slow as hëll to get going, but a fun movie nonetheless.
But, hey, what do I know. I also liked Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, Razorblade Smile (sort of), Lifeforce, Fright Night, Mr. Vampire, The Fearless Vampire Killers, Vampire Journals, Subspecies, Dusk ’til Dawn, Innocent Blood and anything with the Hammer Films stamp on it. Oh, and if you ever get a chance, watch the Spanish Dracula that the studio filmed simultaneously to their version with Bela Lugosi. Same sets, same script and same plot, but a far better movie.
Hmmmm. I think I’ve exceeded the requested answer parameters. Oh well.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 2, 2007 12:25 AM Bill, I went through my Anne Rice phase in college, but really, I only liked Interview and Lestat. Hated, HATED, HATED the movie.
I’m the heretic in the vampire circles. I thought the first book was just ok, wasn’t a big fan of the others and was only so-so on the first film.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 2, 2007 12:20 AM Silly Mike. It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
Huh. I haven’t been reading Mike lately, but that’s what he thinks is impossible to come up with?
1) Obsession as concern: I’m sure you’ve come across it in the school system. A teacher sees a student who has tons of potential throwing it all away and going down the wrong path and gets fixated on helping him. I’ve seen it in cops. I know a guy who was obsessed with getting some kid out of the crap he kept trying to get himself into because the kid was more or less this cop when he was a kid. Didn’t end well.
2) Obsession as competition: This is the one that several here seem to be slowly attributing to Mike himself. Person A gets fixated on person B or persons B-Z and feels an irrational need to prove themselves better then them. They have to be more right/better then/more then/etc. the other person or people as all times. It’s the only way they can feel good about themselves.
3) Obsession as jealousy: Just like the competition example, but a little more dangerous if the people have actual contact or physical proximity to each other.
4) Obsession as hatred: How knows how the hatred sometimes starts, but get out of the way of this obsession. Person A hates person B and wants to humiliate/hurt/destroy them whenever possible. Often associated with #’s 2 & 3 at some point or started out as them before transforming into hate. Bad thing to see.
5) Obsession from mental instability: We have an officer who has a 10-96 that’s latched onto him like he was the greatest person on Earth. Can’t begin to figure out why. It could be that the guy looks like someone from this person’s past, a member of the family, some odd tick due to his mental disorders or none of the above. Obsession sometimes can’t be explained by the sane mind because the trigger for it isn’t even close to sane.
6) Obsession as academic interest: Lots of us have seen this one. Someone sees someone else who is just odd enough, fascinating enough, weird enough, smart enough or dumb enough that you can’t help but observe or interact with the person to see what they’re going to do. It’s like an odd form of alcoholism. You know that the drink is something you shouldn’t have, but you just get weak and take it anyhow. This subject is just so strange when compared to the “norm” that you just have to see what they’ll do/say/come up with. It’s a study in weirdness. Not necessarily a bad or unhealthy thing.
I’m sure Mike will come up with some odd reasons why none of those actually count. Email me when he does so I can bother to read the post. Should be worth the giggle.
Wow, 549 comments for a thread called Offered Without Comment. I’m sure there’s a lesson on irony in there somewhere. Either that or I just need to go to sleep now.
Night of the Living Thread
“Grandpa, is it true that this thread has been active since way back in 2007?”
“Yes, it is, Jimmy.”
“Whiskers! That was over a billion years ago. I bet it’s the longest running thread in history.”
“More like a million years, Jimmy. But you’re right, it is a pretty long thread.”
“Gee, maybe one day, my grandson will post on it, too.
I’ve been reading this ongoing thread (well most of the posts, at least) with interest, and thought I’d chime in again.
I’m not familiar enough with vampire fiction to know if there’s been a glut of “noble” vampires. The only ones I’m immediately familiar with are Angel, Nicholas DeBrabant and Dracula, as depicted in Fred Saberhagen’s novels, The Dracula Tapes and The Holmes-Dracula File. All three are noble, as in good (at least I assume Dracula is; it’s been years since I’ve read those books), but I assume Drac was depicted as good in those books. He may been more of an anti-hero.), but I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “nice.” They still have edges to them.
I read the Anne Rice books years ago (early 1990s, if I recall). Well, most of them. I think the last one I read is when Lestat invited a friend to become a vampire and asked if he wanted to shave and/or get a haircut first, because he couldn’t do so afterward. I remember the books seemed very atmospheric. As to the characters, Lestat struck me as amoral, not in any way “nice.”
As to Louis, well this comes from the film, not the book, but I remember a line about people unlucky enough to cross his path. To the best of my recollection, he didn’t go out of his way to hunt, but if he encountered someone, he might just take advantage of the situation.
Where am I going with all this? I don’t know. The thread’s been rambling. Why can’t my post?
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
What kind of conflicts could a vampire have? Well, there’s the obvious vampire vs. vampire disagreements (“should we drain his blood now, or wait till we get home?” “Drain it now, drain it now!”), but I think an internal conflict would be more interesting. With his soul/conscience returned, Angel is haunted by his past crimes. To make matters worse (from his POV), he’s alienated from other vampires, and can’t fully participate in human society.
Like Nicholas, he seeks a redemption of sorts, though I suspect he realizes it’ll never happen. Not that he didn’t believe in the Shanshu prophecy, but that I’m sure Angel probably felt he’d never do enough good to balance out all the bad.
(though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)
But anyway, Angel seeks redemption, not only for himself, but others, like Faith. In fact, he’s one of the few who believes the renegade slayer can be redeemed. Does that water him down or make him too “nice”? I don’t think so. Like I said above, he still has an edge to him. He’s still a vampire and while he doesn’t (usually) feed on humans anymore, we’ve seen instances where he fell off the wagon (and that’s when he did have his soul).
I’m still not sure if anything coherent has come from this post, but like I said, the thread has meandered, why not this latest contribution to it.
Besides, it’s 3:46 a.m. What do you expect at 3:46 a.m.?
To be in bed. Which is where I should be. Good night, folks.
Rick
Night of the Living Thread
“Grandpa, is it true that this thread has been active since way back in 2007?”
“Yes, it is, Jimmy.”
“Whiskers! That was over a billion years ago. I bet it’s the longest running thread in history.”
“More like a million years, Jimmy. But you’re right, it is a pretty long thread.”
“Gee, maybe one day, my grandson will post on it, too.
I’ve been reading this ongoing thread (well most of the posts, at least) with interest, and thought I’d chime in again.
I’m not familiar enough with vampire fiction to know if there’s been a glut of “noble” vampires. The only ones I’m immediately familiar with are Angel, Nicholas DeBrabant and Dracula, as depicted in Fred Saberhagen’s novels, The Dracula Tapes and The Holmes-Dracula File. All three are noble, as in good (at least I assume Dracula is; it’s been years since I’ve read those books), but I assume Drac was depicted as good in those books. He may been more of an anti-hero.), but I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “nice.” They still have edges to them.
I read the Anne Rice books years ago (early 1990s, if I recall). Well, most of them. I think the last one I read is when Lestat invited a friend to become a vampire and asked if he wanted to shave and/or get a haircut first, because he couldn’t do so afterward. I remember the books seemed very atmospheric. As to the characters, Lestat struck me as amoral, not in any way “nice.”
As to Louis, well this comes from the film, not the book, but I remember a line about people unlucky enough to cross his path. To the best of my recollection, he didn’t go out of his way to hunt, but if he encountered someone, he might just take advantage of the situation.
Where am I going with all this? I don’t know. The thread’s been rambling. Why can’t my post?
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
What kind of conflicts could a vampire have? Well, there’s the obvious vampire vs. vampire disagreements (“should we drain his blood now, or wait till we get home?” “Drain it now, drain it now!”), but I think an internal conflict would be more interesting. With his soul/conscience returned, Angel is haunted by his past crimes. To make matters worse (from his POV), he’s alienated from other vampires, and can’t fully participate in human society.
Like Nicholas, he seeks a redemption of sorts, though I suspect he realizes it’ll never happen. Not that he didn’t believe in the Shanshu prophecy, but that I’m sure Angel probably felt he’d never do enough good to balance out all the bad.
(though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)
But anyway, Angel seeks redemption, not only for himself, but others, like Faith. In fact, he’s one of the few who believes the renegade slayer can be redeemed. Does that water him down or make him too “nice”? I don’t think so. Like I said above, he still has an edge to him. He’s still a vampire and while he doesn’t (usually) feed on humans anymore, we’ve seen instances where he fell off the wagon (and that’s when he did have his soul).
I’m still not sure if anything coherent has come from this post, but like I said, the thread has meandered, why not this latest contribution to it.
Besides, it’s 3:46 a.m. What do you expect at 3:46 a.m.?
To be in bed. Which is where I should be. Good night, folks.
Rick
Night of the Living Thread
“Grandpa, is it true that this thread has been active since way back in 2007?”
“Yes, it is, Jimmy.”
“Whiskers! That was over a billion years ago. I bet it’s the longest running thread in history.”
“More like a million years, Jimmy. But you’re right, it is a pretty long thread.”
“Gee, maybe one day, my grandson will post on it, too.
I’ve been reading this ongoing thread (well most of the posts, at least) with interest, and thought I’d chime in again.
I’m not familiar enough with vampire fiction to know if there’s been a glut of “noble” vampires. The only ones I’m immediately familiar with are Angel, Nicholas DeBrabant and Dracula, as depicted in Fred Saberhagen’s novels, The Dracula Tapes and The Holmes-Dracula File. All three are noble, as in good (at least I assume Dracula is; it’s been years since I’ve read those books), but I assume Drac was depicted as good in those books. He may been more of an anti-hero.), but I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “nice.” They still have edges to them.
I read the Anne Rice books years ago (early 1990s, if I recall). Well, most of them. I think the last one I read is when Lestat invited a friend to become a vampire and asked if he wanted to shave and/or get a haircut first, because he couldn’t do so afterward. I remember the books seemed very atmospheric. As to the characters, Lestat struck me as amoral, not in any way “nice.”
As to Louis, well this comes from the film, not the book, but I remember a line about people unlucky enough to cross his path. To the best of my recollection, he didn’t go out of his way to hunt, but if he encountered someone, he might just take advantage of the situation.
Where am I going with all this? I don’t know. The thread’s been rambling. Why can’t my post?
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
What kind of conflicts could a vampire have? Well, there’s the obvious vampire vs. vampire disagreements (“should we drain his blood now, or wait till we get home?” “Drain it now, drain it now!”), but I think an internal conflict would be more interesting. With his soul/conscience returned, Angel is haunted by his past crimes. To make matters worse (from his POV), he’s alienated from other vampires, and can’t fully participate in human society.
Like Nicholas, he seeks a redemption of sorts, though I suspect he realizes it’ll never happen. Not that he didn’t believe in the Shanshu prophecy, but that I’m sure Angel probably felt he’d never do enough good to balance out all the bad.
(though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)
But anyway, Angel seeks redemption, not only for himself, but others, like Faith. In fact, he’s one of the few who believes the renegade slayer can be redeemed. Does that water him down or make him too “nice”? I don’t think so. Like I said above, he still has an edge to him. He’s still a vampire and while he doesn’t (usually) feed on humans anymore, we’ve seen instances where he fell off the wagon (and that’s when he did have his soul).
I’m still not sure if anything coherent has come from this post, but like I said, the thread has meandered, why not this latest contribution to it.
Besides, it’s 3:46 a.m. What do you expect at 3:46 a.m.?
To be in bed. Which is where I should be. Good night, folks.
Rick
Jerry, Bill, Bob and Rick. Thanks for your ideas. They are already mixing up with my own. I like to look at issues from different angles, and you have provided some useful takes that partially fit well and partially challenge (which also fits well) with my ideas, both on the issues of amorality and way of life. Hopefully these ideas will be able to make there way out of my mind into the word document somehow.
Here are a few more questions, if you don’t mind:
Do you prefer your vampires with a whole package of magical powers, or just the simple super strength?
Do you prefer them to be amoral by nature (Buffy) or by choice?
The you prefer the vampires as imfection approach. i.e. they bite people and they become vampires, or the club approach, in which people are recruited (willingly or unwillingly) into the elite club of vampires?
How do you feeel about hierarchies in vampire society: the power the creating vampire has over the created, Dracula’s women companions, non vampire servants?
And lastly, do you prefer the ugly twisted face vampires or the beautiful Brad Pit types?
————————–
“though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)”
Buffy pretty much gradually undercut the idea that the vampire was not the same person as the human, but a demon, as the vampires developed more and more of a personality, and their human pasts became more significant. It became more a situation in which they had the same personality but without the inhibitions (whch is a good idea in and of itself). There’s also a good philosophical question: if Spike the Demon has the same memories and the same tastes as William the human, in what sense is he not William?
Again, it seems that Joss Whedons orly ideas were less thought out than his later ideas.but it all worked out so well, there is no reason to complain.
No, thank you, Mike for [confirming] that your statement there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay. was both incorrect and indicative of a lack of imagination….
Your latest attempt to deny the obvious is the funniest one yet. Keep it up. You’ll be able to save a bundle on therapist costs by just printing this all out and handing it to them….
It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
You accused me of refusing to take a correction you previously gave me credit for taking — and rather than opt to abandon your contradiction as a casual mistake, you chose to formalized it by persisting in challenging me with it. All that’s left for my to say is thank you for sacrificing your own credibility to boost mine.
Sean, I didn’t think that Cruise was bad in the role but, from watching the movie I never got any sense of why this character became so popular.
I’ve heard that Rice had a young Rutger Hauer in mind when she came up with the character. Casting Tom Cruise as a young Rutger Hauer sounds like an idea from the Bizarro World.
I’ve never been too found of the rich vampire in modern settings. The problems I always have with a vampire as CEO, rock star, politician or major local figure in modern settings is the obvious one of how you could not get found out living under that kind of spotlights and living with the responsibilities and demands of the lifestyle. There’s just no way to do any of those without getting found out and staked.
One of the better applications of the idea was in THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (not a very good movie, sadly) where Dracula is a kind of Howard Hughes figure. I mean, one advantage of immortality would be wealth. Even a modest investment yields big results with time.
But even wealth doesn’t take away the bone crushing boredom of a vampire’s existence, repeating the same thing every night, always in fear of the occasional Van Helsing type. It’s a classic Devil’s bargain–you sign up for immortality and powers and end up trapped in an endless cycle and suddenly vulnerable to a good French bread pizza.
loved what Henriksen and Paxton did with their roles in Near Dark. They were brutal and cold and dámņ sure interesting characters.
Seconded. Good show. I hear they are remaking it (bleah!)
But, hey, what do I know. I also liked Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, Razorblade Smile (sort of), Lifeforce, Fright Night, Mr. Vampire, The Fearless Vampire Killers, Vampire Journals, Subspecies, Dusk ’til Dawn, Innocent Blood and anything with the Hammer Films stamp on it. Oh, and if you ever get a chance, watch the Spanish Dracula that the studio filmed simultaneously to their version with Bela Lugosi. Same sets, same script and same plot, but a far better movie.
