#the titular vampire indeed

[rosesocietyy]

louis when death:

[moistvonlipwig]

Eternity, Growing Up, and Why Buffy Keeps Dating Vampires

Vampires in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, on a most basic level, represent stagnation, a desire to stay young forever, the refusal to grow up. The show emphasizes this several times: in the show's very first episode, Buffy recognizes a vampire by his outdated outfit, and in 2.07 "Lie to Me," Ford claims that becoming a vampire will allow him to "die young and stay pretty," the dream of "every American teen." Buffy's role as the titular vampire slayer can thus be read as a metaphor for her choosing to grow up and become an adult in the face of temptations to do otherwise. So what does it mean, then, that Buffy's two most narratively significant love interests are vampires -- that she repeatedly, across seven seasons, courts eternal immaturity? I would argue that Buffy's relationships with Angel and Spike represent her inner struggle to accept the reality of growing up and getting older.

Buffy and Angel's relationship is marked by repeated references to the concept of "forever" or an eternal relationship: "When I look into the future, all I see is you" (2.12 "Bad Eggs"); "Love is forever" (2.19 "I Only Have Eyes For You"); "Forever. That's the whole point" (3.01 "Anne"); "You still my girl?" / "Always" (3.17 "Enemies"); Buffy's "Buffy & Angel 4ever!" doodle on her notebook (3.20 "The Prom"); "How's forever? Does forever work for you?" (5.17 "Forever"). At first glance, this may appear to be a romantic cliche, but taken in context of what vampires represent, the motif takes on new meaning. To be eternal is to be like a vampire -- to stagnate, to never change or grow or mature. Indeed, Angel's final line on the entire show, in his and Buffy's last scene together, is, "I ain't getting any older" (7.22 "Chosen"). In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, immortality is synonymous with immaturity. To want a "forever" relationship, then, is to want to never grow up.

(This idea is revisited in the Angel episode 2.13 "Happy Anniversary," a disturbing tale about a man who responds to his impending breakup with his girlfriend Denise by attempting to freeze them both in time mid-coitus forever. Lorne's response -- "I can hold a note forever. But eventually that's just noise. It's the change we're listening for. The note coming after, and the one after that. That's what makes it music." -- is a perfect summation of the Buffyverse's stance on the concept of eternity. To last "forever" is not romantic or beautiful; it is simply to be in stasis.)

Buffy and Angel's relationship is also frequently associated with death, and Buffy's death in particular: "When you kiss me, I wanna die" (2.05 "Reptile Boy"); kissing against a gravestone reading "In Loving Memory" ("Bad Eggs"); Angel's dream of Buffy bursting into flames in the sunlight like a vampire after marrying him ("The Prom"). The implication is that, if Buffy stays in the relationship, it will metaphorically kill her, cut off her future, freeze her in this moment of teenage love until the end of time, like the first episode's vampire whose fashion sense was stuck in the past or, indeed, like the fate that almost befell poor Denise. To borrow a metaphor from Revolutionary Girl Utena (another show very concerned with the dichotomy of eternity vs. growing up), Angel and Buffy's relationship is their coffin. They can choose to stay trapped in it forever, to never grow or change, and thus to metaphorically die; or they can choose to leave, to grow and change and mature, to gain "the power to imagine the future" (Ikuhara Kunihiko, Utena DVD commentary), where before they could only imagine each other.

It's no coincidence that the second season's finale, an episode all about "becoming," about growing up and maturing, is when Buffy finally finds the strength to kill Angel in order to save the world. In doing so, she rejects her desire to stay young forever, trapped in her coffin with Angel for all of eternity, and chooses to continue to grow up instead. But, of course, growing up is never quite so simple; Angel comes back, and Buffy falls back into her relationship with him, falls back into her desire to pretend the events of the second season never happened and she is still the same young girl who never lost her "innocence" at his hands. Even when we consciously choose to grow up, it is all too easy to seek comfort in the idea that maybe, if we try hard enough, we won't have to. In the end, it is Angel who recognizes the harm their relationship is doing to Buffy, and he departs, taking Buffy's childhood with him. Her youth leaves her, as it leaves us all, whether she wants it to or not.

But Angel is not the last vampire she has a relationship with. In the show's sixth season, Buffy emerges from her literal coffin only to climb right back into a metaphorical one. In the time since she said goodbye to Angel, Buffy has attended college, had to drop out of college, had another romantic relationship fail, lost her mother, essentially become a parent to her newly-acquired sister, died through suicidal self-sacrifice, and been resurrected only to find that she is still just as depressed as she was before dying and is now swamped with bills she cannot pay. Her problems are firmly in the realm of adulthood, and at many points throughout the first half of the season, she longs for the grave she left instead of the life she has: "I was happy. [...] I think I was in heaven. [...] This is hell" (6.03 "After Life"); "There was no pain / no fear, no doubt / 'til they pulled me out / of heaven" (6.07 "Once More, with Feeling").

It is at this point that she begins a sexual relationship with Spike, her second dalliance with eternal immaturity. Buffy and Spike's relationship is also marked by references to death, with an emphasis this time on graves: Spike notices and verbalizes the shared experience they have of clawing their way out of their graves ("After Life"); Spike and Buffy fall into a grave together during Spike's song, during which he beseeches her to "let [him] rest in peace" ("Once More, with Feeling"); several of their sexual encounters literally occur inside the crypt Spike lives in; this crypt is brought into focus especially in 6.13 "Dead Things," in which Buffy and Spike place their hands on either side of its door, separated by her status as living and his as dead. Buffy additionally uses Spike as a proxy to call herself "dead inside" ("Dead Things"). Buffy may have literally risen from the dead, but in a metaphorical sense, she is still trapped in her coffin, unwilling to leave it.

There are, of course, multiple layers to the grave and coffin motif in Buffy the Vampire Slayer's sixth season. But I would argue that one such layer is that it serves as an extension of the death metaphor from Buffy and Angel's relationship, in which death signified Buffy never growing up. In this reading, Buffy's longing for the "heaven" granted to her by the grave is really a longing for the innocence of youth, now lost to her as she must continue to grow up. In Buffy's confession to Spike in "After Life" about where she was in death, she makes particular note of how "time didn't mean anything" in the place she labels "heaven," whereas in the real world, it's hellish "just getting through the next moment, and the one after that." Unlike Lorne, who saw beauty in the progression of time, Buffy sees only suffering, and longs for a time in her life when time itself seemed not to march forward at all.

It is no wonder, then, that she seeks comfort in someone who is frozen in time, who can never grow up. If Buffy's relationship with Angel represented her childhood desire to stay young forever and never face the hardships of adulthood, her relationship with Spike represents her adulthood desire to return to that period of youth and never leave it, to curl up in her coffin and close the lid. But unlike Buffy and Angel's relationship, which is littered with references to eternity, Buffy repeatedly insists on the temporary nature of her dalliance with Spike: "What we did is done. But I will never kiss you, Spike. Never touch you, ever, ever again" (6.08 "Tabula Rasa"); "Not gonna happen. Last night was the end of this freak show" (6.10 "Wrecked"). Buffy is furious with Spike for his hold over her and hates herself for wanting him, but returns to him again and again. She believes she shouldn't want to return to her unattainable youth, she knows she should accept her adult life and face its difficulties head-on, yet when confronted with its difficulties, she repeatedly goes to Spike to escape them, as in 6.11 "Gone," 6.12 "Doublemeat Palace," and 6.15 "As You Were."

If Angel represents Buffy's youth and Spike her nostalgia for that youth, then of course it follows that Angel must leave Buffy, but Buffy must leave Spike. Nostalgia, unlike youth, does not depart from us so easily. But she does leave him, and in the sixth season's finale, she finally crawls out of the grave she's been trapped in, represented by her leading her sister out of a literal grave and smiling at the world before her. As Buffy tells Dawn: "Things have really sucked lately, but it's all gonna change. And I wanna be there when it does. [...] And I want to see you grow up" (6.22 "Grave"). Change, the inevitable forward march of time, the reality of growing up -- these things no longer strike Buffy as hellish, but rather beautiful. She is an adult, and she is living in this ever-changing world, and she embraces that reality fully, leaving the coffin of youth behind for good.

What to make, then, of Buffy's relationship with Spike in the show's seventh season? I would argue that her evolving feelings towards Spike in the final season represent her reconciling with and forgiving her past self, the Buffy that didn't want to grow up, before finally letting that part of her go. She comes to recognize that Spike, like her past self, was capable of change, eternally immature though he may seem. She forgives herself for wanting him. When he offers to leave, she tells him she is "not ready for [him] to not be here" (7.14 "First Date"). She has already chosen to embrace and accept her adulthood, and she no longer resents her desire to return to childhood, but she still needs her inner eternal child with her.

It is in the very last episode of the series that she lets go, demonstrating her full-hearted and joyful acceptance of ephemerality in the process. Buffy has not told a romantic partner she loves them since Angel, although she told Angel she loved Riley in Angel 1.19 "Sanctuary," and from episodes like 4.03 "The Harsh Light of Day," it is clear how much the unexpected transience of her supposed-to-be-forever relationship with Angel has haunted her. But in 7.22 "Chosen," Buffy tells Spike she loves him in a moment when she knows for sure that his death is imminent and that their joint existence together is temporary. She no longer fears a love that is not eternal. Through Spike, she expresses her love for her past self and for the part of her that never quite grew up, and then she lets that part die with him, and with Sunnydale itself, the place where she spent her adolescence, another representation of the grave that was her dream of forever childhood. Despite this destruction and loss, Buffy only smiles in its face, and it is this smile we leave her on. She has grown up, she has forgiven herself for not wanting to grow up, she has let go of the last remnants of the childhood she once hoped would be eternal, and she has come to not only accept the ephemeral, ever-changing nature of life, but to meet it with love and joy. "The power to imagine the future" is hers to wield. And her smile tells us that she is finally ready to wield it.

[livefromcastledracula]

So, what are your general thoughts on more modern takes on Carmilla that make the titular vampire more sympathetic or outright heroic (anti or otherwise).

I'd say there's probably a lot more room for that kind of reinterpretation compared to, say, Dracula given she was already treated with a certain degree of sympathy in the original novella (but well also a vampiric serial killer and *GASP* a LESBIAN ).

Tricky one! I think there is probably more room for 'redemption' with Carmilla than Dracula, because there's a certain ambiguity around her whole character. The novella never makes it 100% clear whether she is just a gaslighting predator toying with her next victim or a lonely immortal trapped in her own impulses. A lot of the things she says and does are similarly mysterious and have multiple potential meanings, including suggestions that she's trying to make a companion out of Laura (and similarly may have tried and failed with Bertha) out of a mixture of vampire compulsion and actual loneliness and longing.

She unquestionably lies, she has unquestionably killed a lot of young women, she unquestionably wishes to turn Laura into a vampire, but she was also herself the victim of a vampire at a young age and how much of all of that is her choice and how much of it is vampiric compulsion is up in the air. Similarly I don't think it's entirely fair to Carmilla to take Vordenburg's account of vampires or Laura's status as a reliable narrator entirely at face value.

So I think particularly given the queer subtext, and changing views around how to read and contextualise that, there's a lot more room for stuff like the Canadian web series (which I love with my whole soul, so I'm totally not biased here) giving us a new take on Carmilla.

Dracula has already had his woobiefication / romantic antihero era and I think it's interesting in the wake of Daily Dracula to see more people seeing him / depicting him as a cruel, gaslighting abuser with undertones of serial r*pist, which, I think, was certainly Stoker's intent with the character. The much more aggressive way his feeding scenes are written compared to the dreamlike, surrealistic Carmilla visitations certainly helps this (oof, the Mina scene never fails to turn my stomach).

I remember reading someone's quite sensible take that a flaw in readings of Dracula is that, by categorizing it as a gothic novel, readers start searching for the central Byronic antihero that typifies the genre, the flawed, stormy, romantic, dark, tragic figure like the Phantom of the Opera or Frankenstein's Creature, or indeed, Carmilla...and Count Dracula just ... isn't that, he's a pure despicable villain, but he's the title character so people try to force him into that role.

I think that's a fair take away.

[blueiight]

ganja & hess will always be one of my favorite movies. the mythology of the zombi, the true palpable fear enslaved africans had of being the everlasting immortal slave, is repurposed into the myrthians, an afrocentric progenitor race of vampires. the music and culture of the black baptist church is intentionally placed to remind viewers of black diasporic syncretism. dr. hess initially spurns the church, but ends the movie in seeking salvation, and chooses his own mode of liberation. where george meda starts is where dr. hess ends— suicide under a god he truly believes in (whether its the myrthians or christ), death over being an immortal black monster. dr. hess’s arc also runs parallel to the titular ganja, a woman who was made immortal bc of her beauty, who was hated by her mother for fears of a precocious sexuality, who is made to marry the doctor who killed her husband, forced to seduce another man, refuses suicide with dr. hess in favor of being immortal. the movie ends with the man coming out the grave, and ganja in the mansion. ganja indeed, took care of herself in the end (somehow)

[dross-the-fish]

What is Varney the Vampire?

A horrifically long penny dreadful that actually pre-dates Dracula. I love it. I hate it. I have not finished it and probably never will but Varney, the titular vampire is one of the earlier examples of a sympathetic vampire, he actually does feel remorse and conflict over the acts he's compelled to commit out of hunger and despite being a powerful creature of the night he is, at times, pretty ridiculous.

"God help us all. It is not human. Look there—look there—do you not see it?" They looked in the direction he indicated. At the end of this vista was the wall of the garden. At that point it was full twelve feet in height, and as they looked, they saw the hideous, monstrous form they had traced from the chamber of their sister, making frantic efforts to clear the obstacle. Then they saw it bound from the ground to the top of the wall, which it very nearly reached, and then each time it fell back again into the garden with such a dull, heavy sound, that the earth seemed to shake again with the concussion. They trembled—well indeed they might, and for some minutes they watched the figure making its fruitless efforts to leave the place. "What—what is it?" whispered Henry, in hoarse accents. "God, what can it possibly be?" "I know not," replied Mr. Marchdale. "I did seize it. It was cold and clammy like a corpse. It cannot be human." "Not human?" "Look at it now. It will surely escape now." "No, no—we will not be terrified thus—there is Heaven above us. Come on, and, for dear Flora's sake, let us make an effort yet to seize this bold intruder." "Take this pistol," said Marchdale. "It is the fellow of the one I fired. Try its efficacy." "He will be gone," exclaimed Henry, as at this moment, after many repeated attempts and fearful falls, the figure reached the top of the wall, and then hung by its long arms a moment or two, previous to dragging itself completely up.

He struggled to scale a 12 foot garden wall and in many chapters he is frequently chased away by mobs with weapons.

[faithl3hane]

🦇 Drusilla as a Scooby 🦇

An au where Drusilla is a Slayer as posited by that one theory that suggests her psychic abilities in canon are linked to her Slayer “potentiality”. I wanted to take it a step further and imagine her as a member of the Scoobies.

- Drusilla would be that goth kid who avidly delves into vampire fiction, including Anne Rice novels, and swoon over the titular vampire characters. A part of her can’t help fantasise the concept of an eternal love she believes vampires revel in.

- Her fashion choices would reflect her gothic tastes, paying homage to the allure of the '80s. She would tease her hair and favour a predominantly red and black wardrobe. 

- Drusilla would be endearingly quirky to her friends. ‘That weird kid’ who excitedly babbles away about her favourite topics of the day. When stressed out she might recite her favourite poems to calm her nerves. Indeed, her propensity for memorisation would make her a valuable asset to the Scooby Gang's research endeavours.

- Much like Willow she would lack experience in the dating scene. However, her bold, quirky style would undeniably attract a considerable amount of attention from her peers. 

- Drusilla's parents find themselves exasperated at her late-night escapades to The Bronze to dance the night away. Initially Drusilla would be shy, but once the right song/band plays she would shed her reservations and let her body move with an eccentric mind of its own.

- Definitely a hopeless romantic with a tendency to fall head-over-heels far too easily. Assuming she hadn’t yet known Spike, she might have crushed on Xander only for her gaze to shift towards Willow. The sight of Willow performing her witchcraft with adorable enthusiasm would make Dru’s heart beat an exquisite sigh of longing and protectiveness. Drusilla would find ways to make Willow notice her, and would even assist her in spells because of her own affinity for the craft. Willow might have had reservations of her own about Drusilla (assuming this timeline followed her crush on Xander), but would gradually warm up to her once she perceives her to be no threat.

- To Drusilla's dismay, her initial advances towards Xander would be met with awkwardness, as he might perceive her intentions as strange.

- Giles would dote over Drusilla’s affinity for music of his youth, finding it nice to talk to someone similarly cultured. Though would regard her as often lost in her own world. However, her manners and politeness would earn her a place of respect within the Scooby Gang, even if Giles would at times shake his head at her whimsicality.

- There would be a sense of competition between both Buffy and Drusilla, especially if others turn to the other for Slayer related tasks. They would constantly compare themselves to one another, grappling with their own insecurities and perceiving the other as better. The fact they share the same Birthday would further amplify their respective unease. Subsequently, Drusilla’s emotions would begin to mirror Buffy's sentiments upon growing jealous of the friendship between Buffy and Willow, longing for a similar connection with the latter. 

- Buffy and Drusilla do however harbour a genuine care for one another despite their jealousy. Naturally they would have an understanding of the burdens they carry as concomitant of being a Slayer, and recognise each other’s strength of character.

[agentnico]

Renfield (2023) Review

Finally we have a sequel to the 1988 masterpiece that is Vampire’s Kiss, that spawned generations worth of meme material and then some, and gave us a Nicolas Cage so unhinged, even for Nicolas Cage! It only took them 35 years, but now we get Cage as the actual vampire. Wonderful. As for those who haven’t seen Vampire’s Kiss - seek it out. It’s an amalgamation of weird, funny, silly, creepy and bat-shit (pardon the pun) crazy, and its about Cage THINKING he’s a vampire. It’s honestly amazing! Anyway, now let’s see him play an actual vamp.

Plot: Renfield, the tortured aide to his narcissistic boss, Dracula, is forced to procure his master's prey and do his every bidding. However, after centuries of servitude, he's ready to see if there's a life outside the shadow of the Prince of Darkness.

Those who know me are probably aware that I have a particular affinity to the man, the myth, the legend that is Nicolas Cage. I truly believe the man is great. With the way he uses German expressionism to deliver performances that to the casual viewer may seem over-the-top ridiculous and unnatural, but in reality is him giving it his absolute all deliver roles that are so unique and unlike anything else one has ever seen. I’m not simply talking about Vampire’s Kiss here. I mean, pick any film from his filmography - you have Face/Off, there’s Mandy, of course Con Air, The Rock...the list goes on. Even when he’s in a blatantly terrible movie such as The Wicker Man remake, he somehow comes out on top at the end with everyone loving him and quoting his lines endlessly. I mean, everyone knows the memorable scene where Cage is being tortured with a wire mesh helmet filled with bees, prompting his oft-parodied line, "Not the bees!" The man is great! He truly cares for the acting craft and is so shamelessly willing to go above and beyond in every role. 

Now the time has come for Nicolas Cage to take on a role that was a long time coming - Count Dracula. Look, I’m not going to waste your time here, Cage is fantastic as Dracula. He obviously steals the show by truly embodying the famous Bram Stoker creation. He is indeed over-acting 100%, but for this version of the character in a horror-action-comedy he is perfect. He’s everything I wanted from Nicolas Cage playing Dracula, and look, if you like Cage’s brand you will love him in this. If you don’t, then maybe just don’t go see Renfield. Easy choice there. But the way he uses mannerisms and maniacal facial movements in this movie make you truly enamoured and entertained whenever he’s on screen. A particular highlight moment is when Dracula visits Renfield in his studio apartment having caught him out on a lie, and his sarcastic delivery of every line is truly some of the funniest stuff I’ve seen all year, and I’ve watched Cocaine Bear! Also shout-out to the make-up department too, as the way the make Cage’s Dracula look in this movie, particularly in the earlier scenes when he is recovering from the burns of sunlight and you see the skin on his face half peeled off, that’s some great practical effects. 

So yes, Nicolas Cage is obviously Renfield’s main selling point. However the titular character himself is played by Nicholas Hoult who too is actually really well realised, with Hoult giving an adorably innocent character performance in his demeanour, all the while also managing to rip people’s heads and arms off left and right, yet still somehow being adorable whilst doing so? Yep, quite the paradox. Speaking of ripping off limbs, there is a hell of a lot of gore in this. I mean proper over the top comic violence where there are literally geysers of the red stuff splattering all over the screen. It’s as if Tarantino walked on set and was like “you guys may not have any feet shots, but boy are you gonna blast some blood!“ Honestly, it’s like Django Unchained all over again. Kind of felt a bit video-game like, with some anime tendencies due to all the madness. 

As for what I didn’t like. Awkwafina - I do apologise for those who are a fan of hers, but I just cannot warm to her in any of her roles. I find her super annoying, and not simply due to her voice, and in here she does the same shtick she always does. And in reality, her entire side-plot in this movie about being a cop fighting against corruption - why was that in the movie? Goodness, I’ve just reminded myself of that Key & Peele sketch about Gremlins 2 where Jordan Peele constantly says “THAT’S BRILLIANT, THAT’S IN THE MOVIE, DONE!!” But yes, all the scenes inn the police precinct felt like they were part of a different movie that had nothing to do with what was going on. All the stuff with Dracula and Renfield’s toxic relationship is great, however all the cop stuff was unneeded. 

Overall Renfield is a silly horror comedy that doesn’t take itself seriously, and simply gives us some stupid entertainment. I had a blast - Nic Cage is great, Nic Hoult was fun, the gore was mental, there were some hilarious moments of dialogue. Ben Schwartz AKA Jean Ralphio plays a mobster/spoiler son brat in this and has some of the funniest lines. Arguably Schwartz is even more over the top than Cage in this movie, and that’s saying something! Renfield is a great time at the movies, as long as you’re willing to embrace its goofy gothic style and lack of seriousness. And Nic Cage fans will have a hoot.

Overall score: 7/10

[the-eclectic-eel]

“Hyper-Gothic” Noir in Batman Dracula: Red Rain

Film noir of the 1930s emphasized heavy shadows and the obscuration of the human form in shadow and since the return to form in the Modern Age, Batman writers and artists have, more often than not, utilized these same natal motifs to give the titular character a sense of inhuman mystique. Yet, most every Batman story since Frank Miller’s run keeps the characters, plot and even the artwork grounded in reality; the human form is still relatively stable and shadows merely hide human features. Batman Dracula: Red Rain, however, stretches the character’s darker side to its outer limits. The comic’s art stretches and contorts the human form to an almost sickening degree in order to evoke a sense of the fantastic, while the story riffs on tropes common to the noir and Hardboiled detective genres by eschewing realism almost entirely and adopting elements of gothic horror. The comic’s overall blend of these stylistic elements create a unique and novel take on Batman that explores both extremes of the character’s lineage.

Even before Batman undergoes his vampiric transformation, the art of Red Rain depicts him as a nocturnal animal:

In the centermost panel, Batman’s cape is unfurled to what looks like multiple feet to both sides of his body. The artists have lengthened the “ears” of his cowl by several inches, giving his cowl an off-putting fang-like quality. As he glides above Gotham’s towering sepulchral spires in this image, Batman’s cape and ears evoke the image of, well, a bat. The Caped Crusader’s hunched posture in both the top right and bottom panels, along with his bared teeth, lend to this animalistic portrayal. Many comics, like Batman Year One, merely suggest that criminals see Batman as a huge man-sized bat creature, but this art truly makes the reader feel that their favorite detective is something other than human. These images pull at themes present in the gothic horror genre: the bestial nature of man, inhuman figures cloaked in darkness, and even the supernatural. Even so, the story clings to Batman’s hardboiled detective roots.

The dialogue in these panels evokes many of the tropes commonly seen in noir and hard boiled-detective stories; the femme fatale/ strong female character (Tanya), tells the Gotham’s police commissioner that the city and its inhabitants have been corrupted by a shadowy force (a horde of vampires) that works beyond the law. This would serve to ground the story in complete realism in any other typical noir or detective story. The abandonment of complete realism is necessary here, however, in order to tackle the supernatural subject matter, while also playing up the more gothic elements of the story. For most of the story, Batman does seem to stand as incorruptible, but he must inevitably succumb to the satanic forces that oppose him…

In order to combat the indomitable inhuman threat, the Dark Knight must become his enemy. The image above depicts a Batman that is no longer human, having been transformed into a fully fledged vampire; a true Bat-man. As alluded to in the above panel, Gotham has become a kind of Hell after being infested with undead vampires. Indeed, the lightning striking behind him and the backdrop of roiling purple clouds on a red sky confirms the notion that this new Bat-man is flapping through the sulfury fires of the biblical Inferno. The Crusader’s once sleek cape is now a mass of writhing tendrils that stretch out further than would seem possible. His anatomy is completely obscured by his now monstrous cape and the only bodily features that are visible are a pair of hideous, leathery bat wings. To call this image gothic would be to do it disservice. The art stretches the reader’s perception of reality to its absolute limit, encroaching into a kind of “hyper-gothic” style that distorts physicality in order to create horror.

This hyper-gothic image is yet again contrasted by the hero’s actions, however. Though his figure is now that of a demon more than a mortal man, Bruce maintains his sanity and, crucially, his morality, setting him apart from the corrupted masses of undead that he fights. The World’s Greatest Detective alone retains the last vestiges of his humanity in order to save his shadowy city from the overwhelming evil that lurks within it. This element alone prevents the story from entering into the realm of complete fantasy in the third act, maintaining the balance that sets this story apart from other more fantastical interpretations.

[queer-crusader]

For the end of the year ask game!!!

TV show of the year?

Favorite book you read this year?

I was gonna say Interview With The Vampire but then I realised time is my nemesis and that was 2022. Rip. In which case it is now Doctor Who, of which the specials have been a blast and the new season is looking incredibly promising!! (Also special tiny shout-out to Darby & Joan, which really isn't all that great but it's very sweet. It's a sort of cop miniseries except the main titular characters are a British nurse in her fifties/maybe sixties and an Australian ex-police officer in his... Old. They're both messy and their roadtrip to find out how British lady's husband ended up dead in Australia is one of adventure. It has a lot of heart and a focus on people, and I have enjoyed watching it with my parents)

Ah yes. Books. Of which I have read many. Multiple, even. Indeed. (Listen reading actual books has been hard to get back into for some reason don't judge me) Thankfully the pretty much only fictional book I've read this year, which I'm not even halfway through, is also the most fun and promising. Gideon The Ninth by Tamsyn Muir 🥳 absolute banger, illegible 10% of the time but the vibes are so truly queer and Gideon is so fucking funny

Thank you for sending these! Feel free to send more asks!

[idolskpop]

Ok Taecyeon Wants to Show More Skin in His Next Drama Role

Ok Taecyeon, the multi-talented idol-actor, has revealed his wish to portray a character that would showcase his physique more than his previous roles. The 2PM member, who recently impressed viewers with his villainous performance in the hit K-Drama “Vincenzo”, shared his thoughts on his acting career and future plans in a media interview.

Ok Taecyeon’s First Solo Fan Meeting in Manila

On September 23, Ok Taecyeon held his first solo fan meeting in Manila, Philippines, where he met his loyal fans and entertained them with his music, games, and interactions. Before the main event, the star also participated in a press conference with some members of the media and selected fans. During the press conference, Ok Taecyeon talked about various topics related to his K-pop and K-Drama activities. He expressed his gratitude to his fans for their support and love, and also shared some behind-the-scenes stories from his recent projects.

(Photo : KBS Entertainment) One of the questions that caught the attention of many was about his acting career and what kind of role he wanted to play next.

Ok Taecyeon’s Dream Role: A Boxer, A Fighter, or A Swimmer

Ok Taecyeon has been active as an actor since 2010, when he debuted in the popular teen drama “Dream High”. Since then, he has taken on diverse roles in different genres, such as a ghost hunter in “Bring It On, Ghost”, a detective in “The Game: Towards Zero”, a royal inspector in “Secret Royal Inspector & Joy”, and a half-vampire in “Heartbeat”.

(Photo : KBS Drama Official) Ok Taecyeon, Won Ji An However, the role that made him gain recognition and praise from critics and viewers alike was Jang Han Seo, the young and ruthless chairman of Babel Group in “Vincenzo”. Ok Taecyeon showed his versatility and charisma as he portrayed the complex and conflicted character, who was both an antagonist and an ally to the titular anti-hero played by Song Joong Ki.

(Photo : tvN's Official Instagram) In a previous interview with Eric Nam on Daebak Show, Ok Taecyeon revealed that playing a villain was his dream role. He also said that he had to persuade his agency, JYP Entertainment, to let him take on such a role, as they wanted him to maintain a clean image.

(Photo : tvN's Official Instagram) Now that he has fulfilled his dream role, what is next for Ok Taecyeon as an actor? In the press conference in Manila, he answered this question by saying: Like what I said before, I do wanna expand my spectrum as an actor. But since I am known for my physique… He was interrupted by cheers from the audience, who apparently agreed with his statement. Ok Taecyeon is indeed known for his muscular body and handsome appearance, which he often flaunts on stage and on social media. He continued: I do want to try something that would allow me to exhibit my physique a little bit more than the characters I have previously done. Like boxer, fighter, or swimmer. He then added that he is open to any role that would challenge him and make him grow as an actor. His answer surprised some of his fans, who suggested other roles for him, such as a romantic comedy lead or a historical drama hero. One fan even shouted out a reference to the erotic movie series “50 Shades”, which made Ok Taecyeon laugh and blush. He responded: I know what you guys want. But I think it’s too early for that.

Ok Taecyeon’s Upcoming Activities

As of now, Ok Taecyeon has no confirmed drama project yet. However, he is busy with his K-pop activities as a member of 2PM. The group made their long-awaited comeback in June with their seventh full-length album “MUST”, which topped various music charts and received positive reviews from fans and critics. Ok Taecyeon is also continuing his solo fan meeting tour around Asia. After Manila, he will visit Bangkok on October 9 and Jakarta on October 16. He expressed his excitement to meet more of his fans and promised to give them unforgettable memories. While waiting for his next drama role, fans can watch some of his previous works on various streaming platforms. Some of his notable dramas are: - Vincenzo: A dark comedy-crime thriller about a Korean-Italian lawyer who returns to Korea to recover a hidden fortune from a corrupt conglomerate. - Blind: A movie thriller about a blind woman who witnesses a murder and teams up with a detective to solve the case. - Secret Royal Inspector & Joy: A historical comedy about a secret royal inspector who investigates corruption and injustice in the Joseon era. - The Game: Towards Zero: A mystery thriller about a man who can see the moment of death of anyone he looks at and a detective who tries to prevent crimes. - Bring It On, Ghost: A romantic comedy about a college student who can see ghosts and a female ghost who becomes his partner in exorcising evil spirits. - Who Are You: A mystery romance about a detective who wakes up from a coma and gains the ability to see the memories of dead people. - Dream High: A teen musical drama about a group of students who aspire to become idols at a prestigious arts school. - Cinderella’s Stepsister: A melodrama about a girl who suffers from the abuse and neglect of her stepmother and stepsister. Ok Taecyeon is one of the most versatile and talented idol-actors in the Korean entertainment industry. He has proven his skills and charisma in various fields, such as music, acting, and variety shows. He has also shown his willingness to challenge himself and explore new genres and roles. His fans are looking forward to his next drama comeback, where he hopes to show more of his physique and charm. Whether he will play a boxer, a fighter, or a swimmer, or something else entirely, he will surely deliver a memorable performance that will captivate the viewers. What do you think of Ok Taecyeon’s wish to portray a character that would showcase his physique more than his previous roles? What kind of role do you want him to play next? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below. Subscribe to IDOLS KPOP for exclusive updates and captivating content. Read the full article

[rpmemesbyarat]

I said at the end of THIS rant that I’d talk later about how all the heroes in the examples I gave had friends, and now I’m going to: If you give your protagonists a secondary cast, they have to matter. You don’t HAVE to give your protag any allies or friends, doing a “one person against it all” story is a totally valid route. But if you DO give them allies and friends, those people need to actually do something, not just be props that watch the protag do everything on their own. They don’t necessarily need to be as skilled or special as the protag. After all, being skilled and special is usually WHY the protagonist is, well, the protagonist (though that doesn’t have to be the case either, and I’d in fact like to see more stories where it’s NOT, but that’s besides the point) But that doesn’t mean that other characters can’t contribute to the story. For instance, in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” the titular Buffy is (at first anyway) the only one with any kind of enhanced abilities, and the only one who can contend with the supernatural head-on. But Willow, Xander, Giles, and later secondary characters all still are able to pitch in and move the story along in various ways, and all of them also have personalities and lives that get spotlighted. You couldn’t take away any of the gang and still have the same story, and I think that’s a good test for if your secondary characters matter enough. This doesn’t mean they all need awesome abilities or mad skills, just that they do SOMETHING that makes them a part of the story; even someone who is always causing fuckups or getting kidnapped is still technically moving the plot along by leading the other heroes into conflict (though this sort of character tends to GREATLY irritate audiences, so giving them some sort of purpose for the other characters to benefit from having them around is recommended) In fact, I’d go so far as to say that EVERY character in a work should matter in some capacity, however small. Yes, including the “protagonist vs the world” stories. Even very brief interactions with a no-name character, like a mailman or a diner waitress, can tell you SOMETHING that serves some kind of narrative purpose---how the world views/treats the character, and how they respond in kind, for instance. Let’s take the kid in Jurassic Park. Not Lex or Tim, but that kid at the beginning in THIS SCENE. This interaction fulfills MULTIPLE purposes: - The kid says what a lot of audiences might be thinking, that “dinos = birds” makes them way less scary. And Grant answers this by explaining just how damn scary these big birds actually were. - He speaks specifically about velociraptors, which end up being the most fearsome and dangerous and, alongside the T-Rex, iconic dinosaurs in the movie. He sets us up to fear them before they’re even revealed as an exhibit. - The scene he describes also foreshadows/describes the future death of Muldoon, who does indeed get killed by a raptor from the side that he doesn’t even know was there. - It establishes Grant’s distaste for kids, which is a major aspect of his character arc as he learns to protect and care for Lex and Tim. This is is his first interaction with a child onscreen, and one of his earliest moments. Contrast it with his final shot in the movie is in the helicopter with a sleeping child clutched to either side of him. He tells Ellie after this scene he doesn’t like kids, but the fact we’re SHOWN it first does so much more, while also accomplishing multiple other purposes as described. - It shows Grant’s passion and respect for the subject of dinosaurs, and his irritation when dinosaurs aren’t treated with the respect he feels is due to them, which as we know also becomes a source of contention later in the movie with live dinosaurs. - It gives him an opportunity to pull out the raptor claw. Besides foreshadowing the deadly claws of the actual raptors later, showing the claw now lets us know he has it and carries it (showing, again, his respect and passion for this subject) so that we recognize it when he throws it away later in the film. If he’d just pulled it out randomly and we’d never seen it before yet, it would be confusing. This kid is on-screen for less than two minutes. He doesn’t have a name, or a backstory, or an arc, nor does he need one, and, yes, technically you could have absolutely had the same story without him. But he’s INVALUABLE for telling you a ton about Grant in the beginning through showing rather than telling, and for setting up Grant’s character arc. That’s what I mean when I say every character should matter. They don’t all need fully fleshed out arcs, there’s not reasonably time for that, nor should they have them if it’s not relevant to the story, but they do need a purpose for being there. And, as this scene shows, you can cram a LOT of purpose into a small interaction if you’re good at it.

[booksandwords]

Guilty Pleasures by Laurell K. Hamilton

Series: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter #1 Read time: 1 Day Rating: 4/5

The quote: I had seen two sunrises in as many days. I was beginning to feel grumpy, The trick would be to decide whom to be grumpy at, and what to do about it. — Anita Blake

The Anita Blake Vampire Hunter Novels has been on the fringe of my tbr for a long time, recently it reappeared on my social media and my local library got new copies so here we are. I'm glad I finally read it I like Anita, I like Laurell K. Hamilton's writing style and the plot of Guilty Pleasures while a tad cliche is enjoyable. The ending was wonderful it ramps up quickly and hit the right emotional beats. There are some story arcs left up in the air for later exploration and it doesn't handhold. The world, Anita's work and eccentricities are explained to you only as is needed. It is written with what feels like knowledge expectation, these feel like brief reminders. What that means is that eventually, this doesn't feel like a first book, it can feel more like a second or third in its style. I do wonder if this means the Anita Blake Novels could be read out of order with some ease, at least up to a point.

I couldn't help comparing Anita Blake to another leading lady in a paranormal series, Mercy Thompson. I don't really know why it came to me but it did. There really aren't a lot of similarities between the two worlds aside from the legality and known nature of the supernatural. But Anita and Mercy share strong feministic traits and are slightly unusual worlds. Anita a "animator, vampire slayer and good friend" (Ronnie's words; p. 111), Mercy as a werecoyte (more or less) and mechanic. Hamilton and Briggs share a sense of humour too, which means their women do. Anita is a character who has developed she is happy to has to say that her previous opinions were flawed, for the most part, is accepting of the opinions of others. When she snaps she snaps but it's informed by her history with various issues. Look I like Anita. I like strong and capable women, it's why I appreciate this genre so much.

I quite like the support cast of Guilty Pleasures. Phillip is an unexpectedly sweet character. We meet him while he's working at the titular Guilty Pleasures, a vampire strip club. He knows his assets, knows how to work them. His role as the professional victim and vampire junkie is well suited to the verse. But it's everything around that that was unexpected and endearing. Initially, at least he appeals to Anita's maternal side as well as her as a woman. Edward is also not what he appears. He's a hitman, his personality is primarily cold and he enjoys his job. Edward is something else to Anita an ally of a form, a friend maybe. I'm not sure what entirely is going on there. Ronnie is a wonderful fiend. That ride or die. I know you can't answer my questions but I'm still going to be there armed to guard your back. And I'll go into all those places that you can't to get information because people don't like what you are or your politics. Zachary is an interesting character to me I picked a bit about him from the time we started spending time with him. But he is a well-written character. If he and Rafael are a sign of things to come then this is should be a very good series indeed.

Some annotated comments

It seemed like I had parked my car days ago. My watch said hours. It was a little like jet lag, but instead of crossing time zones, you crossed events. So many traumatic events and your time sense screws up. Too much happening in too short a space of time. — I love this quote. The idea of doing so much that exhausts you even if it hasn't been as long as it feels like it should have been. (p. 97)

I wasn't questioning my motives tonight, so I was still a vampire slayer, still the name they had given me. I was The Executioner. — Just a beautiful line in a way. It is a full stop on an arc. It's no the first time we see The Executioner name but it's really the first time Anita owns it. (p. 98)

If you keep the gun in your purse, you get killed, because no woman can find anything in her purse in under twelve minutes. It is the rule. — As a woman who uses moderately sized bags just yes. Bags are designed for items to be carried not found. (p. 112)

They were preying on one of the most basic fears of man — death. Everyone fears death. People who don't believe in God have a hard time with death being it. Die and you cease to exist. Poof. — This is about the Church of Eternal Life. A vampire church turning people as they ask for it, as part of their conversion to the religion. It does feel a bit preachy as a statement but people do have a problem with death. Western cultures do struggle and have a stigma against death. (p. 230)

I bet she thought I'd be scared absolutely shitless of her, She was right on that. But I spend most of my waking hours confronting and destroying things that I fear. A thousand-year-old master vampire was a tall order, but a girl's got to have a goal. — In all fairness, I would be too. Nikolaos is terrifying. I do appreciate Anita's self-talk though. (p. 269)

Graves are for the living, not the dead. It gives us something to concentrate on instead of the fact that our loved one is rotting in the ground. The dead don't care about pretty flowers and carved marble statues.— My recent area of study was memorialisation, graves and graveyards. I really wish I had found this earlier. It is a brilliant quote and accurate. (p. 327)

Okay, some things that a reader does need to know. The primary villain is the Master, Nikolaos. She is a villain in the mould of Interview With A Vampire's Claudia, she's a child. A villainous, terrifying child. "Her voice was sweet as ever. The child bride incarnate. Bitch." What is it about little girl vampires and demons that are so extra? So creepy? I'm going on the porcelain doll theory, they look like porcelain dolls. They just feel wrong (I say this as someone who had porcelain dolls in her room for years as a child). There is some minor preaching. It is done in the framing of lore. Anita is a practising Episcopalian because her faith is part of her safety. "Unfortunately, the cross had to be blessed and backed up by faith. An atheist waving a cross at a vampire was a truly pitiful sight." (p. 15). Hamilton herself is likely a denomination of Catholicism. Religious symbolism is fairly common, the usual for vampire lore. That said throughout the book the only time Anita step place in a church it is a Vampire church, not hers. If this kind of plain preaching bothers prospective readers then this is definitely not for you. There are character deaths, torture and murder. Some of it definitely hits harder than others but it's all there.

