I was trying to explain the premise of Towing Jehovah to my husband, in reference to an atheist friend of ours who definitely WOULD spearhead a campaign to destroy the holy corpse due to its immense threat to his unbelief. It was one of those books I read on the sly in high school while standing around in bookstores--my mother thought the very idea was so sacrilegious she wouldn't let me buy it.
The look on his face was utterly priceless and reminded me I really ought to get around to reading more of Morrow's work.
I loved the premise. The story itself wasn't bad. I hated the ending, because I thought it was too cliche.
I've always had a deep abiding love for vampires, and I've been dismayed by their recent decline into vapid sparkliness. The vampires from 30 Days of Night were true monsters, and a welcome relief.
Whether you read this in a bookstore or library, you should check out the sequel Dark Days. The final installment, Return to Barrow wraps up the main storyline, though there's a ton of spin-off issues that take place in the 30 Days universe.
What do you think of the vampire evolution, or devolution depending on your viewpoint, in today's literature?
I've written some vampire fiction myself, and my vampires stray closer to the 30 Days strain than Twilight. My favorite vampire novel still has to be Dracula, though--I guess I'm pretty oldschool in that respect. Dracula is exactly what a vampire should be--despite being attractive, he's still a monster, and the book never loses sight of that.
I'm more of a werewolf girl myself, and I spent a while being absolutely TIRED of vampires, because I was tired of the same old portrayal. I haven't yet read Dracula (though it's on my shelf), but I really appreciate seeing vampires that embrace both the monstrous side and the human side.
I did just read an interesting take on them in Marta Costa's Happy Hour at Casa Dracula. It's more of a medical thing, and they're not really vampires but kind of are, if that makes sense. Sure, the medical thing means they're more human and therefore romantic leads, but in this case, I didn't mind. :)
I see no reason why someone can't love both :)--I know I do, but I've been focusing more on vampires lately for reasons I don't quite understand.
I nearly always end up recommending Dracula to anyone who hasn't read it--the thing is, unless you already know how it's written, it can come as a surprise, and the style turns off some people. It's written as a series of entries into the diaries/records of various characters, including personal letters. You find out later on that it's all been typed out and put together by Mina Harker, in an attempt to keep a full record of the campaign against Dracula.
I think that as the father of the modern vampire, Dracula is still a can't-miss kind of book, especially if you're interested at all in vampire-lit. And I have to say that no, he doesn't disintegrate in the sun! I don't know where that originated, but it wasn't with Dracula.
My husband has read Dracula and has told me all about the style (which did turn him off, because he didn't know it was coming, but he tried re-reading the book last year and he couldn't make himself get through it), and we've also discussed vampires very often and he's told me how Stoker really portrays his vampire.
I'm glad I'll know what to expect when I do get around to reading it. :)
The look on his face was utterly priceless and reminded me I really ought to get around to reading more of Morrow's work.
Reply
So it's interesting this review popped up today, because we literally just had that talk a few days ago.
Reply
And I'm with you: I know people who'd do the same thing so that their unbelief would remain unthreatened.
Reply
Somehow, I couldn't bring myself to buy a graphic novel.
Reply
Reply
I've always had a deep abiding love for vampires, and I've been dismayed by their recent decline into vapid sparkliness. The vampires from 30 Days of Night were true monsters, and a welcome relief.
Reply
Reply
I've written some vampire fiction myself, and my vampires stray closer to the 30 Days strain than Twilight. My favorite vampire novel still has to be Dracula, though--I guess I'm pretty oldschool in that respect. Dracula is exactly what a vampire should be--despite being attractive, he's still a monster, and the book never loses sight of that.
Reply
I did just read an interesting take on them in Marta Costa's Happy Hour at Casa Dracula. It's more of a medical thing, and they're not really vampires but kind of are, if that makes sense. Sure, the medical thing means they're more human and therefore romantic leads, but in this case, I didn't mind. :)
Reply
I nearly always end up recommending Dracula to anyone who hasn't read it--the thing is, unless you already know how it's written, it can come as a surprise, and the style turns off some people. It's written as a series of entries into the diaries/records of various characters, including personal letters. You find out later on that it's all been typed out and put together by Mina Harker, in an attempt to keep a full record of the campaign against Dracula.
I think that as the father of the modern vampire, Dracula is still a can't-miss kind of book, especially if you're interested at all in vampire-lit. And I have to say that no, he doesn't disintegrate in the sun! I don't know where that originated, but it wasn't with Dracula.
Reply
I'm glad I'll know what to expect when I do get around to reading it. :)
Reply
Leave a comment