Wow, you’re as bad with vampires as I am with zombies! Well, I’ve seen most of those…Lifeforce is one of my favorite trainwrecks of a film, though I weep when I think of Tobe Hooper’s career.
I’m sure Mike will come up with some odd reasons why none of those actually count. Email me when he does so I can bother to read the post. Should be worth the giggle.
I’m not so sure–he may be tiring of looking so bad. His latest post a few down from yours seems to be a “declare victory and retreat” kind of thing, which would be unexpectedly rational.
At any rate, yep, it isn’t hard to come up with plenty of same sex obsession examples that have no gay context–hëll, how many revenge plots have there been, going all the way back to the Count of Monte Cristo? But Mike’s gotta have his rape motif. Must’ve had some childhood…
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
That’s a good point–remember that the original Dracula was more about the people affected by Dracula than by Dracula himself. My idea of a good vampire movie is one that has interesting characters I care about…and a vampire.
Do you prefer your vampires with a whole package of magical powers, or just the simple super strength?
I rather like the Buffy/Tomb of Dracula approach where some vampires are very powerful but the majority are just very strong. Too many powers makes them look stupid for not using them. If a vampire can turn into mist he’d have to be a moron to ever get staked.
Do you prefer them to be amoral by nature (Buffy) or by choice?
By nature
The you prefer the vampires as infection approach. i.e. they bite people and they become vampires, or the club approach, in which people are recruited (willingly or unwillingly) into the elite club of vampires?
If every victim becomes a vampire you get too many vampires…I kind of like the original Dracula approach where to turn a human he has to bite them over an extended period, to slowly transform them.
How do you feeel about hierarchies in vampire society: the power the creating vampire has over the created, Dracula’s women companions, non vampire servants?
Not crazy about vampire society period; vampires having power over other vampires is best in very small doses; LOVE the vampire brides; non-vampire servants are an excellent idea. They don’t all have to be hunchbacked werewolves…then again, why not?
And lastly, do you prefer the ugly twisted face vampires or the beautiful Brad Pit types?
I like me an ugly vampire (the Brides excepted) though a character like Dracula himself can certainly have a cruel but human appearance (Tomb Of Dracula based him on Jack Palance–good choice).
All that’s left for my to say is thank you for sacrificing your own credibility to boost mine.
If only that were true…the part about “All that’s left for my to say” that is.
You made an incorrect statement. You got called on it. You refused to back down and challenged me to provide an example of why the statement was incorrect. I did. You lose. The rest is just proving correct everyone who has commented on how your fragile need to be right, even when it has become obvious that you are wrong, is an essential and tragic part of your self image.
The only question at this point is how long it will take for you to tire of having your foolishness repeated and having to defend it.
Posted by: Micha at June 2, 2007 07:49 AM Here are a few more questions, if you don’t mind: Do you prefer your vampires with a whole package of magical powers, or just the simple super strength?
Hmmm. I think it depends on what the story’s setting is. Most people just think of vampire in the Frank Langella, Christopher lee or Bela Lugosi veins thanks to pop-culture’s power over the modern lore. Thing is, there are a ton of variations in what the vampire is from country to country, region to region and century to century. Limiting the idea for what they are or can be with no idea of where or how they would be used is kind of like telling someone that they can only use a sword one and only one way in their stories.
But like any good story with a magical sword in it, you need to have way more normal swords to make the magical one truly stand out. What’s special about a magical sword if they’re all Excalibur?
I personally like the concept of the more human vampire with only greater strength, heightened predatory senses and maybe a little mental voodoo in there for stories set in the modern era, but do kind of dig the expanded mystic nature of the creature for stories set in days long gone by. Hëll, I even dug PAD’s twist on the vampire in Trancers. Really, it boils down to the quality of the story, the skills of the writer and what they’re trying to do with the vampire for the story.
There’s a “true” vampire story from early American lore that’s purely in the field of revenant. It may as well be a variant on the zombie story. It’s still a fun story and it was great to be scared spitless by it when I was a kid.
Do you prefer them to be amoral by nature (Buffy) or by choice?
I like the amoral by nature aspect more then by choice. They’re more scary that way. If it was a matter of choice, then you’d have a huge population of vampires like those in the Adrian Paul film The Breed. They weren’t all that impressive. They were actually kind of sad.
Plus, that idea of someone you love becoming the thing that must be killed before it kills you is one of the things that I find to be the most terrifying aspect of vampires, werewolves and zombies. How terrifying would it be, how heart wrenching, to have to make the choice between killing something with the face of someone you deeply loved or having them kill you. Langella’s Dracula and a movie called Zombi 2 (or just Zombie depending on where you buy it) both had great scenes involving that concept.
The you prefer the vampires as imfection approach. i.e. they bite people and they become vampires, or the club approach, in which people are recruited (willingly or unwillingly) into the elite club of vampires?
I kind of go with both as one concept. Some aspects of vampire legend have a multiple bite “death” that creates a revenant version of a vampire that’s almost nothing more then a nocturnal zombie while setting up a multiple bite & exchange of blood concept to create a “true” vampire. I do think that a species like a vampire would do everything it could to keep its numbers low though. The greater the number of vampires in the general population, the more deaths of the “vampire killer” variety and the greater the chances of being discovered as a race and eliminated.
How do you feel about hierarchies in vampire society: the power the creating vampire has over the created, Dracula’s women companions, non vampire servants?
Depends on the lore and the story. With some concepts, it makes sense. With others, not so much.
And lastly, do you prefer the ugly twisted face vampires or the beautiful Brad Pit types?
Depends on the lore and the story. There are myths from around the world that paint different versions of the “vampire” as heartbreakingly beautiful while others are hideously ugly. And there’s nothing that says that you can’t do both. Some stories balance out several concepts by making younger vampires less powerful and very human looking while making older vampires amazing powerful but ugly as sin.
I don’t know that anyone can really answer your questions very well. For every answer I could give you, I can could you a full 180 exception to my stated preferences. Like I said before, I like all of the lore, legend and myth. Some things I like more then others and some things I only like in moderation, but there have been only a handful of things I’ve found in all these years that I totally hated in a vampire story or film. And most of the time that was because of the sloppy execution of the idea rather then the idea itself.
________________________________________________________
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 2, 2007 10:37 AM I’ve heard that Rice had a young Rutger Hauer in mind when she came up with the character.
Yeah, I read that in an interview with Rice herself. That could have been cool. I agree with you that Cruise wasn’t bad in the role, he just wasn’t the character for me.
One of the better applications of the idea was in THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (not a very good movie, sadly) where Dracula is a kind of Howard Hughes figure.
Note my Hammer Films statement. I own the DVD. I need professional help.
It’s an ok idea if you have one or two in the world who have gone that route, but entire networks of power players like in the Blade films or in shows like Kindred: The Embraced just leave me rolling my eyes. It’s like the sword analogy. Too many of them waters it down too much and I can’t get over how credibility stretching it is that you don’t get a number of vampires exposed by their status and position in society. One or two Howard Hughes types I can see getting by, but not hundreds on each continent.
I like me an ugly vampire (the Brides excepted)…
Yeah, and I’m sure you just looooove that ERB concept of cavemen being just shy of looking like bigfoot while cavegirls look like they just stepped off of the cover of Playboy. Ðámņ. I just shattered one of the glass walls in my house.
(Tomb Of Dracula based him on Jack Palance–good choice).
Have you ever seen the version of the film where Jack actually plays Dracula? The film is just ok, but Jack was one hëll of a vampire.
Thanks again Bill and Jerry for al lthe info and ideas. Much to think of. Hopefully some day something will come out of all this. Or maybe it wil just enrich my own enjoyment as a reader/viewer, which is also good.
“Some stories balance out several concepts by making younger vampires less powerful and very human looking while making older vampires amazing powerful but ugly as sin.”
First of all: ‘ugly as sin.’ This could be used in a vampire movie in more than a metaphorical meaning. In the second Star Wars trilogy they could have played more on the idea of the physical transformation of the Sith as part of their corruption.
In the Coppola Dracula movie, Dracula shifts between being young and old, and a bunch of other things. I wasn’t exactly sure why he had an old appearance.
———————
Bill Mulligan wrote:
“The only question at this point is how long it will take for you [Mike] to tire of having your foolishness repeated and having to defend it.”
Mike is nothing if not tenacious. He won’t stop.
Have you ever seen the version of the film where Jack actually plays Dracula? The film is just ok, but Jack was one hëll of a vampire.
It was long time ago–the two things I remember were the ending (Drac impaled on a spear) and, if I’m recalling this correctly, that this was the forst film that made the explicit connection between Dracula and Vlad the Impaler.
Did you ever see the terrible Japanese animation version of Tomb of Dracula? Considering they pretty much used Wolfman’s script and based the look on Colan you’d think it should have been great but it was very limited anime and the dubbing was sub par. Needless to say, neither Colan nor Wolfman got dime one from the project, which is certainly Marvel’s right under the work for hire contract but…I don’t know, toss a few sheckles their way. That’s another reason I’m surprised filmmakers don’t option old Marvel comics more often–you get the screenplay and storyboards for free!
Micha, have you ever seen SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE? It didn’t quite live up to the expectations I had but there is one classic moment where Max Shrek, an actual vampire, is asked what he thinks about the novel Dracula: (screenplay by Steven Katz)
Max Schreck: It made me sad.
Albin: Why sad?
Max Schreck: Because Dracula had no servants.
Albin: I think you missed the point of the book, Count Orlock.
Max Schreck: Dracula hasn’t had servants in 400 years and then a man comes to his ancestral home, and he must convince him that he… that he is like the man. He has to feed him, when he himself hasn’t eaten food in centuries. Can he even remember how to buy bread? How to select cheese and wine? And then he remembers the rest of it. How to prepare a meal, how to make a bed. He remembers his first glory, his armies, his retainers, and what he is reduced to. The loneliest part of the book comes… when the man accidentally sees Dracula setting his table.
I said, “though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)”
Micha replied: “Buffy pretty much gradually undercut the idea that the vampire was not the same person as the human, but a demon, as the vampires developed more and more of a personality, and their human pasts became more significant. It became more a situation in which they had the same personality but without the inhibitions (which is a good idea in and of itself). There’s also a good philosophical question: if Spike the Demon has the same memories and the same tastes as William the human, in what sense is he not William?”
That is a good question. It’s in many ways an Alec Holland situation. If you’re not familiar with the character, in DC Comics’ Swamp Thing series, is exposed to certain chemicals that transforms him into a walking, sentient plant.
Or so it seems. When Alan Moore began writing the series in the 1980s, he wrote a story called “The Anatomy Lesson” in which the Swamp Thing learned he wasn’t a transformed Alec Holland, but plant life that’s been infused with Holland’s consciousness. He is “a ghost dressed in weeds.”
Angelus is not Liam and Spike is not William; but if they retain the memories and personalities of their human hosts (minus any sort of conscience), what is the difference?
Now here’s a question concerning vampires in the Buffyverse. When a vampire is staked, is the demon that animates the body destroyed, or does it, essentially, go to the back of the line and wait another turn at being a vampire?
Rick
The only thing that I have to say is that there is nothing more overdone and hackneyed in genre fiction today than vampires, especially, vampire romance stories. The only good vampires are those than have been staked.
That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
Did you ever see the terrible Japanese animation version of Tomb of Dracula?
Many, many years ago and I thought it was great. Then I saw it again a few years ago and found it to be much, much less then great.
No, thank you, Mike for [confirming] that your statement there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay. was both incorrect and indicative of a lack of imagination….
I’m not so sure–he may be tiring of looking so bad. His latest post a few down from yours seems to be a “declare victory and retreat” kind of thing, which would be unexpectedly rational.
At any rate, yep, it isn’t hard to come up with plenty of same sex obsession examples that have no gay context–hëll, how many revenge plots have there been, going all the way back to the Count of Monte Cristo? But Mike’s gotta have his rape motif. Must’ve had some childhood…
In the Borat-style consent-form burial of Jerry support for a point you’ve already given me credit for accepting, I admit I completely missed it in the ½ hour I gave myself at the beginning of this fine day to reply to any responses to my post last night.
Obsession as concern: I’m sure you’ve come across it in the school system. A teacher sees a student who has tons of potential throwing it all away and going down the wrong path and gets fixated on helping him. I’ve seen it in cops. I know a guy who was obsessed with getting some kid out of the crap he kept trying to get himself into because the kid was more or less this cop when he was a kid. Didn’t end well.
Obsession as competition: This is the one that several here seem to be slowly attributing to Mike himself. Person A gets fixated on person B or persons B-Z and feels an irrational need to prove themselves better then them. They have to be more right/better then/more then/etc. the other person or people as all times. It’s the only way they can feel good about themselves.
Obsession as jealousy: Just like the competition example, but a little more dangerous if the people have actual contact or physical proximity to each other.
Obsession as hatred: How knows how the hatred sometimes starts, but get out of the way of this obsession. Person A hates person B and wants to humiliate/hurt/destroy them whenever possible. Often associated with #’s 2 & 3 at some point or started out as them before transforming into hate. Bad thing to see.
Obsession from mental instability: We have an officer who has a 10-96 that’s latched onto him like he was the greatest person on Earth. Can’t begin to figure out why. It could be that the guy looks like someone from this person’s past, a member of the family, some odd tick due to his mental disorders or none of the above. Obsession sometimes can’t be explained by the sane mind because the trigger for it isn’t even close to sane.
Obsession as academic interest: Lots of us have seen this one. Someone sees someone else who is just odd enough, fascinating enough, weird enough, smart enough or dumb enough that you can’t help but observe or interact with the person to see what they’re going to do. It’s like an odd form of alcoholism. You know that the drink is something you shouldn’t have, but you just get weak and take it anyhow. This subject is just so strange when compared to the “norm” that you just have to see what they’ll do/say/come up with. It’s a study in weirdness. Not necessarily a bad or unhealthy thing.
I’m sure Mike will come up with some odd reasons why none of those actually count. Email me when he does so I can bother to read the post. Should be worth the giggle.
Jerry, you seem pretty sure one or more of those 6 apply to you, otherwise challenging me to dismiss them is nonsensical:
You identify with me and are dedicated to my well-being,
I represent some standard you struggle to exceed,
you are jealous of me,
you hate me,
you are mentally imbalanced, and
my existence is incompatible with your model of the universe.
I would accept all of them, but your venting of disgust seems to disqualify 1, the seemingly arbitrary nature of your obsession seems to disqualify 2, and your lack of curiosity — your certainty — seems to disqualify 6. As far as I’m concerned, your admission of mental instability says it all.
Jerry, you seem pretty sure one or more of those 6 apply to you, otherwise challenging me to dismiss them is nonsensical:
No, he simply believed that you are too determined never to be wrong to not dismiss them. The idea that they must apply to him is entirely in your mind and such an incredible leap it could only come from Our Mike.
In the Borat-style consent-form burial of Jerry support for a point you’ve already given me credit for accepting,
No, I was being sarcastic when I thanked you–it’s what you do on a regular basis and it amused me to use it on you. If you’ve admitted that your statement that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay was both incorrect and/or indicative of a lack of imagination on your part I must have missed it. Care to give a definitive response? Or just cast yourself as Alfred Davidson to Jerry’s Sadie Thompson?
Wait…. I’m a suspected fugitive from the notorious Emerald Club of Honolulu???
When did this happen????
I miss one dámņ vote meeting of the Zombie Apocalypse Party and this is what I get.
I want my crowbar back.
~8?[
Well, you thought it was funny as all get out when we framed Bill Myers on those bootlegged DVD charges and had him imprisoned in Japan with a yakuza enforcer the last time he missed a meeting. What goes around comes around.
…there are so many ways that one could [portray a same-sex obsession as something other than gay] that your reliance on cheap gay-baiting is convincing evidence of a deeper animus toward homosexuals.
…here’s a good one. You could have compared the situation to Les Misérables. Jerry would, in your fantasy, be the obsessive Inspector Javert, hounding the kindly Jean Valjean (played here by Mike). I have yet to hear anyone ever suggest that either A- Jean Valjean and Javert are not of the same sex or B- Javert is not obsessed with Valjean or C- there is any sexual component to that obsession.
The only disadvantage to the analogy is that putting yourself in the role of the heroic Valjean is only slightly more laughable than making out Jerry to be Javert.
Thanks, Bill, for reminding us of — and disqualifying — that Valjean/Javert dynamic no one can ever seem to get away from.
No, thank you, Mike for [confirming] that your statement there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay. was both incorrect and indicative of a lack of imagination….
Your latest attempt to deny the obvious is the funniest one yet. Keep it up. You’ll be able to save a bundle on therapist costs by just printing this all out and handing it to them….
It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
You accused me of refusing to take a correction you previously gave me credit for taking — and rather than opt to abandon your contradiction as a casual mistake, you chose to formalized it by persisting in challenging me with it. All that’s left for my to say is thank you for sacrificing your own credibility to boost mine.
No, I was being sarcastic when I thanked you–it’s what you do on a regular basis and it amused me to use it on you.
I don’t need your gratitude to be authentic to legitimize your contradiction. Your portrayal of me “[confirming] that [my] statement… was… incorrect” is literally what happened.
I’m sure Mike will come up with some odd reasons why none of those actually count. Email me when he does so I can bother to read the post. Should be worth the giggle.
Jerry, you seem pretty sure one or more of those 6 apply to you, otherwise challenging me to dismiss them is nonsensical:
You identify with me and are dedicated to my well-being,
I represent some standard you struggle to exceed,
you are jealous of me,
you hate me,
you are mentally imbalanced, and
my existence is incompatible with your model of the universe.
I would accept all of them, but your venting of disgust seems to disqualify 1, the seemingly arbitrary nature of your obsession seems to disqualify 2, and your lack of curiosity — your certainty — seems to disqualify 6. As far as I’m concerned, your admission of mental instability says it all.
No, he simply believed that you are too determined never to be wrong to not dismiss them.
So how does it not suck to be the guy who counts on the denial of the recipient of his disgust to disqualify his own admission of mental instability?
The idea that they must apply to him is entirely in your mind and such an incredible leap it could only come from Our Mike.
Yeah, then we’re back to “After [3½] days, the ‘so many ways’ to portray Jerry’s same-sex obsession with me as something other than gay is still zero.” Because considering any merit to the idea this is mistaken “could only come from Our Mike” — not you. Have it your way.
Well, at the very least, you’ve constructed an argument so divorced from normal thinking that it’s hard to counter. At this point I can’t tell whether you still think that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay or that you have admitted this is incorrect and you’re sore that this admission hasn’t been recognized.
But really, Mike, don’t go thinking that you are the recipient of disgust, at least from most of us. As the old T-shirt slogan says, I used to be disgusted, now I’m just amused. Where else are we gonna get lines like In the Borat-style consent-form burial of Jerry support for a point you’ve already given me credit for accepting? Manatees?
“Posted by: Den at June 2, 2007 04:29 PM
The only thing that I have to say is that there is nothing more overdone and hackneyed in genre fiction today than vampires, especially, vampire romance stories. The only good vampires are those than have been staked.”
I can think of several genres that are so riffled with cliches it is hard to be original. Like the super hero genre for one. Fantasy in general is full of cliches. Yet somehow people find ways to continue writing in the genres: a few even do it well, either by following the cliches well, or by turning them upside down, or by coming up with something original.
——————–
“Now here’s a question concerning vampires in the Buffyverse. When a vampire is staked, is the demon that animates the body destroyed, or does it, essentially, go to the back of the line and wait another turn at being a vampire?”
I am not that well versed in the cosmology of the Buffyverse beyond the shows. I think it was established the the vampire souls, like the human souls, are retrievable, and thus are not destroyed. I don’t know if an explanation was given to how they come to possess bodies, and whether they can do it to more than one.
…there are so many ways that one could [portray a same-sex obsession as something other than gay] that your reliance on cheap gay-baiting is convincing evidence of a deeper animus toward homosexuals.
…here’s a good one. You could have compared the situation to Les Misérables. Jerry would, in your fantasy, be the obsessive Inspector Javert, hounding the kindly Jean Valjean (played here by Mike). I have yet to hear anyone ever suggest that either A- Jean Valjean and Javert are not of the same sex or B- Javert is not obsessed with Valjean or C- there is any sexual component to that obsession.
The only disadvantage to the analogy is that putting yourself in the role of the heroic Valjean is only slightly more laughable than making out Jerry to be Javert.
Thanks, Bill, for reminding us of — and disqualifying — that Valjean/Javert dynamic no one can ever seem to get away from.
No, thank you, Mike for [confirming] that your statement there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay. was both incorrect and indicative of a lack of imagination….
Your latest attempt to deny the obvious is the funniest one yet. Keep it up. You’ll be able to save a bundle on therapist costs by just printing this all out and handing it to them….
So how and when did my supposed pretense of invulnerability manifest itself? Was it when I accused you of refusing to take a correction I previously gave you credit for taking? No, that can’t be it, because that wasn’t my hypocrisy against you, that was your hypocrisy against me. That’s Totally Normal Psychology.™
It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
You accused me of refusing to take a correction you previously gave me credit for taking — and rather than opt to abandon your contradiction as a casual mistake, you chose to formalized it by persisting in challenging me with it. All that’s left for my to say is thank you for sacrificing your own credibility to boost mine.
No, I was being sarcastic when I thanked you–it’s what you do on a regular basis and it amused me to use it on you.
I don’t need your gratitude to be authentic to legitimize your contradiction. Your portrayal of me “[confirming] that [my] statement… was… incorrect” is literally what happened.
At this point I can’t tell whether you still think that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay or that you have admitted this is incorrect and you’re sore that this admission hasn’t been recognized.
Perhaps you’re confused because your insincerity has eroded your very sense of reality, like in Dante’s Infreno where the fraudulent suffer from polymorphism because their insincerity has disintegrated their very identity.
Mike: You have denied there can be any sort of same sex obsession other than homosexuality; Several examples of such have been submitted; and yet you claim “victory.” How you feel about Jerry, or Bill, or Micha, or…someone or another shouldn’t be generalized. I’ll toss another few examples of same sex obsession out, to see what you do with them (be careful!):
Simon Peter felt quite strongly about Jesus of Nazareth – he even built a church dedicated to him! What was going on?
John the Apostle “whom Jesus loved”: Is the homosexual reading the only viable one?
Or it may be that like everyone else who has dealt with you on this board I just find your logic to be too poorly expressed to understand. Hmmm, I wonder which one it is? Everyone is too stupid to understand Mike or Mike is too stupid to make himself understandable? Well, when you hear hoof beats, expect horses, not zebras. The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Now it could well be that you are truly, as you believe, some kind of pearl among swine, dispensing truths that have been distilled to a purity so heretofore unseen that the rest of us, mere mortals we, cannot truly appreciate them.
Then again…(from Bedazzled)
Stanley Moon: You’re a nutcase! You’re a bleedin’ nutcase!
George Spiggott: They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo.
Stanley Moon: They said it of a lot of nutcases too.
“I wonder which one it is? Everyone is too stupid to understand Mike or Mike is too stupid to make himself understandable?”
Neither. The above implies that Mike’s only problem is expressing his ideas. There were indeed a few times in which this was the only problem: there was some sense in what he was trying to say, but he was not able to express himself coherently. But usually it’s olny not that the ideas were badly expressed, the ideas themselves were bad.
However it is the combination of the two, as well as the obsessive tenacity, that makes Mike the icon that he is on this board.
It’s not only stupidity, it’s distilling reason to a heretofore unknown stupidity.
Hopping back upthread a bit, I always got the impression from the Blade movies and TV series that the vast majority of vampire society was completely underground and unseen by normal human society, handling mundane and especially daytime business through familiars and catspaws, with only one or two actual public figures.
Myself, I figure that if you’re going to write stories with mythical figures, you really have to do something to stir things up, mess with the formula a bit, to keep from becoming stagnant.
Vampires, amoral by nature or choice? Some of the best vampire-as-protagonist stories deal with that question. Even if the person was extremely moral before they were turned, how long can they hold off the biological imperative to hunt and feed on human blood?
-Rex Hondo-
Micha, I find the best either fantasy or SF that I read anymore, or at least what I like the most, isn’t so concerned with the fantasy elements or science as the characters. For example, any of RA Salvatore’s work, has all the expected things, but the characters are what I remember, what they do is what I remember, where they do it is just that, the background.
Mike: You have denied there can be any sort of same sex obsession other than homosexuality; Several examples of such have been submitted; and yet you claim “victory.”
I’ve already addressed the issue you’ve raised:
No, thank you, Mike for [confirming] that your statement there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay. was both incorrect and indicative of a lack of imagination.
And thank you for helping me dismiss that whole “animus toward homosexuals” thing as an arbitrary accusation. After 2 days, the “so many ways” to portray Jerry’s same-sex obsession with me as something other than gay is still zero.
All irrelevant since the point being made was that your statement there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay is simply wrong and indicative of a lack of imagination. Your inability to demonstrate why the Valjean/Javert dynamic is either NOT obsessive (on the part of Javert) or is a gay relationship proves the point.
Your attempts to stamp your feet and say you’ve won the argument make you look so silly. Keep it up.
Thank you for stipulating specifically that “After 2 days, the ‘so many ways’ to portray Jerry’s same-sex obsession with me as something other than gay is still zero.”
While an absolute absense of any portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay would have covered me in rebutting you, my dismissal of your accusation does not depend on such an absolute absense or in “[demonstrating] why the Valjean/Javert dynamic is either NOT obsessive (on the part of Javert) or is a gay relationship.” (“Not depend,” as in “not need,” which is the hallmark of dedication.)
…because your accusation (“so many ways”) depends on my lack of imagination — in failing to producing that which you yourself cannot produce (“is still zero”) to prove your point. (“Depend,” as in “need,” which is the hallmark of childhood.)
…
How you feel about Jerry, or Bill, or Micha, or…someone or another shouldn’t be generalized.
I don’t know what you are referring to.
…there are so many ways that one could [portray a same-sex obsession as something other than gay] that your reliance on cheap gay-baiting is convincing evidence of a deeper animus toward homosexuals.
…here’s a good one. You could have compared the situation to Les Misérables. Jerry would, in your fantasy, be the obsessive Inspector Javert, hounding the kindly Jean Valjean (played here by Mike). I have yet to hear anyone ever suggest that either A- Jean Valjean and Javert are not of the same sex or B- Javert is not obsessed with Valjean or C- there is any sexual component to that obsession.
The only disadvantage to the analogy is that putting yourself in the role of the heroic Valjean is only slightly more laughable than making out Jerry to be Javert.
Thanks, Bill, for reminding us of — and disqualifying — that Valjean/Javert dynamic no one can ever seem to get away from.
No, thank you, Mike for [confirming] that your statement there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay. was both incorrect and indicative of a lack of imagination….
Your latest attempt to deny the obvious is the funniest one yet. Keep it up. You’ll be able to save a bundle on therapist costs by just printing this all out and handing it to them….
So how and when did my supposed pretense of invulnerability manifest itself? Was it when I accused you of refusing to take a correction I previously gave you credit for taking? No, that can’t be it, because that wasn’t my hypocrisy against you, that was your hypocrisy against me. That’s Totally Normal Psychology.™
It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
You accused me of refusing to take a correction you previously gave me credit for taking — and rather than opt to abandon your contradiction as a casual mistake, you chose to formalized it by persisting in challenging me with it. All that’s left for my to say is thank you for sacrificing your own credibility to boost mine.
No, I was being sarcastic when I thanked you–it’s what you do on a regular basis and it amused me to use it on you.
I don’t need your gratitude to be authentic to legitimize your contradiction. Your portrayal of me “[confirming] that [my] statement… was… incorrect” is literally what happened.
At this point I can’t tell whether you still think that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay or that you have admitted this is incorrect and you’re sore that this admission hasn’t been recognized.
Perhaps you’re confused because your insincerity has eroded your very sense of reality, like in Dante’s Infreno where the fraudulent suffer from polymorphism because their insincerity has disintegrated their very identity.
Or it may be that like everyone else who has dealt with you on this board I just find your logic to be too poorly expressed to understand.
If I’m incomprehensible… what the hëll do you have to complain about?
Mike: You need help (obviously) so I will offer it:
1. Person One (let’s call him “Jerry” – no, make that “Jeff”) thinks Person Two (let’s call him “Mike”) is a contemptible buffoon.
2. His certitude that this is so makes his stomach acids boil up in his esophagus and cause him to feel like vomiting.
3. Against all good judgment, Person One engages Person Two in conversation, and finds his completely deranged.
4. This wears on his mind and becomes a mania. Much ill will ensues.
If you’re missing the point, here goes: Same Sex Obsession can have many causes: homosexuality, of course; concern; compassion; curiosity; fascination; hatred; loathing; disgust; and contempt, to name just nine. Of these, 11.111 continuing % are homoerotic, and 88.888 continuing % are not.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 3, 2007 06:22 PM
“Myself, I figure that if you’re going to write stories with mythical figures, you really have to do something to stir things up, mess with the formula a bit, to keep from becoming stagnant.”
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 3, 2007 08:49 PM
“I find the best either fantasy or SF that I read anymore, or at least what I like the most, isn’t so concerned with the fantasy elements or science as the characters. For example, any of RA Salvatore’s work, has all the expected things, but the characters are what I remember, what they do is what I remember, where they do it is just that, the background.”
When I visit sci-fi fantasy book stores (or sections in dept. stores), there are always shelves upon shelves of books with similar covers and similar descriptions at the back. It is hard to tell which ones are just unoriginal formulaic fantasy or sci-fi, which are the ones that might be a little too much, too original, and which are the ones that have that extra something.
Some fantasy might be extremely formulaic and not very original but can still be quite satisfying. Star Wars (the first fantasy movie I ever saw) and Dragonlance (the first I’ve read) are both not very original or super smart, yet they somehow work — in large part because of the characters. Sean, you’re definitely right about that. Other books might not be so great, there might be a lot to criticize about them, but they have some good idea or twist to add to the genre. I enjoyed some of Michael Morcock’s books partially because they offered a different way of approaching fantasy subjects at a time when I was still only familiar with the more standard stuff. But when I recommended him to others they disliked him exceedingly, and I kind of avoided some of his more weird stuff myself. And of course, there’s personal taste. Some like one thing, others another. When I read fantasy and sci-fi I consider them in my mind on two levels: (1) overal enjoyment; (2) cool ideas or approaches to things.
Hëll, sometimes you can do nothing more creative then putting one genre’s coat of paint over another genre to get something fun. One author I enjoy is Glen Cook. His Black Company novels are ok, but his Garrett File’s novels rule. Thing is, there’s absolutely nothing new in them. All he’s done is drop a Raymond Chandler type of detective who’s an ex-marine in his world into a fantasy setting filed with vampires, ogres, ghosts, gods and devils and mixed it with a lot of wit.
Micha mentions Star Wars. Great example of that concept. There was absolutely nothing new or original in Star Wars, but the new skins that Lucas dressed up old ideas in and the manner in which he presented it made it something new and extraordinary. Forbidden Planet, one of my faves, is The Tempest redone. Othello has been re-imagined dozens of times now.
I’m not saying that just setting out to crib from someone else’s work is something anyone should do. It’s just dámņëd hard to come up with a story that’s 100% original at this point. I read a lot, watch way too many movies and listen to tons of audio drama and comedy. I can’t even begin to count how many of those stories are basically the exact same plot over and over again. The ones that are the best, in my demented view, are the ones that have the best developed and written characters. Well, that or the greatest amounts of dementedly unnecessary gore.
I enjoyed some of Michael Morcock’s books partially because they offered a different way of approaching fantasy subjects at a time when I was still only familiar with the more standard stuff.
Yeah, Morcock did some good stuff, but my biggest high on his work was his riff on ERB (and writing as Edward P. Bradbury) with his Michael Kane novels. However, that’s likely more due to the fact that I’m an huge ERB fan rather then a big Morcock fan.
Vampires, amoral by nature or choice? Some of the best vampire-as-protagonist stories deal with that question. Even if the person was extremely moral before they were turned, how long can they hold off the biological imperative to hunt and feed on human blood?
A lot depends on how much of the mythology you use. It’s hard to portray someone as good who has to shrink at the sight of a cross (it has been done though).
However, that’s likely more due to the fact that I’m an huge ERB fan rather then a big Morcock fan.
Hey, I’d buy a “Vampires in Pellucider” story. Shouldn’t the copyright on those stories be running out soon? Will we get new tales from the center of the earth?
Mike: You have denied there can be any sort of same sex obsession other than homosexuality; Several examples of such have been submitted; and yet you claim “victory.”
While an absolute absense of any portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay would have covered me in rebutting you, my dismissal of your accusation does not depend on such an absolute absense or in “[demonstrating] why the Valjean/Javert dynamic is either NOT obsessive (on the part of Javert) or is a gay relationship.” (“Not depend,” as in “not need,” which is the hallmark of dedication.)
…because your accusation (“so many ways”) depends on my lack of imagination — in failing to producing that which you yourself cannot produce (“is still zero”) to prove your point. (“Depend,” as in “need,” which is the hallmark of childhood.)
If you’re missing the point, here goes: Same Sex Obsession can have many causes: homosexuality, of course; concern; compassion; curiosity; fascination; hatred; loathing; disgust; and contempt, to name just nine. Of these, 11.111 continuing % are homoerotic, and 88.888 continuing % are not.
Jeffrey, as long as you and Bill are unable to dismiss my observation (indicated by the bolded text), I am free to dismiss your devastating “gotcha” all the live-long day.
It’s now 5 days, and no one can demonstrate how any of Jeffrey’s non-sexual 88.889% applies to Jerry’s obsession with me. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the dámņìņg lack of imagination on my part is one shared by my accusers.
Mike: Try “loathing,” “disgust” or “contempt”: One of them might fit.
“While an absolute absense (sic) of any portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay would have covered me in rebutting you, my dismissal of your accusation does not depend on such an absolute absense (sic) or in ‘[demonstrating] why the Valjean/Javert dynamic is either NOT obsessive (on the part of Javert) or is a gay relationship'”
What could this convoluted sentence mean? I’ll try:
There being absolutely no portrayals of same-sex obsessions would have covered you in rebutting me (no, I don’t know what “covering you in rebutting me” means) but your dismissal of my accusation does not depend on there being no examples other than homosexuality.
That’s still too complicated and incoherent:
Things being as you said would rebut you (no, it doesn’t make sense). Even so, your rebuttal does not depend on what I say being wrong, or what you say being right.
That’s still too complicated:
I’m MIKE, and what I say is right, because…I’m MIKE! What I say is true, and does not depend on being true to be true, because…I’M MIKE!!!
That’s about it.
Jeffrey & Bill,
Look, it’s been a valiant effort and one that you’ve attempted masterfully, but it’s just no use. The poor guy has to do whatever he can to convince himself, no matter how delusional the idea truly is, that someone out there other then the person who gave birth to him has any feelings towards him other then revulsion, disgust or pity.
Yeah, it’s kind of sad to see this kind of behavior from a grown man, but you’ve done all that you can do. If he wants to act like a desperate loser junior high school guy and go around trying to convince anybody who’ll listen that the really cute girl in his English class really digs him when all she really finds him to be is an object of pity and an occasional source of unintentional humor… Let him have his fantasy. It’s got to be better for his feelings and self esteem to be able to convince himself of the idea that, no matter how improbable or far fetched the concept, somehow there is someone out there somewhere who isn’t a blood relative who might feel something for him other then a negative emotion rather then live with the horrible truth of his existence.
Yeah, that kind of behavior is a little more disturbing, pathetic and pitiable when coming from an adult, but it’s all the guy has. If he wants to go on living his lie, so long as he doesn’t become dangerously obsessive about it, who are we to destroy the last crumb of hope he may have left in his world? If his desperate yet pathetic desire to believe with all of his heart that one of us here may feel something for him other then tedious boredom, academic curiosity or downright disgust is what gives him the strength to get up every morning and make it through the day, then why take it away from him?
Maybe one day in the far, far future, after much treatment and medication, he’ll be, hopefully, closer to normal and capable of attracting a real, flesh and blood woman for a real, non-hallucinatory relationship and he will then, like a teenage girl who’s grown out of her childhood crushes and pulled all her teenybopper posters down from the bedroom wall, leave us and his desperately needy but survival necessary fantasies behind him and finally join the rest of us in the real world. Until then, we should just let him have his harmless delusions and feel good that we can all, in some small way, give that much hope and determination to someone who so desperately seems to need it.
Very well put.
Hard to argue with your point, Jerry.
Micha and Jeffrey Frawley have both said they are aware of the futility of reasoning with Mike, and are fully aware of the nature of the games he plays, but choose to verbally spar with him anyway because it amuses them. I can’t understand that choice, but it’s their business and that’s that. That’s why I’m not addressing them with this post. Instead, I’m addressing my good friend Bill Mulligan.
I could be wrong, but you don’t seem to derive any pleasure in going toe-to-toe (or post-to-post as it were) with Mike. In fact, interacting with him seems to genuinely upset you. (That’s entirely understandable: he has willfully mischaracterized your words on myriad occassions, he has insulted you and your family, and in general harrassed you and made himself a pain-in-your-ášš.) I’m getting the impression that you respond to him in order to defend your honor, and/or put him in his rightful place.
If that’s so, then I must ask: why?
I was a lurker here long before I ever began posting. When I finally decided to jump into the fray, I encountered you. I noticed immediately that you were knowledgeable, and even when I disagreed with your conclusions I usually found them to be remarkably well-reasoned and well-supported. I found our exchanges so enjoyable I decided to keep coming back.
I looked up to you then, Bill. I still do. And that’s why I can’t wrap my mind around the idea that someone of your caliber would feel a need to lower himself by even acknowledging Mike. You are better than he is on every level. You are infinitely more intelligent than Mike, and possessed of far better character as well. You have contributed greatly to the dialogue here, whereas Mike has done nothing but detract from it. Mike is simply not worthy of the attention of a man like yourself.
By acknowledging Mike in any way, shape, or form, by the way, you are perpetuating his behavior. Jerry forgot something in his analysis: trolls feed on attention. Whenever we’ve ignored Mike, even for a brief time, the frequency of his posts have diminished.
If you tell me that you enjoy going at it with Mike as Jeffrey Frawley and Micha say they do, then I will drop the issue just as I have with them. And I hope I haven’t overstepped my bounds. Everything I’ve said here has been motivated by my great respect for you.
Oh, and check yer e-mail. I’m going to keep bugging you about that until you respond. Heh. 😛
– Bill Myers
P.S. Thanks for the autographed copy of your movie. But I’m disappointed. I thought you were going to autograph it in your own blood!
I can think of several genres that are so riffled with cliches it is hard to be original. Like the super hero genre for one. Fantasy in general is full of cliches. Yet somehow people find ways to continue writing in the genres: a few even do it well, either by following the cliches well, or by turning them upside down, or by coming up with something original.
While all of that is true, I haven’t seen anything original coming out of the world of vampire pørņ/romance in the past ten years.
Fair warning: If you mention Charlene Harris, I will thought a complete fit.
Has anyone mentioned Poppy Z Brite? Not my cup of tea but a good writer and for those who like the Ann Rice stuff with more explicit sex and gore, she’s the one to go to.
Bill, I totally see where you’re coming from, re Mike. There was a time when I did feel I had to respond: silence = assent and all that foolishness. realizing that you, PAD, and, well, everyone have no regard for him pretty much nipped that in the bud.
I can honestly say he doesn’t upset me in the slightest. Read my latest posts with a smirk and you have a good idea of my mindset (not that this is necessarily a noble thing on my part since teh general consensus is that Mike may not be able to help it).
What I am having trouble letting go is when Mike (or anyone) unfairly attacks people here. (I am aware that this will probably force him to begin a new round of cut and paste philosophy-I assure all that from now one I will only read posts in this thread dealing with absolutely essential topics like zombies, vampires and assorted other non-Mike topics (no fair anyone postulating a story of a world taken over by zombie-Mikes and anyway NIGHT OF THE CREEPS has been used)).
I’ll also put in a plea for understanding given the timing of things–these are the last weeks of school, where some of the less appealing aspects of adolescence make themselves heard loud and clear. Whatever my no doubt many deficiencies as a teacher my be I would hope that I have managed to not let bullies run roughshod over other kids when I could help it. Mike’s bullying and gay baiting reminds me of behavior that is too often tolerated in schools and I’ve treated it as such. (It’s not exactly the same thing obviously–in this case it’s the unpopular kid acting the bully and the “victims” don’t feel any particular sting and certainly don’t need me to protect them.)
But anyway, my friend, your point is well taken.
Bill Mulligan, if I fully understand your perspective. But I see Mike less as a bully and more as a poorly socialized child crying out for attention. I very much doubt anyone here is intimidated by him.
Posted by: Den
I can think of several genres that are so riffled with cliches it is hard to be original. Like the super hero genre for one. Fantasy in general is full of cliches. Yet somehow people find ways to continue writing in the genres: a few even do it well, either by following the cliches well, or by turning them upside down, or by coming up with something original.
While all of that is true, I haven’t seen anything original coming out of the world of vampire pørņ/romance in the past ten years.
Fair warning: If you mention Charlene Harris, I will thought a complete fit.
“Thought a complete fit”? Is that like texting one?
How about Maryjanice Davidson’s “Betsy, Queen of the Vampires” series?
“Thought a complete fit”? Is that like texting one?
Ugh. THROW and complete fit. See how that woman’s drivel affects me?
How about Maryjanice Davidson’s “Betsy, Queen of the Vampires” series?
How about not.
Mike: Try “loathing,” “disgust” or “contempt”: One of them might fit.
Bill said my inability to find a non-gay portrayal of obsession was gay-baiting, and I countered by challenging him to find a non-gay one that applied to Jerry’s obsession with me — which no one has. You are providing abstractions that do not fullfill the challenge.
“While an absolute absense (sic) of any portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay would have covered me in rebutting you, my dismissal of your accusation does not depend on such an absolute absense (sic) or in ‘[demonstrating] why the Valjean/Javert dynamic is either NOT obsessive (on the part of Javert) or is a gay relationship'”
What could this convoluted sentence mean? I’ll try:
There being absolutely no portrayals of same-sex obsessions would have covered you in rebutting me (no, I don’t know what “covering you in rebutting me” means) but your dismissal of my accusation does not depend on there being no examples other than homosexuality.
That’s still too complicated and incoherent:
Things being as you said would rebut you (no, it doesn’t make sense). Even so, your rebuttal does not depend on what I say being wrong, or what you say being right.
That’s still too complicated:
I’m MIKE, and what I say is right, because…I’m MIKE! What I say is true, and does not depend on being true to be true, because…I’M MIKE!!!
I have no reservation against rephrasing and fixing misspellings:
While the absence of absolutely any portrayal of a same-sex, non-gay obsession would have demonstrated the absence of any non-gay portrayal applicable to Jerry’s obsession with me, all portrayals of same-sex, non-gay obsession — as stipulated by Bill Mulligan — do not necessarily apply to any given same-sex obsession.
After 5½ days, Bill’s “so many ways” to portray Jerry’s same-sex obsession with me as something other than gay is still zero.
If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Jerry, you could make it a first for one of your accusations [against] me, and cite a time when I’ve persisted to drive home a conceded point.
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me. There may be an academic interest in them for some who have a fascination with advanced mental disorders or the effects of extreme delusional paranoia, but I ain’t one of them. For me, Mike Posts are like poorly designed speed-bumps erected on the enjoyment super-highway.
Jerry, when are you going to realize everyone else reading this has started a pool on when we’re going to give into our passions, and finally rent the room.
Besides, let him spew that intolerance and hatred. It never bothered me before and it doesn’t now. I’m secure enough in the knowledge of my hetero-ness and I just can’t get myself to view being called gay as an insult because too many of the gay friends I have are pretty good people. If nothing else, it says a world about Mike’s own repressed bigotry and self doubts that he so often feels that others will feel the way he does when that label is tossed their way by him. Rather small, sad and pathetic really.
Well, good. So you won’t feel bad when your gay friends ask you when we’re going to give into our passions and finally rent the room.
[Posted by Jerry Chandler at May 22, 2007 01:39 PM]
Sigh, I’ll make one and only one post directly to Mike. And I mean just this one. I won’t respond to any other post of yours, Mike…. This is the ONLY POST HERE that I will make that directly responds to you in any way, shape or form…..
[Posted by Jerry Chandler at May 25, 2007 11:31 AM with no sense of irony]
Mike is equating a call to grassroots political action against the government of the Bush Era with lurking around PAD’s blog, misreading posters intents and expressed ideas, applying his own twisted view or reality to others statements and then championing a counter position to a position that usually never existed in the first place. In Mike’s world, the two compare. In the real world, it’s like saying five $1 bills = one $50 bill….
And Jerry, I’m taking the simian references against me to establish that when we do give into our passions and finally rent the hotel room, you are the Blanche DuBois to my Stanley Kowalski.
We have a blog that is regularly visited by Mike () who makes many and varied observations (O) about the others here and about life in general. It’s been pointed out by just about everybody here that Mike’s observations are, to be polite, reality opposed (RO) at best. This is because of the huge number of nonsensical ideas (NI)…
…and, as Bill Myers pointed out, that whole “I’ve always depended on the kindness of strangers” is so not me…
Strange. Jeffrey didn’t revise the text at all.
Well, not on our planet, Micha, but then who knows how those texts read on his.
Mike is correct. Jeffrey made that change.
Yes, Jerry, do whatever it takes to build that smoldering tension that can only be relieved by explosively giving into our passions.
Look, it’s been a valiant effort and one that you’ve attempted masterfully, but it’s just no use. The poor guy has to do whatever he can to convince himself, no matter how delusional the idea truly is, that someone out there other then the person who gave birth to him has any feelings towards him other then revulsion, disgust or pity.
Yeah, it’s kind of sad to see this kind of behavior from a grown man, but you’ve done all that you can do. If he wants to act like a desperate loser junior high school guy and go around trying to convince anybody who’ll listen that the really cute girl in his English class really digs him when all she really finds him to be is an object of pity and an occasional source of unintentional humor… Let him have his fantasy. It’s got to be better for his feelings and self esteem to be able to convince himself of the idea that, no matter how improbable or far fetched the concept, somehow there is someone out there somewhere who isn’t a blood relative who might feel something for him other then a negative emotion rather then live with the horrible truth of his existence.
Yeah, that kind of behavior is a little more disturbing, pathetic and pitiable when coming from an adult, but it’s all the guy has. If he wants to go on living his lie, so long as he doesn’t become dangerously obsessive about it, who are we to destroy the last crumb of hope he may have left in his world? If his desperate yet pathetic desire to believe with all of his heart that one of us here may feel something for him other then tedious boredom, academic curiosity or downright disgust is what gives him the strength to get up every morning and make it through the day, then why take it away from him?
Maybe one day in the far, far future, after much treatment and medication, he’ll be, hopefully, closer to normal and capable of attracting a real, flesh and blood woman for a real, non-hallucinatory relationship and he will then, like a teenage girl who’s grown out of her childhood crushes and pulled all her teenybopper posters down from the bedroom wall, leave us and his desperately needy but survival necessary fantasies behind him and finally join the rest of us in the real world. Until then, we should just let him have his harmless delusions and feel good that we can all, in some small way, give that much hope and determination to someone who so desperately seems to need it.
Me-ow.
(That’s entirely understandable: he has willfully mischaracterized your words on myriad occassions, he has insulted you and your family, and in general harrassed you and made himself a pain-in-your-ášš.)
I literally do not remember ever having been accused of mischaracterizing Bill’s words or of insulting his family.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 4, 2007 12:30 AM
“It’s just dámņëd hard to come up with a story that’s 100% original at this point.”
That’s true. There’s something intimidating in the volumes and volumes of fantasy, sci-fi, superheroes and horror you find these days. Is there anything to add that has not been done already? Obviously there is, ayt least new takes on old themes, but it is initimidating.
———————
Posted by: Den at June 4, 2007 05:45 PM:
Micha wrote: “I can think of several genres that are so riffled with cliches it is hard to be original. Like the super hero genre for one. Fantasy in general is full of cliches. Yet somehow people find ways to continue writing in the genres: a few even do it well, either by following the cliches well, or by turning them upside down, or by coming up with something original.”
Den replied: “While all of that is true, I haven’t seen anything original coming out of the world of vampire pørņ/romance in the past ten years.
Fair warning: If you mention Charlene Harris, I will thought a complete fit.”
I can’t comment on vampires, since my aquaintance with them is limited to a few movies, one Raveloft(?) book, and Buffy and Angel of course (only the series), both of which I consider to be very well written.
For all I know, I could pick up a vampire book and feel it was excellent without realizing that it’s an imitation of an imitation. When I read Dragonlance I didn’t know yet from where many of its ideas came. It seemed wonderful to me. But although I know more now (although not nearly as much as most of you I think), I still have a warm spot in my heart for it, and enjoy going back to it every once in a while.
In any case,I asked for info on vampires because I know little about them, and wanted to hear from the experts. I am also hoping that I will somehow be able to get transform some ideas I have in my mind into actual and fairly decent writing. but this is more in the — also cliche riddled — realm of fantasy, not horror. Although, if actually ever written, it should include some subplots relating to vampires, zombies, werewolves and witches, which was another reason why I wanted to hear of any cliches I should be wary of.
——————–
One thing about Mike (without opening another Mike discussion). I feel kind of bad about attacks on Mike that involve reference to his life beyond this board. It feels kind of unfair to me. Now I realize this is a little silly, that Mike is far from fair in his arguments, and that I attacked him severly myself. But that’s how I feel. It seems to to much to me.
Oh, and Mike is a bully, even if one that is incapable of doing much harm. But his behavior is that of a bully nevertheless.
True enough, I suppose, Micha. That one is an impotent bully does not take away from the bullying aspect.
Mike, how exactly is it that you can twist logic in this particular instance to assert that it is Jerry who is obsessed with you? Given that he has hardly made a post about you in quite some time, while almost every post you make is about him, it would seem that the obsession is on the other foot. I realize such an observation is one only those of us burdened with logic would make, and therefore invalid in the Realm of Mike ™, but I confess to being curious as to how you distill the situation to a purity that leads you to the conclusion that you have, indeed, reached.
Mike, you really ought to recognize that Bill, rather than wanting to sodomize you, may simply take an interest in your abnormal psychology. Instead of challenging him to prove he doesn’t love you, how about substantiating your own claim that he just MUST? Unless you are insane, you must be aware that no one here respects any of your qualities quite so much as you do.
• 
Silly Mike. It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
At this point you’ve invested way too much in pretending to be right to ever be able to just shrug off your error as just one of those things. It’s one reason why your opinions hold so little weight here.
Bill, I went through my Anne Rice phase in college, but really, I only liked Interview and Lestat. Hated, HATED, HATED the movie. Partly because it wasn’t NEARLY as atmospheric as it could’ve been, but mostly because of the casting.
Tom Cruise shouldn’t have been anywhere near Lestat. I can understand stunt casting, but the book had enough of a following that they could’ve gotten someone else, someone who more closely fits the descriptions of Lestat and the butts would’ve been in the seats.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 1, 2007 08:56 PM
Jerry, Micha, there’s also, in the same group, The Witch Book.
Yeah, I know. I’ve got that one too.
Posted by: Micha at June 1, 2007 01:48 PM
I sincerely would be interested to hear your ideas if you’re interested in sharing.
Well, while I’ve never had a problem with a vampire acting as an aristocrat in the olden days, I’ve never been too found of the rich vampire in modern settings. The problems I always have with a vampire as CEO, rock star, politician or major local figure in modern settings is the obvious one of how you could not get found out living under that kind of spotlights and living with the responsibilities and demands of the lifestyle. There’s just no way to do any of those without getting found out and staked.
For me, a vampire in the modern days would be a Traveler. They would be someone with no fixed address and likely as far off the official records and radar as an illegal immigrant on his first day in the country. Spike (from Buffy) before he went sickly sweet would be a close example of how I would see a modern vampire. However, Lance Henriksen & Bill Paxton in Near Dark would be a hëll of a lot closer to what I think a modern vampire should be.
See, my thing is that vampires are evil, likely amoral and would see people as little more then useful meals on wheels to go. The concept of a vampire that’s not brutal, somewhat vile and a cold killer is a nice oddity here and there, but it’s just becoming too common to find fiction using tragic vampires with a good soul. I do like the odd noble vampire here and there as a change of pace, but just not as the norm.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at June 1, 2007 01:03 PM
I’ve certainly enjoyed reading and watching many shows that feature vampire characters that are far more interesting than just your typical monster gets to be.
Yeah, I have as well. Even as I slag on the overabundance of good-guy vampires, I have a collection of books and DVD’s that include those very same things. But an evil vampire can still be interesting. I loved what Henriksen and Paxton did with their roles in Near Dark. They were brutal and cold and dámņ sure interesting characters.
Posted by: Micha at June 1, 2007 01:48 PM
Also, are there any fiction books on vampires/witches/werewolves you’d recommend?
Fiction and nonfiction alike:
I pick on some of the concepts in them from time to time, but the early Anita Blake novels really aren’t that bad. An out of print book called American Vampires has some interesting short stories in it. A couple of our dispatchers that I introduced to Anita got into Nancy Collins’s Midnight Blue series. Ok series, but way too hyper-sexual at some points. Not everyone’s cuppa. Robert R. McCammon’s The Wolf’s Hour has an interesting twist on the werewolf. Bill is spot on about I Am Legend. Great movie and Richard Matheson’s novel of the same name is awesome.
An ok nonfiction would be The Embrace by Aphrodite Jones. It’s about the killings in Eustis, Florida from back in 1996. Barnes & Noble Books put out a nice little collection of lore called Forests of the Vampire that deals with Slavic myth.
Oh, and you have to track down a book called Clive Barker’s A-Z of Horror. It’s Clive’s list of books, movies and stories that rate on his lists. It’s a fun read that actually has some really cool pop trivia bits in it.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 1, 2007 10:04 PM
Carpenter’s Vampires was about the last good thing he’s done, isn’t it? Sigh.
Just about. Loved the movie, but the book (book came first) wasn’t as well paced. I also liked the way the lead was played in the movie better then how he was written in the book. But it’s not the last good thing Carpenter has done. I may be alone here, but I actually liked Ghosts of Mars once it got past his attempt to do Rashomon. Slow as hëll to get going, but a fun movie nonetheless.
But, hey, what do I know. I also liked Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, Razorblade Smile (sort of), Lifeforce, Fright Night, Mr. Vampire, The Fearless Vampire Killers, Vampire Journals, Subspecies, Dusk ’til Dawn, Innocent Blood and anything with the Hammer Films stamp on it. Oh, and if you ever get a chance, watch the Spanish Dracula that the studio filmed simultaneously to their version with Bela Lugosi. Same sets, same script and same plot, but a far better movie.
Hmmmm. I think I’ve exceeded the requested answer parameters. Oh well.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 2, 2007 12:25 AM
Bill, I went through my Anne Rice phase in college, but really, I only liked Interview and Lestat. Hated, HATED, HATED the movie.
I’m the heretic in the vampire circles. I thought the first book was just ok, wasn’t a big fan of the others and was only so-so on the first film.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 2, 2007 12:20 AM
Silly Mike. It’s no big deal to admit you have a problem with, say big numbers– 300 million becomes 300 thousand, for example–but to admit you actually said something that does not stand up to logical scrutiny–say, for example, that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay–you bluster and flail, making the failure all the more apparent with every stubborn repetition.
Huh. I haven’t been reading Mike lately, but that’s what he thinks is impossible to come up with?
1) Obsession as concern: I’m sure you’ve come across it in the school system. A teacher sees a student who has tons of potential throwing it all away and going down the wrong path and gets fixated on helping him. I’ve seen it in cops. I know a guy who was obsessed with getting some kid out of the crap he kept trying to get himself into because the kid was more or less this cop when he was a kid. Didn’t end well.
2) Obsession as competition: This is the one that several here seem to be slowly attributing to Mike himself. Person A gets fixated on person B or persons B-Z and feels an irrational need to prove themselves better then them. They have to be more right/better then/more then/etc. the other person or people as all times. It’s the only way they can feel good about themselves.
3) Obsession as jealousy: Just like the competition example, but a little more dangerous if the people have actual contact or physical proximity to each other.
4) Obsession as hatred: How knows how the hatred sometimes starts, but get out of the way of this obsession. Person A hates person B and wants to humiliate/hurt/destroy them whenever possible. Often associated with #’s 2 & 3 at some point or started out as them before transforming into hate. Bad thing to see.
5) Obsession from mental instability: We have an officer who has a 10-96 that’s latched onto him like he was the greatest person on Earth. Can’t begin to figure out why. It could be that the guy looks like someone from this person’s past, a member of the family, some odd tick due to his mental disorders or none of the above. Obsession sometimes can’t be explained by the sane mind because the trigger for it isn’t even close to sane.
6) Obsession as academic interest: Lots of us have seen this one. Someone sees someone else who is just odd enough, fascinating enough, weird enough, smart enough or dumb enough that you can’t help but observe or interact with the person to see what they’re going to do. It’s like an odd form of alcoholism. You know that the drink is something you shouldn’t have, but you just get weak and take it anyhow. This subject is just so strange when compared to the “norm” that you just have to see what they’ll do/say/come up with. It’s a study in weirdness. Not necessarily a bad or unhealthy thing.
I’m sure Mike will come up with some odd reasons why none of those actually count. Email me when he does so I can bother to read the post. Should be worth the giggle.
Wow, 549 comments for a thread called Offered Without Comment. I’m sure there’s a lesson on irony in there somewhere. Either that or I just need to go to sleep now.
Night of the Living Thread
“Grandpa, is it true that this thread has been active since way back in 2007?”
“Yes, it is, Jimmy.”
“Whiskers! That was over a billion years ago. I bet it’s the longest running thread in history.”
“More like a million years, Jimmy. But you’re right, it is a pretty long thread.”
“Gee, maybe one day, my grandson will post on it, too.
I’ve been reading this ongoing thread (well most of the posts, at least) with interest, and thought I’d chime in again.
I’m not familiar enough with vampire fiction to know if there’s been a glut of “noble” vampires. The only ones I’m immediately familiar with are Angel, Nicholas DeBrabant and Dracula, as depicted in Fred Saberhagen’s novels, The Dracula Tapes and The Holmes-Dracula File. All three are noble, as in good (at least I assume Dracula is; it’s been years since I’ve read those books), but I assume Drac was depicted as good in those books. He may been more of an anti-hero.), but I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “nice.” They still have edges to them.
I read the Anne Rice books years ago (early 1990s, if I recall). Well, most of them. I think the last one I read is when Lestat invited a friend to become a vampire and asked if he wanted to shave and/or get a haircut first, because he couldn’t do so afterward. I remember the books seemed very atmospheric. As to the characters, Lestat struck me as amoral, not in any way “nice.”
As to Louis, well this comes from the film, not the book, but I remember a line about people unlucky enough to cross his path. To the best of my recollection, he didn’t go out of his way to hunt, but if he encountered someone, he might just take advantage of the situation.
Where am I going with all this? I don’t know. The thread’s been rambling. Why can’t my post?
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
What kind of conflicts could a vampire have? Well, there’s the obvious vampire vs. vampire disagreements (“should we drain his blood now, or wait till we get home?” “Drain it now, drain it now!”), but I think an internal conflict would be more interesting. With his soul/conscience returned, Angel is haunted by his past crimes. To make matters worse (from his POV), he’s alienated from other vampires, and can’t fully participate in human society.
Like Nicholas, he seeks a redemption of sorts, though I suspect he realizes it’ll never happen. Not that he didn’t believe in the Shanshu prophecy, but that I’m sure Angel probably felt he’d never do enough good to balance out all the bad.
(though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)
But anyway, Angel seeks redemption, not only for himself, but others, like Faith. In fact, he’s one of the few who believes the renegade slayer can be redeemed. Does that water him down or make him too “nice”? I don’t think so. Like I said above, he still has an edge to him. He’s still a vampire and while he doesn’t (usually) feed on humans anymore, we’ve seen instances where he fell off the wagon (and that’s when he did have his soul).
I’m still not sure if anything coherent has come from this post, but like I said, the thread has meandered, why not this latest contribution to it.
Besides, it’s 3:46 a.m. What do you expect at 3:46 a.m.?
To be in bed. Which is where I should be. Good night, folks.
Rick
Night of the Living Thread
“Grandpa, is it true that this thread has been active since way back in 2007?”
“Yes, it is, Jimmy.”
“Whiskers! That was over a billion years ago. I bet it’s the longest running thread in history.”
“More like a million years, Jimmy. But you’re right, it is a pretty long thread.”
“Gee, maybe one day, my grandson will post on it, too.
I’ve been reading this ongoing thread (well most of the posts, at least) with interest, and thought I’d chime in again.
I’m not familiar enough with vampire fiction to know if there’s been a glut of “noble” vampires. The only ones I’m immediately familiar with are Angel, Nicholas DeBrabant and Dracula, as depicted in Fred Saberhagen’s novels, The Dracula Tapes and The Holmes-Dracula File. All three are noble, as in good (at least I assume Dracula is; it’s been years since I’ve read those books), but I assume Drac was depicted as good in those books. He may been more of an anti-hero.), but I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “nice.” They still have edges to them.
I read the Anne Rice books years ago (early 1990s, if I recall). Well, most of them. I think the last one I read is when Lestat invited a friend to become a vampire and asked if he wanted to shave and/or get a haircut first, because he couldn’t do so afterward. I remember the books seemed very atmospheric. As to the characters, Lestat struck me as amoral, not in any way “nice.”
As to Louis, well this comes from the film, not the book, but I remember a line about people unlucky enough to cross his path. To the best of my recollection, he didn’t go out of his way to hunt, but if he encountered someone, he might just take advantage of the situation.
Where am I going with all this? I don’t know. The thread’s been rambling. Why can’t my post?
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
What kind of conflicts could a vampire have? Well, there’s the obvious vampire vs. vampire disagreements (“should we drain his blood now, or wait till we get home?” “Drain it now, drain it now!”), but I think an internal conflict would be more interesting. With his soul/conscience returned, Angel is haunted by his past crimes. To make matters worse (from his POV), he’s alienated from other vampires, and can’t fully participate in human society.
Like Nicholas, he seeks a redemption of sorts, though I suspect he realizes it’ll never happen. Not that he didn’t believe in the Shanshu prophecy, but that I’m sure Angel probably felt he’d never do enough good to balance out all the bad.
(though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)
But anyway, Angel seeks redemption, not only for himself, but others, like Faith. In fact, he’s one of the few who believes the renegade slayer can be redeemed. Does that water him down or make him too “nice”? I don’t think so. Like I said above, he still has an edge to him. He’s still a vampire and while he doesn’t (usually) feed on humans anymore, we’ve seen instances where he fell off the wagon (and that’s when he did have his soul).
I’m still not sure if anything coherent has come from this post, but like I said, the thread has meandered, why not this latest contribution to it.
Besides, it’s 3:46 a.m. What do you expect at 3:46 a.m.?
To be in bed. Which is where I should be. Good night, folks.
Rick
Night of the Living Thread
“Grandpa, is it true that this thread has been active since way back in 2007?”
“Yes, it is, Jimmy.”
“Whiskers! That was over a billion years ago. I bet it’s the longest running thread in history.”
“More like a million years, Jimmy. But you’re right, it is a pretty long thread.”
“Gee, maybe one day, my grandson will post on it, too.
I’ve been reading this ongoing thread (well most of the posts, at least) with interest, and thought I’d chime in again.
I’m not familiar enough with vampire fiction to know if there’s been a glut of “noble” vampires. The only ones I’m immediately familiar with are Angel, Nicholas DeBrabant and Dracula, as depicted in Fred Saberhagen’s novels, The Dracula Tapes and The Holmes-Dracula File. All three are noble, as in good (at least I assume Dracula is; it’s been years since I’ve read those books), but I assume Drac was depicted as good in those books. He may been more of an anti-hero.), but I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “nice.” They still have edges to them.
I read the Anne Rice books years ago (early 1990s, if I recall). Well, most of them. I think the last one I read is when Lestat invited a friend to become a vampire and asked if he wanted to shave and/or get a haircut first, because he couldn’t do so afterward. I remember the books seemed very atmospheric. As to the characters, Lestat struck me as amoral, not in any way “nice.”
As to Louis, well this comes from the film, not the book, but I remember a line about people unlucky enough to cross his path. To the best of my recollection, he didn’t go out of his way to hunt, but if he encountered someone, he might just take advantage of the situation.
Where am I going with all this? I don’t know. The thread’s been rambling. Why can’t my post?
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
What kind of conflicts could a vampire have? Well, there’s the obvious vampire vs. vampire disagreements (“should we drain his blood now, or wait till we get home?” “Drain it now, drain it now!”), but I think an internal conflict would be more interesting. With his soul/conscience returned, Angel is haunted by his past crimes. To make matters worse (from his POV), he’s alienated from other vampires, and can’t fully participate in human society.
Like Nicholas, he seeks a redemption of sorts, though I suspect he realizes it’ll never happen. Not that he didn’t believe in the Shanshu prophecy, but that I’m sure Angel probably felt he’d never do enough good to balance out all the bad.
(though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)
But anyway, Angel seeks redemption, not only for himself, but others, like Faith. In fact, he’s one of the few who believes the renegade slayer can be redeemed. Does that water him down or make him too “nice”? I don’t think so. Like I said above, he still has an edge to him. He’s still a vampire and while he doesn’t (usually) feed on humans anymore, we’ve seen instances where he fell off the wagon (and that’s when he did have his soul).
I’m still not sure if anything coherent has come from this post, but like I said, the thread has meandered, why not this latest contribution to it.
Besides, it’s 3:46 a.m. What do you expect at 3:46 a.m.?
To be in bed. Which is where I should be. Good night, folks.
Rick
Jerry, Bill, Bob and Rick. Thanks for your ideas. They are already mixing up with my own. I like to look at issues from different angles, and you have provided some useful takes that partially fit well and partially challenge (which also fits well) with my ideas, both on the issues of amorality and way of life. Hopefully these ideas will be able to make there way out of my mind into the word document somehow.
Here are a few more questions, if you don’t mind:
Do you prefer your vampires with a whole package of magical powers, or just the simple super strength?
Do you prefer them to be amoral by nature (Buffy) or by choice?
The you prefer the vampires as imfection approach. i.e. they bite people and they become vampires, or the club approach, in which people are recruited (willingly or unwillingly) into the elite club of vampires?
How do you feeel about hierarchies in vampire society: the power the creating vampire has over the created, Dracula’s women companions, non vampire servants?
And lastly, do you prefer the ugly twisted face vampires or the beautiful Brad Pit types?
————————–
“though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)”
Buffy pretty much gradually undercut the idea that the vampire was not the same person as the human, but a demon, as the vampires developed more and more of a personality, and their human pasts became more significant. It became more a situation in which they had the same personality but without the inhibitions (whch is a good idea in and of itself). There’s also a good philosophical question: if Spike the Demon has the same memories and the same tastes as William the human, in what sense is he not William?
Again, it seems that Joss Whedons orly ideas were less thought out than his later ideas.but it all worked out so well, there is no reason to complain.
You accused me of refusing to take a correction you previously gave me credit for taking — and rather than opt to abandon your contradiction as a casual mistake, you chose to formalized it by persisting in challenging me with it. All that’s left for my to say is thank you for sacrificing your own credibility to boost mine.
Sean, I didn’t think that Cruise was bad in the role but, from watching the movie I never got any sense of why this character became so popular.
I’ve heard that Rice had a young Rutger Hauer in mind when she came up with the character. Casting Tom Cruise as a young Rutger Hauer sounds like an idea from the Bizarro World.
I’ve never been too found of the rich vampire in modern settings. The problems I always have with a vampire as CEO, rock star, politician or major local figure in modern settings is the obvious one of how you could not get found out living under that kind of spotlights and living with the responsibilities and demands of the lifestyle. There’s just no way to do any of those without getting found out and staked.
One of the better applications of the idea was in THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (not a very good movie, sadly) where Dracula is a kind of Howard Hughes figure. I mean, one advantage of immortality would be wealth. Even a modest investment yields big results with time.
But even wealth doesn’t take away the bone crushing boredom of a vampire’s existence, repeating the same thing every night, always in fear of the occasional Van Helsing type. It’s a classic Devil’s bargain–you sign up for immortality and powers and end up trapped in an endless cycle and suddenly vulnerable to a good French bread pizza.
loved what Henriksen and Paxton did with their roles in Near Dark. They were brutal and cold and dámņ sure interesting characters.
Seconded. Good show. I hear they are remaking it (bleah!)
But, hey, what do I know. I also liked Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, Razorblade Smile (sort of), Lifeforce, Fright Night, Mr. Vampire, The Fearless Vampire Killers, Vampire Journals, Subspecies, Dusk ’til Dawn, Innocent Blood and anything with the Hammer Films stamp on it. Oh, and if you ever get a chance, watch the Spanish Dracula that the studio filmed simultaneously to their version with Bela Lugosi. Same sets, same script and same plot, but a far better movie.
Wow, you’re as bad with vampires as I am with zombies! Well, I’ve seen most of those…Lifeforce is one of my favorite trainwrecks of a film, though I weep when I think of Tobe Hooper’s career.
I’m sure Mike will come up with some odd reasons why none of those actually count. Email me when he does so I can bother to read the post. Should be worth the giggle.
I’m not so sure–he may be tiring of looking so bad. His latest post a few down from yours seems to be a “declare victory and retreat” kind of thing, which would be unexpectedly rational.
At any rate, yep, it isn’t hard to come up with plenty of same sex obsession examples that have no gay context–hëll, how many revenge plots have there been, going all the way back to the Count of Monte Cristo? But Mike’s gotta have his rape motif. Must’ve had some childhood…
I suppose one thing I should say is that what would make a vampire story interesting to me is one in which the vampire is conflicted in some way. If he or she is just a killing machine, then so what? I’m sure there were some people rooting for the Terminator in the original Terminator, but he wasn’t so much a character as a plot device. The story was about Sarah (and to some degree, Reese) and how she dealt with her life being turned upside down. She had a story arc. The Terminator itself didn’t.
That’s a good point–remember that the original Dracula was more about the people affected by Dracula than by Dracula himself. My idea of a good vampire movie is one that has interesting characters I care about…and a vampire.
Do you prefer your vampires with a whole package of magical powers, or just the simple super strength?
I rather like the Buffy/Tomb of Dracula approach where some vampires are very powerful but the majority are just very strong. Too many powers makes them look stupid for not using them. If a vampire can turn into mist he’d have to be a moron to ever get staked.
Do you prefer them to be amoral by nature (Buffy) or by choice?
By nature
The you prefer the vampires as infection approach. i.e. they bite people and they become vampires, or the club approach, in which people are recruited (willingly or unwillingly) into the elite club of vampires?
If every victim becomes a vampire you get too many vampires…I kind of like the original Dracula approach where to turn a human he has to bite them over an extended period, to slowly transform them.
How do you feeel about hierarchies in vampire society: the power the creating vampire has over the created, Dracula’s women companions, non vampire servants?
Not crazy about vampire society period; vampires having power over other vampires is best in very small doses; LOVE the vampire brides; non-vampire servants are an excellent idea. They don’t all have to be hunchbacked werewolves…then again, why not?
And lastly, do you prefer the ugly twisted face vampires or the beautiful Brad Pit types?
I like me an ugly vampire (the Brides excepted) though a character like Dracula himself can certainly have a cruel but human appearance (Tomb Of Dracula based him on Jack Palance–good choice).
All that’s left for my to say is thank you for sacrificing your own credibility to boost mine.
If only that were true…the part about “All that’s left for my to say” that is.
You made an incorrect statement. You got called on it. You refused to back down and challenged me to provide an example of why the statement was incorrect. I did. You lose. The rest is just proving correct everyone who has commented on how your fragile need to be right, even when it has become obvious that you are wrong, is an essential and tragic part of your self image.
The only question at this point is how long it will take for you to tire of having your foolishness repeated and having to defend it.
Posted by: Micha at June 2, 2007 07:49 AM
Here are a few more questions, if you don’t mind:
Do you prefer your vampires with a whole package of magical powers, or just the simple super strength?
Hmmm. I think it depends on what the story’s setting is. Most people just think of vampire in the Frank Langella, Christopher lee or Bela Lugosi veins thanks to pop-culture’s power over the modern lore. Thing is, there are a ton of variations in what the vampire is from country to country, region to region and century to century. Limiting the idea for what they are or can be with no idea of where or how they would be used is kind of like telling someone that they can only use a sword one and only one way in their stories.
But like any good story with a magical sword in it, you need to have way more normal swords to make the magical one truly stand out. What’s special about a magical sword if they’re all Excalibur?
I personally like the concept of the more human vampire with only greater strength, heightened predatory senses and maybe a little mental voodoo in there for stories set in the modern era, but do kind of dig the expanded mystic nature of the creature for stories set in days long gone by. Hëll, I even dug PAD’s twist on the vampire in Trancers. Really, it boils down to the quality of the story, the skills of the writer and what they’re trying to do with the vampire for the story.
There’s a “true” vampire story from early American lore that’s purely in the field of revenant. It may as well be a variant on the zombie story. It’s still a fun story and it was great to be scared spitless by it when I was a kid.
Do you prefer them to be amoral by nature (Buffy) or by choice?
I like the amoral by nature aspect more then by choice. They’re more scary that way. If it was a matter of choice, then you’d have a huge population of vampires like those in the Adrian Paul film The Breed. They weren’t all that impressive. They were actually kind of sad.
Plus, that idea of someone you love becoming the thing that must be killed before it kills you is one of the things that I find to be the most terrifying aspect of vampires, werewolves and zombies. How terrifying would it be, how heart wrenching, to have to make the choice between killing something with the face of someone you deeply loved or having them kill you. Langella’s Dracula and a movie called Zombi 2 (or just Zombie depending on where you buy it) both had great scenes involving that concept.
The you prefer the vampires as imfection approach. i.e. they bite people and they become vampires, or the club approach, in which people are recruited (willingly or unwillingly) into the elite club of vampires?
I kind of go with both as one concept. Some aspects of vampire legend have a multiple bite “death” that creates a revenant version of a vampire that’s almost nothing more then a nocturnal zombie while setting up a multiple bite & exchange of blood concept to create a “true” vampire. I do think that a species like a vampire would do everything it could to keep its numbers low though. The greater the number of vampires in the general population, the more deaths of the “vampire killer” variety and the greater the chances of being discovered as a race and eliminated.
How do you feel about hierarchies in vampire society: the power the creating vampire has over the created, Dracula’s women companions, non vampire servants?
Depends on the lore and the story. With some concepts, it makes sense. With others, not so much.
And lastly, do you prefer the ugly twisted face vampires or the beautiful Brad Pit types?
Depends on the lore and the story. There are myths from around the world that paint different versions of the “vampire” as heartbreakingly beautiful while others are hideously ugly. And there’s nothing that says that you can’t do both. Some stories balance out several concepts by making younger vampires less powerful and very human looking while making older vampires amazing powerful but ugly as sin.
I don’t know that anyone can really answer your questions very well. For every answer I could give you, I can could you a full 180 exception to my stated preferences. Like I said before, I like all of the lore, legend and myth. Some things I like more then others and some things I only like in moderation, but there have been only a handful of things I’ve found in all these years that I totally hated in a vampire story or film. And most of the time that was because of the sloppy execution of the idea rather then the idea itself.
________________________________________________________
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 2, 2007 10:37 AM
I’ve heard that Rice had a young Rutger Hauer in mind when she came up with the character.
Yeah, I read that in an interview with Rice herself. That could have been cool. I agree with you that Cruise wasn’t bad in the role, he just wasn’t the character for me.
One of the better applications of the idea was in THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (not a very good movie, sadly) where Dracula is a kind of Howard Hughes figure.
Note my Hammer Films statement. I own the DVD. I need professional help.
It’s an ok idea if you have one or two in the world who have gone that route, but entire networks of power players like in the Blade films or in shows like Kindred: The Embraced just leave me rolling my eyes. It’s like the sword analogy. Too many of them waters it down too much and I can’t get over how credibility stretching it is that you don’t get a number of vampires exposed by their status and position in society. One or two Howard Hughes types I can see getting by, but not hundreds on each continent.
I like me an ugly vampire (the Brides excepted)…
Yeah, and I’m sure you just looooove that ERB concept of cavemen being just shy of looking like bigfoot while cavegirls look like they just stepped off of the cover of Playboy. Ðámņ. I just shattered one of the glass walls in my house.
(Tomb Of Dracula based him on Jack Palance–good choice).
Have you ever seen the version of the film where Jack actually plays Dracula? The film is just ok, but Jack was one hëll of a vampire.
Thanks again Bill and Jerry for al lthe info and ideas. Much to think of. Hopefully some day something will come out of all this. Or maybe it wil just enrich my own enjoyment as a reader/viewer, which is also good.
“Some stories balance out several concepts by making younger vampires less powerful and very human looking while making older vampires amazing powerful but ugly as sin.”
First of all: ‘ugly as sin.’ This could be used in a vampire movie in more than a metaphorical meaning. In the second Star Wars trilogy they could have played more on the idea of the physical transformation of the Sith as part of their corruption.
In the Coppola Dracula movie, Dracula shifts between being young and old, and a bunch of other things. I wasn’t exactly sure why he had an old appearance.
———————
Bill Mulligan wrote:
“The only question at this point is how long it will take for you [Mike] to tire of having your foolishness repeated and having to defend it.”
Mike is nothing if not tenacious. He won’t stop.
Have you ever seen the version of the film where Jack actually plays Dracula? The film is just ok, but Jack was one hëll of a vampire.
It was long time ago–the two things I remember were the ending (Drac impaled on a spear) and, if I’m recalling this correctly, that this was the forst film that made the explicit connection between Dracula and Vlad the Impaler.
Did you ever see the terrible Japanese animation version of Tomb of Dracula? Considering they pretty much used Wolfman’s script and based the look on Colan you’d think it should have been great but it was very limited anime and the dubbing was sub par. Needless to say, neither Colan nor Wolfman got dime one from the project, which is certainly Marvel’s right under the work for hire contract but…I don’t know, toss a few sheckles their way. That’s another reason I’m surprised filmmakers don’t option old Marvel comics more often–you get the screenplay and storyboards for free!
Micha, have you ever seen SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE? It didn’t quite live up to the expectations I had but there is one classic moment where Max Shrek, an actual vampire, is asked what he thinks about the novel Dracula: (screenplay by Steven Katz)
Max Schreck: It made me sad.
Albin: Why sad?
Max Schreck: Because Dracula had no servants.
Albin: I think you missed the point of the book, Count Orlock.
Max Schreck: Dracula hasn’t had servants in 400 years and then a man comes to his ancestral home, and he must convince him that he… that he is like the man. He has to feed him, when he himself hasn’t eaten food in centuries. Can he even remember how to buy bread? How to select cheese and wine? And then he remembers the rest of it. How to prepare a meal, how to make a bed. He remembers his first glory, his armies, his retainers, and what he is reduced to. The loneliest part of the book comes… when the man accidentally sees Dracula setting his table.
I said, “though, technically, Angel has nothing to feel guilty about, as he committed no crimes. “Angel” is Liam’s soul restored to his now vampiric body- a soul off in the ether somewhere when the demon “Angelus” committed his various atrocities using Liam’s body. Those gypsies punished Angelus by restoring Liam’s soul, but Liam was unfairly punished, too. An analogy would be if they found a way to restore Tremas to life, then put him on trial for crimes the Master committed while in possession of Tremas’ body.)”
Micha replied: “Buffy pretty much gradually undercut the idea that the vampire was not the same person as the human, but a demon, as the vampires developed more and more of a personality, and their human pasts became more significant. It became more a situation in which they had the same personality but without the inhibitions (which is a good idea in and of itself). There’s also a good philosophical question: if Spike the Demon has the same memories and the same tastes as William the human, in what sense is he not William?”
That is a good question. It’s in many ways an Alec Holland situation. If you’re not familiar with the character, in DC Comics’ Swamp Thing series, is exposed to certain chemicals that transforms him into a walking, sentient plant.
Or so it seems. When Alan Moore began writing the series in the 1980s, he wrote a story called “The Anatomy Lesson” in which the Swamp Thing learned he wasn’t a transformed Alec Holland, but plant life that’s been infused with Holland’s consciousness. He is “a ghost dressed in weeds.”
Angelus is not Liam and Spike is not William; but if they retain the memories and personalities of their human hosts (minus any sort of conscience), what is the difference?
Now here’s a question concerning vampires in the Buffyverse. When a vampire is staked, is the demon that animates the body destroyed, or does it, essentially, go to the back of the line and wait another turn at being a vampire?
Rick
The only thing that I have to say is that there is nothing more overdone and hackneyed in genre fiction today than vampires, especially, vampire romance stories. The only good vampires are those than have been staked.
That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
Did you ever see the terrible Japanese animation version of Tomb of Dracula?
Many, many years ago and I thought it was great. Then I saw it again a few years ago and found it to be much, much less then great.
In the Borat-style consent-form burial of Jerry support for a point you’ve already given me credit for accepting, I admit I completely missed it in the ½ hour I gave myself at the beginning of this fine day to reply to any responses to my post last night.
Jerry, you seem pretty sure one or more of those 6 apply to you, otherwise challenging me to dismiss them is nonsensical:
I would accept all of them, but your venting of disgust seems to disqualify 1, the seemingly arbitrary nature of your obsession seems to disqualify 2, and your lack of curiosity — your certainty — seems to disqualify 6. As far as I’m concerned, your admission of mental instability says it all.
Jerry, you seem pretty sure one or more of those 6 apply to you, otherwise challenging me to dismiss them is nonsensical:
No, he simply believed that you are too determined never to be wrong to not dismiss them. The idea that they must apply to him is entirely in your mind and such an incredible leap it could only come from Our Mike.
In the Borat-style consent-form burial of Jerry support for a point you’ve already given me credit for accepting,
No, I was being sarcastic when I thanked you–it’s what you do on a regular basis and it amused me to use it on you. If you’ve admitted that your statement that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay was both incorrect and/or indicative of a lack of imagination on your part I must have missed it. Care to give a definitive response? Or just cast yourself as Alfred Davidson to Jerry’s Sadie Thompson?
Wait…. I’m a suspected fugitive from the notorious Emerald Club of Honolulu???
When did this happen????
I miss one dámņ vote meeting of the Zombie Apocalypse Party and this is what I get.
I want my crowbar back.
~8?[
Well, you thought it was funny as all get out when we framed Bill Myers on those bootlegged DVD charges and had him imprisoned in Japan with a yakuza enforcer the last time he missed a meeting. What goes around comes around.
I don’t need your gratitude to be authentic to legitimize your contradiction. Your portrayal of me “[confirming] that [my] statement… was… incorrect” is literally what happened.
So how does it not suck to be the guy who counts on the denial of the recipient of his disgust to disqualify his own admission of mental instability?
Yeah, then we’re back to “After [3½] days, the ‘so many ways’ to portray Jerry’s same-sex obsession with me as something other than gay is still zero.” Because considering any merit to the idea this is mistaken “could only come from Our Mike” — not you. Have it your way.
Well, at the very least, you’ve constructed an argument so divorced from normal thinking that it’s hard to counter. At this point I can’t tell whether you still think that there is simply no portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay or that you have admitted this is incorrect and you’re sore that this admission hasn’t been recognized.
But really, Mike, don’t go thinking that you are the recipient of disgust, at least from most of us. As the old T-shirt slogan says, I used to be disgusted, now I’m just amused. Where else are we gonna get lines like In the Borat-style consent-form burial of Jerry support for a point you’ve already given me credit for accepting? Manatees?
“Posted by: Den at June 2, 2007 04:29 PM
The only thing that I have to say is that there is nothing more overdone and hackneyed in genre fiction today than vampires, especially, vampire romance stories. The only good vampires are those than have been staked.”
I can think of several genres that are so riffled with cliches it is hard to be original. Like the super hero genre for one. Fantasy in general is full of cliches. Yet somehow people find ways to continue writing in the genres: a few even do it well, either by following the cliches well, or by turning them upside down, or by coming up with something original.
——————–
“Now here’s a question concerning vampires in the Buffyverse. When a vampire is staked, is the demon that animates the body destroyed, or does it, essentially, go to the back of the line and wait another turn at being a vampire?”
I am not that well versed in the cosmology of the Buffyverse beyond the shows. I think it was established the the vampire souls, like the human souls, are retrievable, and thus are not destroyed. I don’t know if an explanation was given to how they come to possess bodies, and whether they can do it to more than one.
Perhaps you’re confused because your insincerity has eroded your very sense of reality, like in Dante’s Infreno where the fraudulent suffer from polymorphism because their insincerity has disintegrated their very identity.
Mike: You have denied there can be any sort of same sex obsession other than homosexuality; Several examples of such have been submitted; and yet you claim “victory.” How you feel about Jerry, or Bill, or Micha, or…someone or another shouldn’t be generalized. I’ll toss another few examples of same sex obsession out, to see what you do with them (be careful!):
Simon Peter felt quite strongly about Jesus of Nazareth – he even built a church dedicated to him! What was going on?
John the Apostle “whom Jesus loved”: Is the homosexual reading the only viable one?
Or it may be that like everyone else who has dealt with you on this board I just find your logic to be too poorly expressed to understand. Hmmm, I wonder which one it is? Everyone is too stupid to understand Mike or Mike is too stupid to make himself understandable? Well, when you hear hoof beats, expect horses, not zebras. The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Now it could well be that you are truly, as you believe, some kind of pearl among swine, dispensing truths that have been distilled to a purity so heretofore unseen that the rest of us, mere mortals we, cannot truly appreciate them.
Then again…(from Bedazzled)
Stanley Moon: You’re a nutcase! You’re a bleedin’ nutcase!
George Spiggott: They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo.
Stanley Moon: They said it of a lot of nutcases too.
“I wonder which one it is? Everyone is too stupid to understand Mike or Mike is too stupid to make himself understandable?”
Neither. The above implies that Mike’s only problem is expressing his ideas. There were indeed a few times in which this was the only problem: there was some sense in what he was trying to say, but he was not able to express himself coherently. But usually it’s olny not that the ideas were badly expressed, the ideas themselves were bad.
However it is the combination of the two, as well as the obsessive tenacity, that makes Mike the icon that he is on this board.
It’s not only stupidity, it’s distilling reason to a heretofore unknown stupidity.
Hopping back upthread a bit, I always got the impression from the Blade movies and TV series that the vast majority of vampire society was completely underground and unseen by normal human society, handling mundane and especially daytime business through familiars and catspaws, with only one or two actual public figures.
Myself, I figure that if you’re going to write stories with mythical figures, you really have to do something to stir things up, mess with the formula a bit, to keep from becoming stagnant.
Vampires, amoral by nature or choice? Some of the best vampire-as-protagonist stories deal with that question. Even if the person was extremely moral before they were turned, how long can they hold off the biological imperative to hunt and feed on human blood?
-Rex Hondo-
Micha, I find the best either fantasy or SF that I read anymore, or at least what I like the most, isn’t so concerned with the fantasy elements or science as the characters. For example, any of RA Salvatore’s work, has all the expected things, but the characters are what I remember, what they do is what I remember, where they do it is just that, the background.
I’ve already addressed the issue you’ve raised:
…
I don’t know what you are referring to.
If I’m incomprehensible… what the hëll do you have to complain about?
Mike: You need help (obviously) so I will offer it:
1. Person One (let’s call him “Jerry” – no, make that “Jeff”) thinks Person Two (let’s call him “Mike”) is a contemptible buffoon.
2. His certitude that this is so makes his stomach acids boil up in his esophagus and cause him to feel like vomiting.
3. Against all good judgment, Person One engages Person Two in conversation, and finds his completely deranged.
4. This wears on his mind and becomes a mania. Much ill will ensues.
If you’re missing the point, here goes: Same Sex Obsession can have many causes: homosexuality, of course; concern; compassion; curiosity; fascination; hatred; loathing; disgust; and contempt, to name just nine. Of these, 11.111 continuing % are homoerotic, and 88.888 continuing % are not.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 3, 2007 06:22 PM
“Myself, I figure that if you’re going to write stories with mythical figures, you really have to do something to stir things up, mess with the formula a bit, to keep from becoming stagnant.”
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 3, 2007 08:49 PM
“I find the best either fantasy or SF that I read anymore, or at least what I like the most, isn’t so concerned with the fantasy elements or science as the characters. For example, any of RA Salvatore’s work, has all the expected things, but the characters are what I remember, what they do is what I remember, where they do it is just that, the background.”