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

A Writer’s Guide to Viewpoints

Most of us know that there are three major viewpoints from which stories are told:

First Person -- “I tell my own story with the pronoun ‘I’ because I’m just so damn awesome.”

Second Person -- “You are a character in this story, and you can’t do anything about it.  If it makes you uncomfortable, tough shit.”

Third Person -- “He muttered himself and pulled the blankets over his head, wishing this asshole would stop narrating his life.”

Those are the three viewpoints, and that’s all there is to it.  Just pick your favorite, and you’re ready to go.  Right?

Well.  Not exactly.  

You see, my fellow scribblers, there are actually multiple sub categories of each viewpoint -- beyond even the “Third Person Omniscient” or “Third Person Subjective.”

To be specific:

First Person:

First Person Informant

First Person Reminiscent

Unreliable

Second Person:

Reader as Character

I Substitute

Third Person:

Objective 

Limited 

Multiple Selective Omniscience 

Omniscient

This might seem overwhelming, but fear not!  Each perspective is fairly easy to break down, and ultimately, apply to your own work and understanding of literature.  This post will elucidate each.

So let’s take charge of our narratives and delve in, like the active protagonists we are.

What is the First Person?  

I’m sure we all know this, but a First Person narrator tells their story from the pronoun I (or sometimes we, though this is quite rare.)

The different factions of First Person narration are somewhat under-discussed -- certainly not as widely known as the Third Person Omniscient versus Objective viewpoints -- but, as these examples prove, they do exist.

As you read, you’ll likely think back to your favorite narrators, and realize that not all First Person viewpoints were created equal.

The First Person Informant:

“I’m telling it like it is.  As it’s happening.  I’m living in the moment, and watching it unfold with you.  Look at us, charging blindly into the future together.  Isn’t it exciting?”

This dude conveys the events as they transpire, or appear to transpire, in the present.  There’s no “once upon a time” for him.  Merely the unfurling now.

Examples:

“Vampires in the Lemon Grove,” by Karen Russel

“In every season you can find me sitting at my bench, watching them fall.  Only one or two lemons tumble from the branches each hour, but I’ve been sitting here so long their falls seem continuous, close as raindrops.  My wife has no patience for this sort of meditation.  “Jesus Christ, Clyde,” she says, “You need a hobby.” 

Russel’s narrator – a world-weary vamp navigating the tribulations of eternal love and insatiable bloodlust in an Italian lemon grove – is an excellent example of a first-person informant.  He isn’t telling us about the lemon grove as it was, but as it is.  The lemons fall before his eyes as they fall before ours.  We are in this lemon grove together.

“Natural Selection,” by Jacob M. Appel

“The stolen baboon.  On the evening news, she’s an irrelevancy -- a simian mug shot tucked between National Hairball Awareness Day and an interview with the Boston Strangler’s Children.  Six hours later, she’s lounger on the sofa in our living room, smacking together her protruded lips, scratching her back on the damask.  Suburban Tampa is apparently far more fun than a lab cage in Atlanta.”

Here, we are transported directly into a father’s dilemma after his well-meaning yet painfully naive and somewhat spoiled daughter “liberates” a mistreated lab baboon -- a decision that could effectively ruin both of their lives.  The informant perspective amplifies the reader’s suspense, as we are in the moment with him and can only discover the outcome by watching events unfold (or skipping pages.)

“What I Do All Day,” by Hellen Ellis

“Inspired by Beyonce, I stallion-walk to the toaster.  I show my husband where a burnt spot looks like the island where we honeymooned, kiss him good-bye, and tell him what time to be home for our party.”

This one is just great.  We are transported into the perspective of a seemingly chipper, affluent housewife as she quietly goes insane from suffocating domesticity and the horror of a meaningless life.  And, emphasized by the informant perspective, we feel all of this with her!  It is characteristically brilliant and hilarious satire from Ellis’s brilliant and hilarious collection, American Housewife.

The First Person Reminiscent:

“It was on a dark and rainy night when I decided to tell this story.  I tell it as I remember it, after these events have transpired.  Let’s look back on them together.”

In this perspective, the narrator is looking back on events after they have happened.  He isn’t describing these events as they unfold;  he is telling a story.

Examples:

Life of Pi, by Yann Martel

There are actually two reminiscent narrators here.  The titular Pi, and the author who has elected to tell his story.  

“This book was born as I was hungry.  Let me explain.  In the spring of 1996, my second book, a novel, came out in Canada.  It didn’t fair well.  Reviewers were puzzled, or damned it with faint praise.  Then readers ignored it.  Despite my best efforts at plating the clown or the trapeze artist, the media circus made no difference.  The book did not move.  Books lined the shelves of bookstores like kids standing in a row to play baseball or soccer, and mine was the gangly, unathletic kid that no one wanted on their team.  It vanished quickly or quietly.”

So opens this immensely clever novel, which, in all regards, blurs the lines between allegory and reality.  However, most of it is narrated by the eponymous Pi, who becomes this author’s muse.

“I've never forgotten him. Dare I say I miss him? I do. I miss him. I still see him in my dreams. They are nightmares mostly, but nightmares tinged with love. Such is the strangeness of the human heart. I still cannot understand how he could abandon me so unceremoniously, without any sort of goodbye, without looking back even once. The pain is like an axe that chops my heart.”

Here we have Pi, reflecting on his spiritual and allegorical companion, Richard Parker (an oddly named tiger whom we come to love as much as Pi does.)  Pi’s retrospective narration allows for the clear-sighted view of his complex feelings that can only come with time and distance.  Thus, this reminiscent narration enhances the power of the narrative.

The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger

“If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.”

My feelings towards J.D. Salinger are somewhat negative (I recommend you watch the documentary Salinger to figure out why) but this book is timeless for a reason.  This opening line offers up countless questions that leave you thinking long after you turn the final page.  Moreover, it impeccably establishes the voice that will carry us throughout its meandering narrative.  Catcher in the Rye would not be the same without its reminiscent narration, and this line establishes that.

Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, an initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.”

This opening line makes me somewhat sick to read, because, of course, it is the floral soliloquy a frothing, rabid pedophile, about a “four feet ten” twelve-year-old girl.  But, as a piece of art, it is still remarkably done -- the perspective of a monster, putting himself on trial before an imaginary jury, and telling a story that is invariably partial towards his warped perspective.  Once again, the retrospective is integral to this grotesquely fascinating narrative.

The Unreliable Narrator:

“I am the King of the Lizard People, and no one will acknowledge it but me.  Don’t believe me?  Too bad.  I’m the one telling this story, and you have no choice but to believe my dubious rendition of these events.”

It’s widely debated as to whether this should be its own category.  Why?  Because all first person narrators are inherently unreliable.  We just have little choice but to take their information as it’s denoted to us.  Oftentimes, they win our trust;  but other times, it is their unabashed unreliability that makes the narrative memorable.

Don’t believe me?  All of the past three examples were unreliable narrators.  And I examine several more in my post on types of unreliable narrators here.

In the meantime, let’s move on to the oft-underrated Second Person.  

What is the Second Person?

This highly controversial viewpoint uses the pronoun “you.”  Most people associate this perspective with amateur fanfiction or pretentious purple prose, but let me tell you:  when this perspective works, it is stellar.  And I’ll explain why.

The Reader as a Character

“You’re walking down the street, and you realize the narrator is talking about you.  Maybe you like this.  Maybe you don’t.  The narrator doesn’t care.  The narrator is a cruel and indifferent god.  You put in your headphones to tune the narrator out.  The narrator finds this incredibly rude.  You can’t escape me, motherfucker.” 

This is what most people think about when they picture a Second Person Narrative.  Okay, not this specifically -- being frank, most people probably think about reader-insert fanfiction (which can be amazing as well.)  This viewpoint asks the reader to imagine themselves as a character -- usually the main character -- in the narrative.

Examples:

“This is a Story About You,” from Welcome to Night Vale, by Joseph Fink and Jeffrey Craner

“‘This is a story about you,’ said the man on the radio. And you were pleased, because you always wanted to hear about yourself on the radio.”

Even if you’re unfamiliar to this podcast, I highly recommend you listen to this episode (or read the transcript) immediately.  It shows you virtually everything reader-insert can be, and what a remarkable effect it can have.  It virtually envelops you in this perspective, this town, and this surrealistic reality. 

“The Young Immortal,” by Brooksie C. Fontaine (me!)

“When it started, it was the February fourteenth of 1945.  An American plane was hit in the engine by Japanese fire, fell from the slate gray sky like a shooting star.  Its blazing red reflection ignited the swell of colorless water.  And then it was gone, taking with it all the color in the world.

In that plane was my fellow air force pilot.  The love of my life.

You.

I know what you’re thinking:  you weren’t alive in ‘45, and you weren’t a man.  Well, I’m gonna tell you you’re wrong on both counts.  You’ve been a man before.  You’ll be one again.  It doesn’t matter to me, so long as it’s you.”

This one is unique, because it includes both the First Person Reminiscent (the eponymous immortal narrator) and the Second Person Reader as Character.  The reader is in the perspective of the narrator’s oft-reincarnated love interest, and so I decided to include it as an example. 

