'Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter' - Premise sounds nuts, but friend raved about the book. Is it good?

[astro]

Just wondering if anyone read it, and what they thought.

[Max Torque]

I read the book and quite enjoyed it. Hope you're not a history stickler, because even apart from the whole vampire thing, a number of historical liberties are taken.

I hope the film measures up favorably against Calvin Coolidge: Mummy Slayer.

[Eve]

Is it better than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? That was a good one-joke the author ran into the ground. Would have made a funny magazine piece, but the writer was not deft enough to make it into a whole book.

[CalMeacham]

I my persona as Captain Pedant, it would bother me that most of the Tropes we associate with vampuires didn't exist in Abe Lincoln's time. Bram Stoker was responsible for a lot of them, and the movies for others. In fact, there were a lot of former "truths" about vampires that have pretty much disappeared today. But we shouldn't expect:


1.) Vampires being unseen in mirrors

2.) Vampires having to sleepp in "their native earth"

3.) Vampires dissolving in sunlight

4.) Vampires vulnerable to holy water

5.) Vampires being repelled by garlic

6.) Vampires capable of super-speed

7.) Vampires with fangs



Whsat would we expect of period-correct vampires?

1.) Sleep in grave all day

2.) Creatures of the night

3.) Can be dispatched with a stake through the heart (and by other methods)

4.) Great Physical Strength

5.) Can pass as human


Those last two aren't "traditional" vampire characteristcs, but had been since Polidori's story "The Vampire" and its adaptations.




I'll betcha we see lots of vampires that move really fast and dissolve under sunlight.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by astro

Just wondering if anyone read it, and what they thought.

Read it and loved it. It was a "serious" history- it never seemed like it was tongue in cheek, and it pulled it off. I felt like I was reading a credible history.

Enjoyed it very much.

[wolfman]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

3.) Can be dispatched with a stake through the heart (and by other methods)

The dispatching thing isn't that traditional either is it? I thought was original stake thing was just to physically nail them into their coffin, so even if they do "wake up" they can't get out and do anything.

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

I my persona as Captain Pedant, it would bother me that most of the Tropes we associate with vampuires didn't exist in Abe Lincoln's time. Bram Stoker was responsible for a lot of them, and the movies for others. In fact, there were a lot of former "truths" about vampires that have pretty much disappeared today. But we shouldn't expect:


1.) Vampires being unseen in mirrors

2.) Vampires having to sleepp in "their native earth"

3.) Vampires dissolving in sunlight

4.) Vampires vulnerable to holy water

5.) Vampires being repelled by garlic

6.) Vampires capable of super-speed

7.) Vampires with fangs



Whsat would we expect of period-correct vampires?

1.) Sleep in grave all day

2.) Creatures of the night

3.) Can be dispatched with a stake through the heart (and by other methods)

4.) Great Physical Strength

5.) Can pass as human


Those last two aren't "traditional" vampire characteristcs, but had been since Polidori's story "The Vampire" and its adaptations.




I'll betcha we see lots of vampires that move really fast and dissolve under sunlight.

There's no such thing as a period-correct vampire. They're fiction, a correct vampire is whatever the author wants it to be. Would you be upset if there was a prehistoric story that included vampires because they hadn't been invented yet at that time period in real life?

[yellowval]

Originally Posted by Eve

Is it better than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? That was a good one-joke the author ran into the ground. Would have made a funny magazine piece, but the writer was not deft enough to make it into a whole book.

I thought it was a million times better than P&P&Zombies, which I hated. I went into Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter expecting absolutely nothing and ended up loving it, much to my surprise. I think the difference is that I know P&P so well, and it was jarring and annoying to have zombies (and ninjas, bleh) thrown in after the joke wore off. I think Abe Lincoln was done much more seamlessly and it was really a fun read.

[Tully Mars]

I read it on vacation and I found it to be a good "beach book". The writing is less than stellar in some spots. But, the author tells a story fairly well. I would recommend it. Just don't set your expectations too high.

[CalMeacham]

Originally Posted by wolfman

The dispatching thing isn't that traditional either is it? I thought was original stake thing was just to physically nail them into their coffin, so even if they do "wake up" they can't get out and do anything.