When I visit sci-fi fantasy book stores (or sections in dept. stores), there are always shelves upon shelves of books with similar covers and similar descriptions at the back. It is hard to tell which ones are just unoriginal formulaic fantasy or sci-fi, which are the ones that might be a little too much, too original, and which are the ones that have that extra something.
Some fantasy might be extremely formulaic and not very original but can still be quite satisfying. Star Wars (the first fantasy movie I ever saw) and Dragonlance (the first I’ve read) are both not very original or super smart, yet they somehow work — in large part because of the characters. Sean, you’re definitely right about that. Other books might not be so great, there might be a lot to criticize about them, but they have some good idea or twist to add to the genre. I enjoyed some of Michael Morcock’s books partially because they offered a different way of approaching fantasy subjects at a time when I was still only familiar with the more standard stuff. But when I recommended him to others they disliked him exceedingly, and I kind of avoided some of his more weird stuff myself. And of course, there’s personal taste. Some like one thing, others another. When I read fantasy and sci-fi I consider them in my mind on two levels: (1) overal enjoyment; (2) cool ideas or approaches to things.
Hëll, sometimes you can do nothing more creative then putting one genre’s coat of paint over another genre to get something fun. One author I enjoy is Glen Cook. His Black Company novels are ok, but his Garrett File’s novels rule. Thing is, there’s absolutely nothing new in them. All he’s done is drop a Raymond Chandler type of detective who’s an ex-marine in his world into a fantasy setting filed with vampires, ogres, ghosts, gods and devils and mixed it with a lot of wit.
Micha mentions Star Wars. Great example of that concept. There was absolutely nothing new or original in Star Wars, but the new skins that Lucas dressed up old ideas in and the manner in which he presented it made it something new and extraordinary. Forbidden Planet, one of my faves, is The Tempest redone. Othello has been re-imagined dozens of times now.
I’m not saying that just setting out to crib from someone else’s work is something anyone should do. It’s just dámņëd hard to come up with a story that’s 100% original at this point. I read a lot, watch way too many movies and listen to tons of audio drama and comedy. I can’t even begin to count how many of those stories are basically the exact same plot over and over again. The ones that are the best, in my demented view, are the ones that have the best developed and written characters. Well, that or the greatest amounts of dementedly unnecessary gore.
I enjoyed some of Michael Morcock’s books partially because they offered a different way of approaching fantasy subjects at a time when I was still only familiar with the more standard stuff.
Yeah, Morcock did some good stuff, but my biggest high on his work was his riff on ERB (and writing as Edward P. Bradbury) with his Michael Kane novels. However, that’s likely more due to the fact that I’m an huge ERB fan rather then a big Morcock fan.
Vampires, amoral by nature or choice? Some of the best vampire-as-protagonist stories deal with that question. Even if the person was extremely moral before they were turned, how long can they hold off the biological imperative to hunt and feed on human blood?
A lot depends on how much of the mythology you use. It’s hard to portray someone as good who has to shrink at the sight of a cross (it has been done though).
However, that’s likely more due to the fact that I’m an huge ERB fan rather then a big Morcock fan.
Hey, I’d buy a “Vampires in Pellucider” story. Shouldn’t the copyright on those stories be running out soon? Will we get new tales from the center of the earth?
Jeffrey, as long as you and Bill are unable to dismiss my observation (indicated by the bolded text), I am free to dismiss your devastating “gotcha” all the live-long day.
It’s now 5 days, and no one can demonstrate how any of Jeffrey’s non-sexual 88.889% applies to Jerry’s obsession with me. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the dámņìņg lack of imagination on my part is one shared by my accusers.
Mike: Try “loathing,” “disgust” or “contempt”: One of them might fit.
“While an absolute absense (sic) of any portrayal of a same-sex obsession as anything other than gay would have covered me in rebutting you, my dismissal of your accusation does not depend on such an absolute absense (sic) or in ‘[demonstrating] why the Valjean/Javert dynamic is either NOT obsessive (on the part of Javert) or is a gay relationship'”
What could this convoluted sentence mean? I’ll try:
There being absolutely no portrayals of same-sex obsessions would have covered you in rebutting me (no, I don’t know what “covering you in rebutting me” means) but your dismissal of my accusation does not depend on there being no examples other than homosexuality.
That’s still too complicated and incoherent:
Things being as you said would rebut you (no, it doesn’t make sense). Even so, your rebuttal does not depend on what I say being wrong, or what you say being right.
That’s still too complicated:
I’m MIKE, and what I say is right, because…I’m MIKE! What I say is true, and does not depend on being true to be true, because…I’M MIKE!!!
That’s about it.
Jeffrey & Bill,
Look, it’s been a valiant effort and one that you’ve attempted masterfully, but it’s just no use. The poor guy has to do whatever he can to convince himself, no matter how delusional the idea truly is, that someone out there other then the person who gave birth to him has any feelings towards him other then revulsion, disgust or pity.
Yeah, it’s kind of sad to see this kind of behavior from a grown man, but you’ve done all that you can do. If he wants to act like a desperate loser junior high school guy and go around trying to convince anybody who’ll listen that the really cute girl in his English class really digs him when all she really finds him to be is an object of pity and an occasional source of unintentional humor… Let him have his fantasy. It’s got to be better for his feelings and self esteem to be able to convince himself of the idea that, no matter how improbable or far fetched the concept, somehow there is someone out there somewhere who isn’t a blood relative who might feel something for him other then a negative emotion rather then live with the horrible truth of his existence.
Yeah, that kind of behavior is a little more disturbing, pathetic and pitiable when coming from an adult, but it’s all the guy has. If he wants to go on living his lie, so long as he doesn’t become dangerously obsessive about it, who are we to destroy the last crumb of hope he may have left in his world? If his desperate yet pathetic desire to believe with all of his heart that one of us here may feel something for him other then tedious boredom, academic curiosity or downright disgust is what gives him the strength to get up every morning and make it through the day, then why take it away from him?
Maybe one day in the far, far future, after much treatment and medication, he’ll be, hopefully, closer to normal and capable of attracting a real, flesh and blood woman for a real, non-hallucinatory relationship and he will then, like a teenage girl who’s grown out of her childhood crushes and pulled all her teenybopper posters down from the bedroom wall, leave us and his desperately needy but survival necessary fantasies behind him and finally join the rest of us in the real world. Until then, we should just let him have his harmless delusions and feel good that we can all, in some small way, give that much hope and determination to someone who so desperately seems to need it.
Very well put.
Hard to argue with your point, Jerry.
Micha and Jeffrey Frawley have both said they are aware of the futility of reasoning with Mike, and are fully aware of the nature of the games he plays, but choose to verbally spar with him anyway because it amuses them. I can’t understand that choice, but it’s their business and that’s that. That’s why I’m not addressing them with this post. Instead, I’m addressing my good friend Bill Mulligan.
I could be wrong, but you don’t seem to derive any pleasure in going toe-to-toe (or post-to-post as it were) with Mike. In fact, interacting with him seems to genuinely upset you. (That’s entirely understandable: he has willfully mischaracterized your words on myriad occassions, he has insulted you and your family, and in general harrassed you and made himself a pain-in-your-ášš.) I’m getting the impression that you respond to him in order to defend your honor, and/or put him in his rightful place.
If that’s so, then I must ask: why?
I was a lurker here long before I ever began posting. When I finally decided to jump into the fray, I encountered you. I noticed immediately that you were knowledgeable, and even when I disagreed with your conclusions I usually found them to be remarkably well-reasoned and well-supported. I found our exchanges so enjoyable I decided to keep coming back.
I looked up to you then, Bill. I still do. And that’s why I can’t wrap my mind around the idea that someone of your caliber would feel a need to lower himself by even acknowledging Mike. You are better than he is on every level. You are infinitely more intelligent than Mike, and possessed of far better character as well. You have contributed greatly to the dialogue here, whereas Mike has done nothing but detract from it. Mike is simply not worthy of the attention of a man like yourself.
By acknowledging Mike in any way, shape, or form, by the way, you are perpetuating his behavior. Jerry forgot something in his analysis: trolls feed on attention. Whenever we’ve ignored Mike, even for a brief time, the frequency of his posts have diminished.
If you tell me that you enjoy going at it with Mike as Jeffrey Frawley and Micha say they do, then I will drop the issue just as I have with them. And I hope I haven’t overstepped my bounds. Everything I’ve said here has been motivated by my great respect for you.
Oh, and check yer e-mail. I’m going to keep bugging you about that until you respond. Heh. 😛
– Bill Myers
P.S. Thanks for the autographed copy of your movie. But I’m disappointed. I thought you were going to autograph it in your own blood!
I can think of several genres that are so riffled with cliches it is hard to be original. Like the super hero genre for one. Fantasy in general is full of cliches. Yet somehow people find ways to continue writing in the genres: a few even do it well, either by following the cliches well, or by turning them upside down, or by coming up with something original.
While all of that is true, I haven’t seen anything original coming out of the world of vampire pørņ/romance in the past ten years.
Fair warning: If you mention Charlene Harris, I will thought a complete fit.
Has anyone mentioned Poppy Z Brite? Not my cup of tea but a good writer and for those who like the Ann Rice stuff with more explicit sex and gore, she’s the one to go to.
Bill, I totally see where you’re coming from, re Mike. There was a time when I did feel I had to respond: silence = assent and all that foolishness. realizing that you, PAD, and, well, everyone have no regard for him pretty much nipped that in the bud.
I can honestly say he doesn’t upset me in the slightest. Read my latest posts with a smirk and you have a good idea of my mindset (not that this is necessarily a noble thing on my part since teh general consensus is that Mike may not be able to help it).
What I am having trouble letting go is when Mike (or anyone) unfairly attacks people here. (I am aware that this will probably force him to begin a new round of cut and paste philosophy-I assure all that from now one I will only read posts in this thread dealing with absolutely essential topics like zombies, vampires and assorted other non-Mike topics (no fair anyone postulating a story of a world taken over by zombie-Mikes and anyway NIGHT OF THE CREEPS has been used)).
I’ll also put in a plea for understanding given the timing of things–these are the last weeks of school, where some of the less appealing aspects of adolescence make themselves heard loud and clear. Whatever my no doubt many deficiencies as a teacher my be I would hope that I have managed to not let bullies run roughshod over other kids when I could help it. Mike’s bullying and gay baiting reminds me of behavior that is too often tolerated in schools and I’ve treated it as such. (It’s not exactly the same thing obviously–in this case it’s the unpopular kid acting the bully and the “victims” don’t feel any particular sting and certainly don’t need me to protect them.)
But anyway, my friend, your point is well taken.
Bill Mulligan, if I fully understand your perspective. But I see Mike less as a bully and more as a poorly socialized child crying out for attention. I very much doubt anyone here is intimidated by him.
Posted by: Den
While all of that is true, I haven’t seen anything original coming out of the world of vampire pørņ/romance in the past ten years.
Fair warning: If you mention Charlene Harris, I will thought a complete fit.
“Thought a complete fit”? Is that like texting one?
How about Maryjanice Davidson’s “Betsy, Queen of the Vampires” series?
“Thought a complete fit”? Is that like texting one?
Ugh. THROW and complete fit. See how that woman’s drivel affects me?
How about Maryjanice Davidson’s “Betsy, Queen of the Vampires” series?
How about not.
Bill said my inability to find a non-gay portrayal of obsession was gay-baiting, and I countered by challenging him to find a non-gay one that applied to Jerry’s obsession with me — which no one has. You are providing abstractions that do not fullfill the challenge.
I have no reservation against rephrasing and fixing misspellings:
While the absence of absolutely any portrayal of a same-sex, non-gay obsession would have demonstrated the absence of any non-gay portrayal applicable to Jerry’s obsession with me, all portrayals of same-sex, non-gay obsession — as stipulated by Bill Mulligan — do not necessarily apply to any given same-sex obsession.
After 5½ days, Bill’s “so many ways” to portray Jerry’s same-sex obsession with me as something other than gay is still zero.
Me-ow.
I literally do not remember ever having been accused of mischaracterizing Bill’s words or of insulting his family.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 4, 2007 12:30 AM
“It’s just dámņëd hard to come up with a story that’s 100% original at this point.”
That’s true. There’s something intimidating in the volumes and volumes of fantasy, sci-fi, superheroes and horror you find these days. Is there anything to add that has not been done already? Obviously there is, ayt least new takes on old themes, but it is initimidating.
———————
Posted by: Den at June 4, 2007 05:45 PM:
Micha wrote: “I can think of several genres that are so riffled with cliches it is hard to be original. Like the super hero genre for one. Fantasy in general is full of cliches. Yet somehow people find ways to continue writing in the genres: a few even do it well, either by following the cliches well, or by turning them upside down, or by coming up with something original.”
Den replied: “While all of that is true, I haven’t seen anything original coming out of the world of vampire pørņ/romance in the past ten years.
Fair warning: If you mention Charlene Harris, I will thought a complete fit.”
I can’t comment on vampires, since my aquaintance with them is limited to a few movies, one Raveloft(?) book, and Buffy and Angel of course (only the series), both of which I consider to be very well written.
For all I know, I could pick up a vampire book and feel it was excellent without realizing that it’s an imitation of an imitation. When I read Dragonlance I didn’t know yet from where many of its ideas came. It seemed wonderful to me. But although I know more now (although not nearly as much as most of you I think), I still have a warm spot in my heart for it, and enjoy going back to it every once in a while.
In any case,I asked for info on vampires because I know little about them, and wanted to hear from the experts. I am also hoping that I will somehow be able to get transform some ideas I have in my mind into actual and fairly decent writing. but this is more in the — also cliche riddled — realm of fantasy, not horror. Although, if actually ever written, it should include some subplots relating to vampires, zombies, werewolves and witches, which was another reason why I wanted to hear of any cliches I should be wary of.
——————–
One thing about Mike (without opening another Mike discussion). I feel kind of bad about attacks on Mike that involve reference to his life beyond this board. It feels kind of unfair to me. Now I realize this is a little silly, that Mike is far from fair in his arguments, and that I attacked him severly myself. But that’s how I feel. It seems to to much to me.
Oh, and Mike is a bully, even if one that is incapable of doing much harm. But his behavior is that of a bully nevertheless.
True enough, I suppose, Micha. That one is an impotent bully does not take away from the bullying aspect.
Mike, how exactly is it that you can twist logic in this particular instance to assert that it is Jerry who is obsessed with you? Given that he has hardly made a post about you in quite some time, while almost every post you make is about him, it would seem that the obsession is on the other foot. I realize such an observation is one only those of us burdened with logic would make, and therefore invalid in the Realm of Mike ™, but I confess to being curious as to how you distill the situation to a purity that leads you to the conclusion that you have, indeed, reached.
Mike, you really ought to recognize that Bill, rather than wanting to sodomize you, may simply take an interest in your abnormal psychology. Instead of challenging him to prove he doesn’t love you, how about substantiating your own claim that he just MUST? Unless you are insane, you must be aware that no one here respects any of your qualities quite so much as you do.