The “I” Substitute

“You were fifteen when you realized you could only get hard if you were thinking about carnivorous dinosaurs.  Not me.  You.  This has absolutely nothing to do with me, and I resent the insinuation that it does.  This is your problem, dino-fucker.  This is your story.  This is about you.” 

This one’s interesting.  The narrator is in denial, and using the second-person to distance themselves from the events of the story.  It is a substitute for the First Person, and a thinly-veiled one at that.

Examples:  

“Freaks,” by Alden Jones

“From the cluster of mourners, Kristen’s mother had emerged; she strode towards you.  Her straight brown hair was limp and flyaway.  She wore the expression of an animal who wanted to devour you.  Her eyes were cushioned by the bluish puffed skin beneath them, but they flashed hot with fury.

‘You,’ she said.  She pointed her finger.  She began to gallop.  ‘You think you see something no one else sees?’  she called.  Mourners turned to watch her progress towards you.  Heather took a step away.

You dangled the camera by your side.  You froze.  You did nothing but watch the thing happen.

‘YOU,’ the mother said, charging.  ‘YOU.  YOU.’”

These are actually the concluding lines of this haunting story from Jones’s collection, Unaccompanied Minors.  I had the pleasure of hearing her read this story for my graduate program;  in the Q&A afterwards, she explained how the narrative, and the characters’ mentality throughout the story, depended on the Second Person.  “It was a different story without it,” she said.  

“The Other Person,” by Nathan Leslie

“You write the story in the second person.  It’s your go-to point of view now.  You like it’s edge, its resonance of irony, even if your story lacks said irony (it adds irony).  You makes anything possible.  You is the new me.” 

This one is simultaneously hilarious, sad, and strangely invigorating.  It encapsulates the deep trenches of insecurity that come with being an author, and whittles them into sharp, sly satire.  The “I” Substitute doesn’t just emphasize the story;  it is the story.  This story would not exist without it.

Now that I’ve successfully changed your mind about the Second Person (and if you still don’t agree with me, you’re wrong), let’s move on to the ever-popular yet difficult-to-master Third Person. 

What is the Third Person? 

You know what the third person is, but I’ll suspend my disbelief and pretend you don’t.  It uses the pronouns he, she, or they, but the perspective can be virtually anywhere.  Which makes the Third Person such an interesting thing to explore.

Third Person Objective

“She slaps him.  He touches the red mark her ring left behind, and stares at her with wide eyes.”

This one is also known as The Dramatic, The Camera Lens, or The Fly on the Wall perspective.  It describes the events as we would view them, with no inside information into the thoughts or motivations of the characters.  What we see is what we get, and we have to discern the characters’ feelings based on what they say and do.

Example: 

“Meanwhile.  A Conversation,” from American Gods, by Neil Gaiman

“‘Miz Crow?’ 

‘Yes.’

‘You are Samantha Black Crow?’  

‘Yes.’

‘Do you mind if we ask you a few questions, ma’am?’

‘Are you cops?  What are you?’

‘My name is Town.  My colleague here is Mister Road.  We’re investigating the disappearance of two of our associates.’

‘What were their names?’

‘I’m sorry?’

‘Tell me their names.  I want to know what they were called.  Your associates.  Tell me their names and maybe I’ll help you.’ 

‘...Okay.  Their names were Mister Stone, and Mister Wood.  Now, can we ask you some questions?’ 

‘Do you guys just see things and pick names?  “Oh, you be Mister Sidewalk, he’s Mister Carpet, say hello to Mister Airplane?”’”

In this unique and hilarious chapter, we witness an exchange between (bisexual icon) Samantha Black Crow and a minor villain who has been assigned to track down the protagonist.  We aren’t privy to either of the characters’ emotions or thoughts, or even their actions, yet we can discern all of it from dialogue alone.

Third Person Limited 

“She’s had enough of his bullshit.  Something in her snaps, and her open palm collides -- hard -- with the side of his stupid, stupid face.  He touches the red mark she left behind, staring at her like he can’t believe she actually did that.  Good.  Maybe that’ll teach him to stop being such an pugnacious fuckwad.” 

This one is tethered to a specific character, whose thoughts and feelings we are aware of.  However, we are not inside the mind of the character in the same manner as a First Person narrator.

Examples: 

American Gods, by Neil Gaiman

“Shadow had done three years in prison.  He was big enough, and looked don’t-fuck-with-me enough that his biggest problem was killing time.  So he kept himself in shape, and taught himself coin tricks, and thought a lot about how much he loved his wife.”

Though American Gods features an impressive diversity of perspectives, we spend most of the book tethered to the lovable ex-con Shadow Moon.  We are never trapped inside his head, as we would be if the story were First Person, but we know what he is thinking and feeling.  He is our viewpoint character.

The Giver, by Lois Lowry 

“It was almost December, and Jonas was beginning to be frightened.  No.  Wrong word, Jonas thought.  Frightened meant that deep, sickening feeling of something terrible about to happen.  Frightened was the way he had felt a year ago when an unidentified aircraft had overflown the community twice.  He had seen it both times.  Squinting toward the sky, he had seen the sleek jet, almost a blur at its high speed, go past, and then a second later heard the blast of sound that followed.  Then one more time, a moment later, from the opposite direction, the same plane.”

Lois Lowry’s timeless, haunting dystopia is introduced through the guileless eyes of twelve-year-old Jonas.  We are aloud to see the world from his perspective, but the distance of Third Person Limited allows us to feel the horror of each situation with more clarity.  Lowry demonstrates how to utilize POV to one’s advantage, similar to how Neil Gaiman uses Third Person Limited to enhance the horror of his masterful modern fairy tale Coraline.

Multiple Selective Omniscience 

“She decides she’s had enough of his bullshit, and slaps him.  Hard.  Hard enough that her ring leaves a red welt on his cheek.

He feels his eyes go wide, and he touches the side of his face.  He keeps waiting for her to apologize, but her eyes are narrowed and her lips are pursed.  She doesn’t look sorry.”

The viewpoint shifts between characters.  It can be extremely effective, as long as we are aware of when the proverbial camera changes angles.

Examples: 

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty Smith

First of all:  if you haven’t read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, do it.  Do it right now.  It is the piece of classic literature I recommend to everyone who hates classic literature, because it’s devoid of all of the traits that make people hate classic literature to begin with.  It has oodles of complex, idiosyncratic, autonomous, and tough-as-hell female characters, bad language, and frank discussions of sexuality, poverty, and classism.  Read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn.  

Anyway.  Though its protagonist is Francie Nolan, who, like the eponymous tree, perseveres and thrives against insurmountable odds, the viewpoint bounces around an immense deal, between Francie’s family and neighbors to the most minor side-characters.  Because of this, many people believe that the true protagonist is Brooklyn itself, and the people in it. 

The Twelve Tribes of Hattie, by Ayana Mathis 

This is a captivating, gut-wrenching book, similar to A Tree Grows in Brooklyn in its highly effective depiction of poverty.  The book follows the children of Hattie Shepherd, a formerly young and optimistic mother, who lost her firstborn twins to an easily preventable disease in the aftermath of the Great Migration.  The viewpoint changes with each chapter, showing the perspectives of each of her children and how they are haunted by this loss.

The Vacationers, by Emma Straub 

A far cry from its poverty-focused predecessors, this book focuses on the problems of the affluent and privileged.  It is, however, a deeply interesting read, as it swerves between the perspectives of the titular vacationers after a patriarch’s fore into adultery threatens his family and marriage.

Omniscient 

“She decides she’s had enough of his bullshit, and to his surprise, she slaps him.  Hard enough that he feels her ring leave a red welt on his flesh.

He touches his cheek in shock, and stares at her, awaiting an apology.  But she isn’t sorry.  All she feels is satisfaction.” 

Just what it sounds like.  The character is an all-knowing entity.  Or Lemony Snicket.  Perhaps both. 

Examples:  

Everything I Never Told You, by Celeste Ng

“Lydia is dead.  But they don’t know this yet.”

Celeste Ng’s beautiful and haunting novel begins with the wordless affirmation of the narration’s omniscience.  The narrative knows things the characters don’t, though it doesn’t always choose to relay its secrets.  In this case, it doesn’t answer the mystery of Lydia’s death until the very end -- an answer that the characters themselves will never discover.

The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien

“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.  Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat:  it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.”

Tolkien’s book shows us how useful omniscience is for worldbuilding.  He doesn’t need to cleverly sneak this exposition into Bilbo’s dialogue;  he can tell it to us outright, and immediately draw us into this world while doing so. 

Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

“Current theories on the creation of the Universe state that, if it was created at all and didn’t just start, as it were, unofficially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand years ago.  By that same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old.  

These dates are incorrect.” 

This delightfully Pratchett-esque opening immediately puts us into a -- literally -- godlike perspective, in which we are given insider information about the start of the universe.  It immediately establishes the tone of this amazing novel:  one in which life and creation are too important to be taken seriously.  And for this purpose, this uniquely omniscient perspective is the only way to go. 

That’s all I’ve got for now, my fellow scribblers!  As you contemplate perspective, just think about how different the same events would look from a two disparate viewpoints.  Even if two people are sharing a moment, that moment is different for both of them.

The perspective isn’t something you tack on to your story.  Oftentimes, it defines your story.  So choose carefully, and don’t be afraid to explore!

Happy writing, everybody!  <3

[aion-rsa]

Did the Venom 2 Trailer Confirm That the Movie Is Not in the MCU?

https://ift.tt/3ewxzr0

The just-released debut trailer for sequel Venom: Let There Be Carnage will obviously leave fans fawning over the intense unveiling of Marvel Comics’ serial killer crimson symbiote himself, Carnage. However, it also happened to tease imagery that could end up becoming a consequential Easter egg for the canonical place of the upcoming film—and its 2018 predecessor—in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and thusly, any presumed connection it might have had to Spider-Man.

The Venom: Let There Be Carnage trailer shows a police detective named Mulligan, played by Stephen Graham (Greyhound, Line of Duty), reading a paper that should be instantly recognizable even to those with only casual knowledge of Spider-Man lore: The Daily Bugle, the New York rag of Spider-Man-shading publisher J. Jonah Jameson, who unwittingly employs Spider-Man himself, Peter Parker. While a knee-jerk reaction might declare this image the long-awaited proof of Venom‘s Spider-Man connection, it actually proves the opposite, which might be a sobering revelation for MCU purists. Indeed, we need not speculate on this notion, since director Andy Serkis confirms to IGN that this Venom, or, at least Venom: Let There Be Carnage, is not operating in the MCU.

“We’re treating this very much as his own world. Venom’s story is his own world,” reveals Serkis. “There are nods and little moments just like this—newspaper the Daily Bugle—but on the whole, he’s unaware, they’re unaware at this point of other characters like Spider-Man. So, that’s the way we’ve chosen to play this particular episode of the movie.”

Indeed, Mulligan’s copy of the Daily Bugle—a prop that hints his own adversarial connection to Woody Harrelson’s eventual red symbiote recipient, incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady—is a traditional print newspaper, which immediately differentiates it from the MCU’s version. Of course, the Bugle’s surprise introduction in the MCU, seen in the post-credits scene of 2019’s Spider-Man: Far from Home, depicted it as a “controversial news website,” an InfoWars-esque, conspiracy-coveting website brandishing an old-fashioned .net domain, centered on the video rantings of a new, flattop-deprived version of Jameson, played by his portrayer in director Sam Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy, J.K. Simmons. Here, we saw Jameson run Mysterio’s posthumously-hoaxed story accusing Spider-Man of his murder, and also reveal his identity as Peter Parker. While one could have theorized that momentum from that scoop could have quickly propelled “TheDailyBugle.net” to transform into a thriving print paper, Serkis effectively nipped that notion in the bud.  

Sony Pictures

The canon clarification mercifully eliminates the overall ambiguity in which the Venom franchise has been mired. The Sony Pictures-hailing films were seen as vexing when it came to the MCU’s canonical coherence for numerous reasons, notably because they kicked off a cold introduction to the eponymous A-list Spider-Man villain-turned-antihero with the 2018 Tom Hardy-starring solo film, which was set in San Francisco; nearly 3,000 miles from NYC’s never-mentioned Spider-Man. It was an approach that was seen by comic purists as egregious, since it ignored Venom’s traditional origin story in Marvel lore—and even Topher Grace’s divisive Spider-Man 3 version—was directly tied to Spidey, since he started out as Eddie Brock, a journalist for rival paper The Daily Globe, whose star-making scoop on the identity of psycopathic vigilante the Sin Eater was debunked by Spider-Man’s apprehension of the character, resulting in a downward spiral for his life and career that made him the perfect new host for the equally-bitter alien symbiote that Spidey rejected.

Read more

Movies

Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man: No Way Home Denial Game is Strong

By Joseph Baxter

Comics

When Spider-Man Becomes Venom

By Gavin Jasper

That, of course, is a far, Wall-Crawler-deprived, cry from the origin story established for Tom Hardy’s Eddie Brock in the 2018 side-franchise-launcher. Therefore, not having to worry about its lack of comic verisimilitude, the Venom franchise has been effectively relieved of the weight from its ambiguous canonical status, which was always the elephant in the room, especially as Tom Holland’s version of the Wall-Crawler continued to bask in MCU-adherent glory due to Sony’s historic deal with Marvel Studios. Thus, Venom is now proof positive that the studio was left to its own devices on the Spider-Man movie front.

However, that is not to say that Sony’s non-Spider-Man property spinoffs will be completely devoid of MCU connections. Lest we forget, the trailer for the studio’s next cold-intro villain spinoff, the Jared Leto-headlined living vampire movie, Morbius, directed by Daniel Espinosa, made a shot across the MCU bow by showing the titular character walk by a poster of Spider-Man, which was defaced by a graffito of “murderer,” a direct reference to the aforementioned events of Far from Home. Moreover, Serkis’s MCU-debunking comments seemed carefully constructed, especially when he limited his non-MCU approach to “this particular episode of the movie,” which leaves room for an eventual MCU retcon. He also teases of more prospective Spider-Man Easter eggs in the film, “Well, we’ll wait and see. We’ll see what little things you can pick out of it.” Indeed, if Sony’s long-mooted plans for a Sinister Six Spider-Man villain team-up ever comes to fruition, it will need to establish some kind of MCU, Spider-Man-related foothold in order to justify its existence.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Venom: Let There Be Carnage is headed to theaters on Friday, September 24.

The post Did the Venom 2 Trailer Confirm That the Movie Is Not in the MCU? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2R7J7YQ

[smokeybrandreviews]

Smokey brand Select: Biohazrd

With the advent of Peninsula’s release, the sequel of Train to Busan, i wanted to take some time and spotlight a few of my favorites Zombie films. My love for Zombie flicks stems more from the circumstances around the outbreak, rather than the monster effects and whatnot, themselves. Don’t get me wrong, the make-up in these things are almost always spectacular, but, for me, the existentialism is where the true horror of these films truly lie. I like the exploration of humanity and lack thereof in such dire situations. That whole man/monster motif. I am a sucker for those tropes and the study of human nature. For me, those make the best kinds films, that mirror to ourselves, and you get a ton of that in zombie flicks. Now, admittedly, i have seen a ton of these things and it was hard to whittle it down to just ten selections so this is another one of those wonky lists. Look, man, i like movies and this is my list so I'll do what i want!

10b. Overlord

Overlord is an interesting case. It started out as a spec script, then got made as part of the Cloverfield cinematic universe, but dropped that aspect after Cloverfield Paradox sh*t the bed. I think that was for the best because this movie is f*cking insane. It has nothing to do with Cloverfield and everything to do with Resident Evil and Wolfenstein. Indeed, this is everything a Wolfenstein adaption should be. Nazis and zombies and Nazi zombie super-soldiers - oh my! In all seriousness, this movie is one of the most violent, excessive, gory, cinematic pleasures i have ever experienced. Overlord knows exactly what it is and executes that vision with such fervent, bloody, sloppy, enthusiasm, you can’t help but have a great time.

10a. The Crazies

I saw the original version of this film when i was a kid on television. I thought it was an interesting take on the zombie formula and kept it’s existence in my back pocket. The Crazies was the first time i understood that a zombie didn’t need to be undead. This film predated my experiences with first Resident Evil game so infection was a brand new trope for me. Fast forward several years, and the remake drops. It’s so much better that the original. It is a low budget film, which means they need to focus on character and atmosphere to drive the tension home, both of which are absolutely excellent. The Crazies is harrowing, stressful, and brilliant. Both versions are good but the 2010 remake, in my humble opinion, is superior in every way.

9. The Night Eats the World

I stumbled upon this by accident while perusing amazon. I remember hearing about it and thought the premise was interesting. Imagine being locked in one of those dope ass, old timey, Paris apartments during a zombie apocalypse? That hook, alone, got me to bite but the performance given by Anders Danielsen Lie as the lead, Sam, was heart-wrenching. This is a very somber take on the isolation aspect of the zombie genre. This is I Am Legend but with a sobering reality infused in every scene. It was horrifying watching Sam’s mental degradation but a powerful watch overall.

8. Life After Beth

Life after Beth is probably the only light-hearted zombie film of this list and for good reason; It’s outstanding. I debated whether to put Zombieland or Burying the Ex on this list, both excellent in their own right, but i had way more fun watching this one, than either of those. That’s high praise because the first Zombieland is one of my absolute favorite films. Life After Beth is a unique take on the whole genre and Aubrey Plaza as the titular Beth was excellent. I would say it’s about as good as Zombieland, maybe a little better. Mostly because of Plaza. I really like Aubrey Plaza.

7. Deadgirl

This is actually Deadgirl’s second time making a Select list. I figured there would eventually be crossover as some flicks encapsulate so many different genres but it’s surprising that it would be this one. Actually, i think the first was Doctor Sleep with the Stephen King and Vampire lists, but Deadgirl is worth a double-dip, too. It’s super low budget and focuses on a rather interesting take on the Zombie genre. I don’t want to get into it too much because the film, itself, is worth a watch. So go do that. Go watch Deadgirl. Right now.

6. Maggie

This was a legitimate surprise for me to see. Maggie takes place several years after the actual outbreak. Zombies are a thing. They’ve been a thing. Humanity has already crossed that bridge and the virus is just the way of life. they’re the new normal and mankind is busy as much as usual after literally the dead rising from their graves. Precautions are taken to mitigate infection but they still occur with alarming frequency. Maggie is about a father who has to come to terms with his daughter’s infection. You slowly watch this man’s despair and desperation as the inevitable eventually befalls his one and only daughter. It’s stark, and bleak, and f*cking devastating. There isn’t a happy ending to this, it just ends. I loved this movie, man, and a lot of it has to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s performance. That sh*t was amazing and easily the best role I've ever seen in. I’m a huge Terminator fan but this performance as f*cking enthralling. Abigail Breslin is awful in it, though.

5. Cargo

Before i get into it’s merits as a zombie flick, i just need to say, Cargo is an excellent film in itself. Strong ass performances. A gripping and emotional narrative. Gorgeous cinematography. Deft direction. It’s an objectively beautiful film. Now, as a zombie outing, this motherf*cker is full of the despair. The whole f*cking thing is an exercise in constant, aggressive, tragedy. Don’t misunderstand, it’s excellent, but it will leave you exhausted by the end. It wraps up nicely and with a subtle tone of hope, but you will be emotionally exhausted, for sure, by the time those credit’s roll.

4. The Girl with All the Gifts

I love this movie if only because they took the cordycep route in regards to infection. The zombie story i wrote way back when i was in high school for my creative writing course, used that as the catalyst for my zombie shenanigans. I always found that sh*t interesting, like, what would happen if that parasitic relationship jumped species. Then The Last of Us came out and i was disillusioned because the story they told, turned out to be so much better than mine. I felt that same emotion when i first saw this movie. The Girl with All the Gifts is brilliant. It’s stunningly human while being objectively horrifying. The zombies play a part, sure, but it’s the inevitable extinction of humanity that drives this film, that haunts most of these characters. It’s X-Men but with zombies instead of mutants and executed in a way that feels disturbingly real. Plus, and i cannot stress this enough, Sennia Nanua is f*cking outstanding as Melanie. To be so young and to give such an emotional performance was a true joy to witness.

3. Night of the Living Dead

The classic that kicked off an entire genre and still, even after fifty-two years, one of the best examples of it to ever be made. Night was terrifying back in the day, mostly because of different sensibilities, but the horror of that film lied with the people trapped in the house. The true monsters were never the zombies, but humanity, itself. It was watching those survivors slowly turn on one another. It was the realization that people will eat each other when pressed with such harrowing events. I used to think that wasn’t true but then Covid happened and people were trampling each other for toilet paper. That was insane. People would absolutely act this way in real life so that ending, as f*cking abrupt and terrible as it was, rang true. That sh*t is what real horror is all about.

2. The Wailing

The Wailing is the first of two South Korean zombie flicks to make this list. Indeed, the other is so excellent, it had to share the top spot but this one, for me, was an easy pick at two. I’ve seen I’ve given The Wailing multiple viewings and every time, without fail, i am pulled into that world. It’s a very methodical film, not in the sense of pacing, but more in the sense of plotting. This thing has a story to tell and you have to commit to it being told. It is a lot to ask but, like so many other films that ask this of you, the experience is incredibly rewarding. Don’t let the fact this thing is Korean language stop you from taking in a true masterpiece. It’s gorgeous, performed adeptly, and shot wonderfully. The environment and atmosphere, alone, are worth the price of admission.

1b. Train to Busan

If 1a didn’t exist, Train to Busan would be the greatest zombie flick i have ever seen. It hits that sweet spot between the human and horror elements perfectly. Setting it on a train makes for some of the most tension filled scenes ever captured of film. For those of you that prefer a more action packed, zombie outing, Busan delivers that in spades, while giving you very real, very emotional, performances to boot. You feel for these characters and the bleakness of their plight. You feel the desperation as the world collapses around them. This movie, zombie elements remove, would still be f*cking fantastic. Add the horrors of an undead apocalypse, and you have one of the most devastating accusations of humanity ever captured on film.

1a. 28 Days Later

This is the greatest zombie film i have ever seen, hands down. It does everything Train to Busan does, AND sticks that feeling of isolation so well. In a lot of ways, this is more a study on the horrors humanity can commit in the face of oblivion, and i dig that. There are shades of that aspect permeating throughout all of these films but the first third of 28 Days Later nails that bleak loneliness with such aggressiveness, it’s borderline sadistic. This was my first experience with Cillian Murphy and i was thoroughly impressed. Dude was incredible in this role so imagine my complete lack of surprise when he popped up in Batman Begins. It’s said he got Scarecrow because of Days and i can totally see that. Watching this man’s career blossom has been a real pleasure but, for me, his Jim will always be the role i think off when people say his name. If you’ve never seen 28 Days Later, rectify that at once. It’s an incredible, gorgeous film that is definitely worth a watch.

Honorable Mentions: Burying the Ex, Zombieland, Shaun of the Dead, Dead Snow, Return of the Living Dead, Re-Animator, Day of the Dead, World War Z, Contracted, REC, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Gallowalkers, Pet Sematary, Resident Evil

[blood-and-cigars]

moar phantom au.

You didn’t ask for more of my literary analysis bullshit, but tough luck that’s what you’re getting. Gotta stay on brand, after all.

Ok so Phantom at its core (for me) is about the transcendence of artistry, of the sublime, into monstrosity. It’s about an unwitting Faustian bargain; the protagonist wishes to dabble in the music of the angels and instead finds herself tangled in the obsessions of a very human madman.

However, Phantom isn’t a traditional “escape the murderer” story, (It isn’t a traditional *anything* the original, serialized novel jumps genres like nobody’s business) it’s equal parts beauty and the beast, or rather its older cousin, death and the maiden. There is no book if after the initial disillusionment there isn’t still a draw.

The protagonist (Christine) expects divinity but instead is faced with this overwhelming tragic monstrosity, and amid the devastation of that realization she discovers… she’s still kind of into it?

You can strip away the dressings of theatre and opera and still keep that main premise.

Frankly I was always disappointed with Phantom’s lack of truly supernatural elements, I think a Hellsing AU would actually fit rather nicely.

However some alterations to Alucard’s character and role in the story would be necessary because the titular character is indeed the villain.

The same can be said for Integra too. While I love Christine as a protagonist, she’s inherently the wilting ingenue archetype (her strength is a quiet sort) and Integra is… not that.

Seras would actually be a more obvious choice for the Christine stand in, however I interpret Alucard as being… more decent?? than to form that kind of selfish obsession on someone without their being underlying baggage to their relationship (as is his history with the Hellsing line).

Ironically enough I think Alucard is too scrupulous to put all his tragedies and emotional burdens at someone else’s feet.

Either way, if not music, I’m not certain what their fixation would be. Most likely some form of occult knowledge? Or perhaps successfully running the organization itself.

I wonder how Alucard could deceive Integra though. Perhaps it’s the fact that upon her ascension she realizes that a vampire has been governing the Hellsing organization from the shadows for all those years since Van Helsing died. (Which if we’re swapping out the Opera House for Hellsing, could be a thing that happened)

I don’t know, there’s a lot of ways to go about mashing Phantom and Hellsing together.

Lovecraft + Phantom of the Opera + House of Leaves+ Hellsing = I have no idea what I’m doing anymore.

Here’s some stuff I’d include in a fic:

Arthur lives until Integra is twenty, all that time he is in charge of the organization. Although he is always withdrawn, a little sickly, and white around the eyes.

The catacombs of the opera house can be the Hellsing manor subbasements. Alucard has been locked away for three long decades. The years are incomprehensible at this point, stretching out into something quite close to an eternity.

No he’s never been released from his cell since then, but the many years of silence and solitude have made him powerful in a different way.

He is part of the basements, the mansion, the organization itself. The walls breathe with him, not a soul passes the threshold without his notice. To some extent, he’s forgotten what it is to be a person, instead of simply an extension of the shadows.

Arthur is very secretive about his duties, even as his health declines and it becomes clear they must begin thinking of succession. He mutters about demons, of monsters, and hellfire.

There is a room, on the ground floor, nestled away to the side, with the best view of the gardens. No one is allowed there. This is our box five.

The drapes are tightly drawn, but from a few cracks Integra’s been able to make out a desk and old, worn journals.

Every two weeks, Walter may go in for twenty minutes exactly, to clean without disturbing anything. Only Walter, no other staff.

When Integra asked, he told her it was once Van Helsing’s study. It is where he kept all his arcane knowledge, where he wrote out his correspondences, where he was found dead one early morning. But that was decades ago.

Arthur himself never sets foot in the place. Integra wonders if it’s out of grief. He talks about his father often, with both disdain and reverence.

During the last year, Richard comes to live with them. To be with his brother, he says. To look after his niece. He’d execute his attempted coup a tad more gracefully; after all why kill your opponent when instead you can discredit her?

When she was younger, Integra caught her reflection grinning back at her. She told her father about it, asked him why the deepest recesses of the mansion drum like a beating heart.

Arthur’s smile froze on his face. After a moment he told her, in the forced cheerful tone one uses with children, that there were spirits watching over the house, watching over them.

“Like angels?” Little Integra had said.

And her father nodded indulgently, even as he called Walter in to have every mirror on the property covered.

She is not so naive, by the time Arthur dies. Even through her grief, she sees how Richard is making himself oh so comfortable at the manor. How his smile is sickly sweet, and the way he’s trying to set himself up as her “protector.”

During the viewing, Integra stares at her father’s cold, still body and it’s like the breath’s been stolen from her lungs. She does not weep, but she is empty.

She’s not sure she cares to challenge Richard’s silly games. Let him have the organization and it’s haunted legacy.

Integra dreams she is walking along a beach. Icy water laps at her ankles with each step. There’s a figure amidst the rocks, playing a violin. And when he looks up, he wears her father’s face but his eyes are unfamiliar.

“What are you doing here, little bird?”

“I’d ask you the same thing,” she said. “Who are you?“

“I’m no one.”

She does not remember the rest of that dream.

Richard laughs when Walter explains about the study to him. First when it’s presented as his dead brother’s wishes, then even more so when Walter claims a supernatural bent to the precaution.

However, Integra is the heir, and it is her house. She will not see her father’s wishes disrespected before he’s even cold in the ground— no matter how eccentric those wishes may be.

She gives the study key to Walter and instructs him to continue as before.

Integra is looking over the old ledgers, the first time she hears the voice. No that’s a lie. She’s heard it before, this is the first time she acknowledges it.

Her father had been rather free with government funding, it seems he didn’t see much of a distinction between business and pleasure. (She shudders at the thought of an audit) At least he had been meticulous about recording his expenses.

She goes through years of accounts, and very suddenly the extravagant spending stops. Somehow Walter’s modest budgeting is so much worse.

She’s brushing away silent tears when she hears it. The voice is muted and distant, hardly discernible. She decides to follow it.

Hellsing manor has always been a strange place, where shadows flicker in the periphery and invisible hands claw at the windows.

Integra knows this. She’s been taught to ignore it.

She isn’t sure what compels her— recklessness or grief or anger but she follows the voice, down two flights of stairs and closed off staff quarters, to the forgotten basement door that leads into an even deeper section of the mansion.

There’s a strange indescribable shift, as she senses a consciousness focus on her. Something old and long slumbering, shaking off layers of dust and disuse.

Her father had told her the basement was walled off, that the door was sealed. Bricked shut, never to be opened again

It stands ajar, inviting her inside.

Any other day, Integra thinks she would have turned back. But this time she trails down into the bowels of her home.

Somehow— she thinks there is a trick involved, a few passages did not lead where they should have— she reaches a room that she just knows is a perfect mirror of Van Helsing’s study, even if she never set foot in the place herself.

On some level she knows it probably isn’t real. But she’s determined to figure out what this thing is that slumbers beneath the manor. She’ll indulge these games to see what’s behind it all.

There is someone waiting for her. Maybe something. It’s just a silhouette, with ever shifting edges. Blurred movements, darkness barely given form.

“What are you?” she asks this time. And she knows somehow, this is the man from the dream. This is the voice she’s heard from the shadows.

He doesn’t respond. Just looks at her. When she nears him he seems to reform. To take shape into something more resembling a person. But she realizes she can’t make out a face. Any face at all.