Depends on who you talk to. But Varney the Vampire used the direct stake-through-the-heart, and so did the later Carmilla. There were other methods of staking, but using a simple wooden stake was an old and attested method.

There's no such thing as a period-correct vampire. They're fiction, a correct vampire is whatever the author wants it to be. Would you be upset if there was a prehistoric story that included vampires because they hadn't been invented yet at that time period in real life?

Anyone can write any kind of fiction they want. My point is simply that, at the time the film is nominally set, vampires didn't have most of the features we associate with them. Abe Lincoln -- the real one -- would almost certainly be familiar with the idea of vampires. They'd been prominent in pop Western culture for over half a century by the time he wa elected. But his image of them wouldn't have been what ours is.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Depends on who you talk to. But Varney the Vampire used the direct stake-through-the-heart, and so did the later Carmilla. There were other methods of staking, but using a simple wooden stake was an old and attested method.






Anyone can write any kind of fiction they want. My point is simply that, at the time the film is nominally set, vampires didn't have most of the features we associate with them. Abe Lincoln -- the real one -- would almost certainly be familiar with the idea of vampires. They'd been prominent in pop Western culture for over half a century by the time he wa elected. But his image of them wouldn't have been what ours is.

I don't follow, his image of them would be what he really encountered, given the premise of the book, or are you presuming Lincoln was writing a fictional diary and therefore would be confined most likely to the vampire tropes of his era?

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Anyone can write any kind of fiction they want. My point is simply that, at the time the film is nominally set, vampires didn't have most of the features we associate with them. Abe Lincoln -- the real one -- would almost certainly be familiar with the idea of vampires. They'd been prominent in pop Western culture for over half a century by the time he wa elected. But his image of them wouldn't have been what ours is.

So seeing as Robert Louis Stevenson invented the modern concept of the treasure-hunting pirate, any pirate story using his tropes set before Treasure Island was published is inaccurate?

Or how about The Name of the Rose? That hack Umberto Eco wrote a Sherlock Holmsian detective story set literally centuries before Conan Doyle was born!

[CalMeacham]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

I don't follow, his image of them would be what he really encountered, given the premise of the book, or are you presuming Lincoln was writing a fictional diary and therefore would be confined most likely to the vampire tropes of his era?

I have no idea what the premise of the book is; I haven't read it. I suspect they used vampires as they are viewed today, because it was written today.



My point was simply that vampires as imagined by the historical Abe Lincoln would be significantly different from the way they're viewed today.

I'm not saying that it's against some literary rule to write he book or the screenplay with any sort of vampires you want, or taking the book or movie to task because they didn't keep period-specific vampires. I'm just pointing out that, if you were writing a historical novel or screenplay about a president fighting supernaturakl entities as if it really were written in the period (or if you were chronichling the adventures of such a hands-on presidential administration in a parallel universe that had vampires), it'd almost certainly be different from what we ended up with.



None of this applies, for instance, to Newman's Anno Dracula -- he assumed Stoker's vampire as a starting point.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Anyone can write any kind of fiction they want. My point is simply that, at the time the film is nominally set, vampires didn't have most of the features we associate with them.

You're assuming that people would only have known about vampires from reading about them in the popular fiction that had been written up to that time. The real vampires that actually exist (in the world of the book) had whatever characteristics vampires actually have (in the world of the book).

[Barkis is Willin']

I just want to add that there isa "mockbuster" on DVD right now called Abraham Lincoln VS. Vampires. So, I guess it's big enough for a spoof.

[CalMeacham]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

You're assuming that people would only have known about vampires from reading about them in the popular fiction that had been written up to that time. The real vampires that actually exist (in the world of the book) had whatever characteristics vampires actually have (in the world of the book).

I'm assuming only that the vampires then had the characteristics at the time attributed to them by pop culture at the time, which is pretty much the way people operate today, and have always operated. If you want to imagine that vampires have different strengths and capabilities, you're perfectly free to do so. That, in fact, is the mahjor way fictional creatures "evolve"

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

I'll betcha we see lots of vampires that move really fast and dissolve under sunlight.

