Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Vampires, Wulfs, and Catholic Jews...yeah, not sure about that last myself

Review of "Insatiable," by Meg Cabot (author of "The Princess Diaries" and buddy of Tamora Pierce - the latter is the reason I gave her a chance, not the former)

So, I like things to come in threes.  And so this is the second of three planned reviews of new books I'm writing this week (or, at least, I'm hoping to write a third this week, if I can finish the book - "The House on Durrow Street" by "Galen Becket" (pseud.) - the first of which was "I Shall Wear Midnight" by Terry Pratchett (not pseud.)).  So far, Meg Cabot's first-to-be-read-by-me novel (definitely for adults, given the rather hard-PG-13/soft-R rating it should carry for sexuality and violence, though not language) is my favorite of the three.  Where "I Shall Wear Midnight" was over-preachy, tiredly repetetive of the author's favorite "evil religion" cliches, and not very funny, and "The House on Durrow Street" is proving to be unfortunately political and rather unpromising (read "I'm trying to find another word that's reminiscent of dull but isn't because it's actually interesting in a way that makes me think it will disappoint me") (goodness I'm in a paranthetical mood), "Insatiable" is a funny, competently-written, well-structured, nicely characterized, sadly politically predictable, and brilliantly satirical take on the modern craze for romanticized vampires.  It's also very, very appropriate for me particularly given that:

1) today I finished "Dracula" for the first time, and also read "Insatiable" from cover to cover;

2) Hate vampires, but love "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (the tv series, NOT the comics that are coming out for the past two years) and enjoy the "Twilight" series (books and films);

3) really love the writing of Cabot's good buddy Tamora Pierce, who writes feminist fantasy lit which allows me to understand the workings behind both the critique of "Twilight" and "True Blood" exposited by Cabot and the positioning and construction of the heroine.

The first is appropriate since "Insatiable" features as it's "hero" (vampire lover dude prince of darkness dragon transmorpher thing) is Dracula's son  He is also a really, really funny, subtle, and well-done satire on Edward Cullen - neither completely idiotic and contempt-driven, as too many "Twilight" parodies lazily present, nor merely silly, but someone who has the guilt complex of an Angel (from Buffy, not the Victorian female icon, silly) and yet is incredibly possessive, jealous, protective, etc - and still isn't whlly evil, as he hates the killing and parasitism his kind inflicts, and orders all vampires to cease when he rules them.  I was very impressed at Cabot's complex presentation, while still convulsed with laughter at her so-accurate skewering.  This, my Twi-hater friends, is how it really should be done.

The second allows me to appreciate not only that very skewering (vampires are indeed misogynist monsters), but also the interesting parody of the vampire slayer idea and the book's very clear take on Bella Swan.  The former are mostly non-Catholics hired by the Pope (there are, so far, one gay guy, one Jewish agnostic, and one atheistic hedonist) to kill vampires.  And the last of those three is named Alaric Wulf.  Yup.  And I'm ashamed that I only caught the implications (by which I mean Jacob Black-plications) of the last ten pages from the end.  I have much shame at this fact.  Anyway, back to the book's Bella (here called Meena Harper, with a brother named Jon(athan) - both take-offs on the husband and wife of Bram Stoker's novel) has the same type of selfless hero-complex that Bella does, but without the radical insecurity.  Additionally, she has Sookie Stackhouse's psychic gifts (though they're rather more limited, only allowing her to see how a person will die if they don't heed her advice) (or maybe those are stolen from Alice Cullen?).  All of this (plus the portrayal of the vampire hero, as mentioned above) is done affectionately but firmly, rather than the mean-spirited, shallow, and ephemeral parodies and spoofs which I've read and seen so far of the current obsession with vampires.

About the third I think I've basically summed up everything already.  So I'll only add this: My professor, in our class discussion today, called "Dracula" (and I quote): "a cheesy piece of literature."  Which statement I agree with exactly.  It's the Dan Brown or Michael Crichton airport bestseller of 1897 - with it's nerdy technology (telegraphs! phonograph journals!) and wacky technology (blood transfusions from anyone to anyone!) and crazy ideas about how the world works (indulgences for future sin! non-Catholics using holy water and the Host!) - not to mention the rather mediocre prose style.  Ugh.  I don't want to hear how the Texan dude said something laconically ever again.  Makes me glad he died.  Now he's seriously laconic.  I mean, if someone's laconic, don't tell me that when he's babbling on at the mouth.  Just have him, you know, not say stuff.

So there you have it folks - this is a Twilight satire I can recommend to both my Twilight-loving and hating friends.  And that is no mean feat.

And I type all this while listening to my complete score collection from the Twilight films.  Oh, yes.  I have no shame about this whatsoever.

Posted via email from We read to know we're not alone

No comments: