Fading Fad or New Reality in Literature
I was perusing my FB writer/reader group posts and was overwhelmed with the many books being published on zombies, vampires and an occasional werewolf (I’ll leave him for another time.) Unlike the pure science fiction creatures that arrive from other worlds with the intention of destroying us, zombies and vampires are beasts of a different color. Why are we so obsessed with them? Do they reflect something inside of us, something dark, potent and even mystical? Or do they offer us the dream of immortality?
Zombies. Even the word conjures a tingle of dread up your arms. Creepy, ugly, gruesome distortions of humans, a parody of living beings. But beyond the changes in the body, the mind morphs into something horrid as well. Zombies are devoid of humanity, compassion and spirit. They’re dead in every sense of the word.
Historically, zombies evolved from the West African religion Vodun and its new world counterpart, Voodoo or Voudoun. Behind zombie mythology, however, is the reality that these are not actually persons raised from the dead, but living humans who’ve been drugged with hallucinogens and subjected to powerful rituals. They are literally, “the walking dead.”
Thanks to filmmakers like George Romero, “Night of the Living Dead,” a classic that always had me wondering who the zombies really were – the ones creeping out of the graves or those hiding from them– you remember Barbra. This film gave rise to many new versions in literature and movies. The typical zombie eats flesh and craves brains. Unlike vampires who don’t each much, but drink an awful lot. Fortunately zombies can be killed (again) by a shot or blow to the head. Decapitation works well too.
Vampires. They’ve been around a long time, since legends spawned by the real-life monster, Vlad the Impaler. Perhaps the most famous, Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula, written in 1897, was surely the father of all blood suckers. Since then, hundreds, perhaps thousands of vampire books and movies have followed, about Dracula and other vampires, each with its own audience of blood-lusty fans. Until the Count, however, vampires of folklore were often ugly creatures, pale and smelly. Think Nosferatu. Bela Lugosi changed that with his handsome (hmmm?) visage, black cape and Romanian accent. Rather glamorous if you like the type.
Books by Laurell K. Hamilton and series like “True Blood” have taken vampires to a new level, one that has turned the legend into an unfortunate reality in many young people’s minds. I expect many actually believe in vampire lore: that vampires can be killed by stakes to the heart or by sunlight falling upon them. They are repelled by the cross and other holy objects, and by garlic (you must admit, the smell of garlic can overwhelm even those of us who don’t claim to be vampires.)
In Anne Rice’s “Interview With a Vampire,” we find a memorable and sympathetic vampire in the character, Louis de Pointe du Lac. Lestat de Lioncourt is a bit less sympathetic but alluring nonetheless. Rice’s series is one that reaches audiences beyond young adult. It grips mainstream audiences today much as it did in the 70s, despite the criticism she received for her portrayal of vampires as sad, pathetic souls. The “Twilight” series follows this lead with its young vampires, good, evil, hateful. . . and very darn handsome and likeable. (See my last post on “Memorable Villains.)
Think about this when you have absolutely nothing else to think about. Anne Rice was once asked the question: “What happens if a vampire bites a zombie?” Her answer, in all seriousness: “It would be catastrophic,” she concluded, because vampire blood would make a zombie much stronger. (We all know this, right?) She continued. “But the vampire would just spit the zombie blood out.” Ptooey.
Personally, I’m a vampire vs. a zombie fan. I draw the line, however, at the notion of Abraham Lincoln being a vampire hunter. I’d rather just stick with Buffy.