DP Tool Club 12/CD_ASCQ_12_0294.iso/vrac/sun9402.zip/FEA2

Text File | 1994-01-05 | 8KB | 115 lines

The Appearance of Vampires in Fiction
Copyright (c) 1994, Robert McKay
All rights reserved




                    *The Appearance of Vampires in Fiction*
                                 A short essay
                                by Robert McKay
                      Copyright (C) 1993 by Robert McKay


    One of my favorite novels is *Dracula*, the classic by Bram Stoker.  I
once owned a copy, before 10 moves in as many years proved the saying that
"Three moves are as bad as a fire" in disposing of what Dickens once called
"portable property."  I intend to own a copy again.
    I also like the 1930 movie version of *Dracula* directed by Tod Browning
and starring Bela Lugosi (by the way, Lugosi's accent was genuine; he was a
Hungarian, from the same general area as the historical Vlad Tepes and the
fictional Dracula who is partly modeled on Tepes).  Liking both, I also notice
some discrepancies between the two, including the appearance of the count.  In
the book, he is a big man, sporting a heavy moustache and longish, thick hair.
Lugosi's Dracula was not small, but neither was he the massive creature de-
scribed by Stoker.  He did not possess either the hair or the moustache of the
Count in the book, and the distinguishing feature that has stuck with me for
years, the "hairs in the centre of the palm", were absent from Lugosi's por-
trayal.  And it is the 1930 movie Dracula that we remember, spoof, and write
about, and which influences our vampire fiction to this day.
    I am a sometime writer of non-traditional vampire stories.  They do not
completely break with tradition, but they do depart from it in some respects.
For instance, "Memoirs of a Reluctant Vampire", previously published in *Sun-
light Through the Shadows*, presents a vampire who is essentially Joe Average
- even something of a nerd - who is snared while leaving a pizza parlor and
who now uses a pocket knife to open the vein.  Others I have written, and
which are still (at this writing) seeking publication present the vampire as a
loving wife; or a figure who terrorizes a town, flaunts his crime before the
authorities, and then easily escapes; or who takes the life, without touching
the blood - this one also escapes after a scuffle with police officers.  Per-
haps the most non-traditional aspect of my vampires is my sympathy - I'm all
in favor of the vampire.  This is fiction, of course; I do not believe that
such creatures actually exist, and if they did I would be decidedly in favor
of their extermination.  But in my writing, I am sympathetic to the undead.
    And yet, I find that Browning's *Dracula* haunts my descriptions.  While
Stoker's Count is not all that indistinguishable from ordinary mortals in most
circumstances, Browning's is - although he appears on the streets of London
unremarked, which is rather strange in view of his outlandish getup.  Stoker's
Dracula is sufficiently normal-looking to gain no more notice than as an un-
usually large and muscular man with odd superstitions and a strange affinity
with wolves in his first appearances; Browning's Dracula is Borg-pale, with a
hairstyle that is strange at best, odd clothing, and eerie mannerisms.
    I do not, I hope it will be assumed, dress my vampires in Lugosi-type out-
fits.  Indeed, only one of them - the loving wife - has any sort of connection
to Stoker's Count, and that is not very significant; her connection is more
closely to what Vlad Tepes might, in my opinion, have been had he actually
been a vampire, and is in fact the daughter of that hypothetical undead Tepes.
I do, however, find that they have some characteristics in common with the Lu-
gosi portrayal.  They all have aquiline features.  They all like to dress in
dark clothing.  They all - with the exception of the wife -comb their hair
straight back.  They all have paler-than-normal skin.  None -fortunately, I
think - have a Wallachian or Transylvanian accent, though in the wife's case
it must be assumed that during her early life (which was, though this is not
stated in the story, completely normal, she having been born before her fa-
ther's transformation) she did possess such an accent when speaking in lan-
guages other than her native tongue.
    Why, since I am so dedicated to the untraditional in vampire stories, am I
so bound, even unconsciously, to the basics of the Browning/Lugosi model?  Why
is this true of most who write on vampires?  I can't speak for others, but I
can speak to some degree for myself.  I say to some degree because, quite
frankly, I am neither trained for nor terribly enamored of the deep analysis
that is currently in vogue in literary criticism.  I do not care, for
instance, for that school of literary comment which persisted, and perhaps
still persists, in seeing J.R.R. Tolkien's Sauron as a picture of Hitler in
spite of Tolkien's repeated and vehement denials that he ever intended any
such symbology.  I prefer to think that most writers are like me - they may
have some symbolism, some "hidden" message, in their work, but they also, like
me, want to communicate something clearly, and therefore neither do nor can
bury it deep in symbols and figures and dark mysteries.
    I believe that the reason for the clinging nature of the standard vampire
type - varied though it might be from author to author in some respects - is
simply that the Browning/Lugosi collaboration was done so well.  Granted that
the 1930 film did not faithfully reproduce the story of the book (not that, to
my knowledge, *any* Dracula film has done that).  Granted that it has its
flaws, especially in light of modern special effects and movie-making tech-
niques.  Still, the direction by Browning and the acting by Lugosi were mas-
terful.  The film was so well done in these regards that it has left an indel-
ible imprint on our common knowledge regarding not just Count Dracula, but
vampires in general.
    Just when the craze for visible fangs, pointed hairlines, strange accents,
and other Browning/Lugosi creations began I don't know, nor do I particularly
care, since my desire is entertainment, not esoteric knowledge of trivia.  But
it must have begun early.  I was born in 1960, only 30 years after the film
was made, and as far back as I can remember, these were already settled fea-
tures of American vampire lore.  At Halloween during my youth, as today, cos-
tumes recreated the image of the film.
    So I grew up, and children then and before grew up, and children today are
growing up, thinking that the word "vampire" is synonymous with the Count Dra-
cula created by Bela Lugosi and Tod Browning and released in 1930.  Few, un-
fortunately in several senses, have actually read *Dracula*, and are therefore
completely ignorant of the Count that Stoker created - a count that in physi-
cal appearance (expect perhaps for size) was a close match to descriptions and
portraits of Vlad Tepes.  Instead, we integrated into our cultural mythology a
Dracula, and a vampire legend, that is only 63 years old, as compared to the
centuries-old legends of eastern Europe that Stoker combined with myth and
fact about Tepes to create his character.
    Can this be reversed?  Perhaps, though I strongly doubt it.  Just as the
myths of Santa Claus and "Play it again, Sam" are ineradicable parts of our
culture, so the Browning/Lugosi Count Dracula has been indelibly imprinted on
our collective frame of mind.  However, it would be well if we who love hor-
ror, and more particularly those of us who enjoy vampire stories, would do our
best to not cling too strongly to this image.  Who knows - in 100 years, we
may by our influence have managed to bring the collective view of Dracula and
his ilk back to something more closely resembling the original conception.