While the writing style is very elegant and pleasant to read, some of the language of the story left me feeling only a brief understanding of what was happening in the story. This was probably the worst at the beginning of the story, when the story is being set-up by the author with some background information about the current mythology of vampires, but it got better as the story progressed.
Once I got past the overall tone of The Vampyre, I really ended up enjoying it. It definitely seemed more subtle than the vampire stories that I am familiar with, but I’ll have to admit that the occasional talk of stakes through hearts and decapitation definitely made me feel more at home. While I do appreciate all of the intricacies of vampire lore, I enjoy blood and guts just as much, so naturally I really enjoyed passages like the following:
“To prevent further mischief, the inhabitants having consulted their Hadagni, took up the body, and found it (as is supposed to be usual in cases of vampirism) fresh, and entirely free from corruption, and emitting at the mouth, nose, and ears, pure and florid blood. Proof having been thus obtained, they resorted to the accustomed remedy. A stake was driven entirely through the heart and body of Arnold Paul, at which he is reported to have cried out as dreadfully as if he had been alive. This done, they cut off his head, burned his body, and threw the ashes into his grave.” Polidori
This passage reminded me of how sometimes before horror movies, they will put in some fake news casts about the horrific events that happen in the movie, in order to make is feel more real. The matter-of-fact way that the passage was written in makes it sound like a newspaper clipping, and therefore makes the story sound that much more believable. I would imagine that things like that were much scarier in the 1800’s, as well, because I would imagine it would be much harder to check the validity of such claims in those days. That’s probably why it’s so much harder to scare people these days—they just know too much.
I also enjoyed how all of the death and blood was somewhat spread out throughout the story. I always find the best horror stories and movies to be the ones that take enough time to make us care a little bit about their characters before they kill them off. It just adds even more to the believability of the story overall.
To wrap things up, I would also like to say one more thing. I really enjoyed the way that the vampire in The Vampyre was so well-liked. Now that the genre has been changed so much, I feel like it is more common to see vampires presented more like monsters (see: 30 Days of Night). It was very interesting to see a vampire depicted as a sharp-tongued gentlemen who people are mysteriously drawn to. I think that is much scarier than presenting them as monsters, because, once again, it’s just a lot more believable.
Overall, this story has really opened my eyes to how much vampires have changed over the years. I’m very excited to see the transition and to be able to understand it more, and I think that reading stories like this—the trailblazers in vampire fiction—will really help.
I know the feeling about reading older prose. It is confusing at first, but then once you get into the actual story it doesn't seem so bad. I just wanted to say your blog is written wonderfully!
ReplyDeleteRyne,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post because I often find myself reading very slowly or having to re-read, re-watch, re-think and re-act what seemingly usually gets done for a person in one try. As towards our material though, I also enjoyed it because it seems you enjoyed the action elements of “The Vampyre” the most. I was wondering if you felt any of the horrors these people mentioned could have been imagined or exaggerated? Perhaps Ruthven is not as terrible, and just surviving, or is he a plot tool used to allow for exciting scenes? And touching on what you mentioned regarding a well liked vampire, I found it quite interesting how much Ruthven changed for Aubrey and how this was brought to the viewer. For example, the author uses "we have above describe", in a plural sense, as if the narrator and the reader and creating the constructs of Ruthven, and in extension vampires, together. So if the narrator believes the atrocities, is Ruthven those things?
Ya, I agree that this was a little difficult to get through at first until the main plot kicked in. I think the problem was the sentence structure and length. By the time I made it to the end of the sentence I could not remember what the first part was about because of the number of asides like in this sentence:
ReplyDelete"In spite of the deadly hue of his face, which never gained a wanner tint, either from the blush of modesty, or from the strong emotion of passion, though its form and outline were beautiful, many of the female hunters after notoriety attempted to win his attentions, and gain, at least, some marks of what they might term affection: Lady Mercer, who had been the mockery of every monster shewn in drawing-rooms since her marriage, threw herself in his way, and did all but put on the dress of a mountebank, to attract his notice -- though in vain; -- when she stood before him, though his eyes were apparently fixed upon hers, still it seemed as if they were unperceived; -- even her unappalled impudence was baffled, and she left the field."
Seriously?!
I had to separate each main point and close them off into smaller sentences. Even though that made this kind of hard to read I really liked all of the details in the story. I got a really great picture of all of the main characters and the scenery. I especially liked the descriptions of Lord Ruthven.
Ryne,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, the archaic wording and sentence structure of Vampyre made it harder to get through. However, once you got into the meat of the story it was a bit easier to follow.
I also thought that the way this was written gave the impression that it was a real account, similar to what is done in the media for movies like Quarantine, where fake news broadcasts are made to make the movie seem more realistic. In the time when this was written I can only imagine how effective a marketing ploy like this would’ve been, given that fact checking was almost nonexistent.
One point you made that I did somewhat disagree with is that it’s more common to see vampires as monsters. From my point of view, most of the vampires popular in today’s culture are seen as sensitive heroes, working to protect those around them, usually their lover, from themselves. I find it much more rare to have them portrayed as monsters feasting on humans. The problem with this is, that vampires are becoming less scary, and more human, humane even; and I think they’re losing their horror edge a little bit.
I think Adam brings up a very good point about considering Lord Ruthven's "background" story. We know so little about his character and where he came from and why he loves to feast on these young ladies. In later vampire tales, the inner-life of the vampire becomes the subject of the novel. Instead of seeing these monsters as "mysterious" or "disgusting," we see them become, as Rachel implied, sympathetic figures. We should continue to consider why this might be the case.
ReplyDelete