The vampires in the book are indeed stronger and faster than humans, though apparently not to an absurd degree, since Abe is able to pretty well match them with training. It's stated in the book that young vampires are vulnerable to sunlight, but by the end of their first century of vamp-life, they've grown immune to sunlight (though it still hurts their eyes and most wear dark glasses during the day). Immortality is another vampire trait, though it's stated that the monotony of long life drives most vampires to suicide before they reach 300 years of age. They don't sleep underground or in coffins; one says, "I cannot speak for others, but I am quite comfortable in a bed." As for garlic, it "merely makes you easier to discern from a distance."

As for the means of killing vampires, the preferred method seems to be beheading. Abe's weapon of choice is an axe, as seen in the trailers, though as I recall he also carried a crossbow at one point, more for "quietness" than "woodenness". A vampire is burned to death at one point. Bullets seem to have little or no effect. In general, there's nothing "magical" about the vampires in the book, like lacking reflections or being unable to cross running water.

One thing I don't remember from the book is how much blood a vampire requires to survive on a daily basis, and whether animal blood would suffice. Another thing: if I recall correctly, the original way to become a vampire was that a vampire would kill you, drain all of your blood, and a few days later you'd rise from your grave. Recently in vampire fiction it appears that the victim has to drink the vampire's blood to become a vampire, usually with the victim first being drained to the point of near-death. AL:VH features the latter style, which seems to me a more recent addition to the mythology. When did that method first come about?

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

One thing I don't remember from the book is how much blood a vampire requires to survive on a daily basis, and whether animal blood would suffice. Another thing: if I recall correctly, the original way to become a vampire was that a vampire would kill you, drain all of your blood, and a few days later you'd rise from your grave. Recently in vampire fiction it appears that the victim has to drink the vampire's blood to become a vampire, usually with the victim first being drained to the point of near-death. AL:VH features the latter style, which seems to me a more recent addition to the mythology. When did that method first come about?

That came in with Stoker. IIRC, the only vampire Dracula "makes" in the novel (not counting his Transylvanian brides, who have been there since God-knows-when) is Lucy, and it is heavily implied that she drinks of his blood. (After weeks of almost dying of anemia, she is suddenly rosy and chipper. Then she dies and comes back.) Dracula explicitly binds Mina to him in this way, and it is also explicit through the book's denouement that she is gradually changing into a vampire.

Folklorically, this addition is not necessary. In the most well-known "real" vampire flap pre-Dracula, everyone who might have died because of Serbian vampire Arnold Paole was suspected of being a vampire. Vampire epidemics were self-limiting, however. Folkloric vampires (in the South Slavic tradition) were relatively weak, and the point of the vampire hunt was to get rid of all the potentially troubling recent dead, not go after some antediluvian creature who had been preying on the pashalik for centuries.

ETA: I don't recall how much blood an AL:VH vamp requires, but this is the crux of the book: a slave society provides easy, ostensibly legal sustenance for vampires, and the Confederacy is substantially vampiric in its motives. In this, I have to respectfully disagree with Max Torque: it is actually surprising how FEW historical liberties are taken in the novel. Given the above slave/blood dynamic, as well as how much tragedy Lincoln endured in his life (losing his mother, lover, and three sons at young ages), the vampire angle fits the historical narrative way better than it should.

[Anaamika]

I took it as a fun popcorn book. One thing i didn't like, is the persona changing. Like this:

He looked at his friend.

I thought to myself, what a maroon!

In this case "he" and "I" both referring to the same person, as if we suddenly zoomed into his body. Once or twice would have been OK, but it was constant.

Beyond that, though, I enjoyed it, though there were some unanswered questions at the end.

[WordMan]

The star of it, Benjamin Walker, was profiled in the NY Times Sunday Magazine. He was the star on Broadway of a show that he got good reviews in called Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson. And he was originally cast as The Beast in the latest X-Men movie but pulled out to be on Broadway.

And he's married to Meryl Streep's daughter, actress Mamie Gummer.

So for a guy in a movie about an axe-wielding Honest Abe, you could say he's got...chops.


::d&r::

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

There's no such thing as a period-correct vampire. They're fiction, a correct vampire is whatever the author wants it to be.

Unless they're all sparkly. That's just wrong.

[XT]

'Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter' - Premise sounds nuts, but friend raved about the book. Is it good?
Just wondering if anyone read it, and what they thought.

Haven't read the other responses to the thread yet, but yeah...I read it. I enjoyed it as light reading (though there are some pretty grim parts). It seems relatively 'internally consistent', i.e. it's not nuts if you buy into the books internal logic (i.e. that there are vampires, that they directly affected the early Lincoln, that he then dedicated much of his early life to fighting them, that they had an over-arching plan for the US, that the US provided fertile ground for them that Europe lacked, etc etc). I don't consider any of this to be a spoiler, btw, as you could get as much from any of the commercials for the up-coming movie based (I presume) on the book.

-XT

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by StusBlues

ETA: I don't recall how much blood an AL:VH vamp requires, but this is the crux of the book: a slave society provides easy, ostensibly legal sustenance for vampires, and the Confederacy is substantially vampiric in its motives. In this, I have to respectfully disagree with Max Torque: it is actually surprising how FEW historical liberties are taken in the novel. Given the above slave/blood dynamic, as well as how much tragedy Lincoln endured in his life (losing his mother, lover, and three sons at young ages), the vampire angle fits the historical narrative way better than it should.

I was thinking primarily about

SPOILER:

Abe being buddies with Edgar Allan Poe.

But there were some others, such as

SPOILER:

Abe's only education coming from his vampire friend Henry, and Abe confronting Jefferson Davis in Mississippi.

However, one thing cannot be denied: Abraham Lincoln invented Facebook. Really. Okay, not really, but it was a good hoax.

Anaamika, that's one of those devices you just have to learn to tolerate when an author is quoting liberally from someone else's diary. Even though, of course, the diary he's quoting is fictional; I suppose he did it for "verisimilitude" or something.

[CrazyCatLady]

Originally Posted by Eve

Is it better than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? That was a good one-joke the author ran into the ground. Would have made a funny magazine piece, but the writer was not deft enough to make it into a whole book.

It was vastly better than P&P&Z, which would have been a much better book if the author had completely rewritten the book in his own voice. At least, the differences in his skills with prose and Jane Austen's would have been less glaring.

The Lincoln book will never be mistaken for literature or anything, but it was fun and the premise remained interesting throughout the story. It did stretch my suspension of disbelief a bit that nobody he told his secret to ever tried to have him put in a padded room somewhere, though.

[Johnny Q]

I'm still waiting for This One

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by CrazyCatLady

It was vastly better than P&P&Z, which would have been a much better book if the author had completely rewritten the book in his own voice. At least, the differences in his skills with prose and Jane Austen's would have been less glaring.

Yeah, I received a copy of P&P&Z as a gift and put it down after only a couple of pages for that reason. I'm a big Austen fan but not a purist or anything and I'm not opposed to people having fun with the material -- there's a cheesy but entertaining series of mystery novels where Elizabeth and Darcy solve crimes, often involving paranormal elements -- but these attempts to stick extra scenes in always seem very obviously like an entirely different author stuck extra scenes in. It also seems cheap and lazy to me to "write" a book where a good chunk of the text is lifted directly from a beloved public domain classic.

[AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet]

Originally Posted by Johnny Q

I'm still waiting for This One

You need to upload that pic to Facebook.....*snort*

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

Anaamika, that's one of those devices you just have to learn to tolerate when an author is quoting liberally from someone else's diary. Even though, of course, the diary he's quoting is fictional; I suppose he did it for "verisimilitude" or something.

I know. Actually, the book is good enough where I read it even though I don't generally like diary-writing.

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by Johnny Q

I'm still waiting for This One

I've been trying to come up with more "President - Mythological Creature" combos. So far I think my favorite has been Chester Arthur: Yeti Wrestler. Although there's also something to be said for Theodore Roosevelt: Chupacabra Catcher.

[Alessan]

Herbert Hoover - Hippogriff Hustler.

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

I was thinking primarily about

SPOILER:

Abe being buddies with Edgar Allan Poe.

But there were some others, such as

SPOILER:

Abe's only education coming from his vampire friend Henry, and Abe confronting Jefferson Davis in Mississippi.

I absolutely agree with your first point. Beyond any distortion of history, including that character really didn't add anything to the story. They got enough milage out of the people Lincoln really DID know, which is what I mean by how close the book hewed to reality. If you read Donald's biography of Lincoln and then read AL:VH, I think you'll be more impressed by how much history Grahame-Smith was able to use as opposed to how much he fancified in a book that has every right to be ridiculous.

[John Bredin]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

I've been trying to come up with more "President - Mythological Creature" combos. So far I think my favorite has been Chester Arthur: Yeti Wrestler. Although there's also something to be said for Theodore Roosevelt: Chupacabra Catcher.

How about Theodore Roosevelt: Alien Hunter? In one of the stories in this short-story anthology, TR encounters, hunts, and kills one of the "War of the Worlds" Martians while in Cuba.

[fiddlesticks]

That whole depressed drunkard persona was all an act, Franklin Pierce was the real Vampire Hunter. Can't stand all this historical revisionism!

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Herbert Hoover - Hippogriff Hustler.

Grover Cleveland: Ghost Choker

[StusBlues]

George Washington.

That's all.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by Eve

Is it better than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? That was a good one-joke the author ran into the ground. Would have made a funny magazine piece, but the writer was not deft enough to make it into a whole book.

I think you should write a novel that will draw on your love of silent film, an old acquaintance, and tap into a genre that will make you rich:

Lillian Gish and Golems

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by fiddlesticks

That whole depressed drunkard persona was all an act, Franklin Pierce was the real Vampire Hunter. Can't stand all this historical revisionism!

Talk about revisionism, Pierce was more like a Vampire Enabler!

[Siam Sam]

I am reading this book now, more than halfway through, and it is surprisingly good.

[Sister Vigilante]

I just started it too, and it's better than P&P&Z, which I didn't bother to finish.

And the vampires in the book do have fangs and can apparently change their appearance at will, depending on whether they want to "pass". I haven't gotten that far in yet though.

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Talk about revisionism, Pierce was more like a Vampire Enabler!

As Pierce was a pro-slavery Democrat, I agree with you. Thank you for catching this.

[CJJ*]

I read the book; it's popcorn but I surprised me in some spots.

For example, one of the things I was worried about is that the author would have to stretch too much to keep Abe's crusade a secret. By contrast:

SPOILER:

Once Abe started dabbling in national politics (after he'd been more or less solo slaying for a couple of decades), he learns that vampire influence was something of an open secret in DC. I personally found this more intriguing than just having Abe and a few friends fight this shadow crusade against an equally shadowy antagonist for 300+ pages--which is where I thought the story would remain exclusively.

Originally Posted by "Max Torque

I was thinking primarily about

SPOILER:

Abe being buddies with Edgar Allan Poe.

But there were some others, such as

SPOILER:

Abe's only education coming from his vampire friend Henry, and Abe confronting Jefferson Davis in Mississippi.

I agree with these criticisms, but am willing to cut the author a little slack on these:

SPOILER:

Introducing EAP allows the disturbing nature of Poe's writing to underscore the menace of the vampires. I agree regarding the overly-mentoring Henry, but that decision speeds along the exposition. And having Lincoln confront JD--while admittedly over the top--unambiguously spells out the terms of the coming conflict.

If this were a serious novel those last two would be faults, but in a popcorn novel they're features!

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

I've been trying to come up with more "President - Mythological Creature" combos. So far I think my favorite has been Chester Arthur: Yeti Wrestler. Although there's also something to be said for Theodore Roosevelt: Chupacabra Catcher.

Originally Posted by Alessan

Herbert Hoover - Hippogriff Hustler.

Originally Posted by Max Torque

Grover Cleveland: Ghost Choker

Martin Van Buren - Voodoo Vanquisher

[Johnny Q]

Millard Fillmore: Fairy Worrier

[WordMan]

FDR: The Wheelchair of Fury

Rocket powered and everything. His catchphrase was "I got your Keynsian stimulus right here!"

[Smeghead]

Gerald Ford: Troll Tripper

[Siam Sam]

Finished the book today. Enjoyed it a lot.

[G0sp3l]

William "Bill" Clinton: Succubus Smoker

Sometimes you REALLY NEED a good cigar!!!

[Siam Sam]

Richard Nixon: Jew Baiter

[Siam Sam]

The movie seems to be out now in the US. Coming to Thailand soon, as previews are already being shown. Ebert seems to have liked it okay, but even though the screenplay was written by the book's author Seth Grahame-Smith, it sounds like he changed up the story quite a bit to fit it into movie length.

[Half Man Half Wit]

I don't think it can measure up to the genius of Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter...