We have a tendency to want to forgive or humanize our villains and monsters. You can see this in books like Twilight, by Stephanie Meyer (as if I needed to specify so the lucky people who don't know what I'm talking about can find out what this mysterious, under-advertised Twilight might be), or the Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series by Laurell K. Hamilton. Vampires and were-animals (lycanthropes for those in the know) are the protagonists and romantic leads now, not the ghoulish, terrifying horrors they once were. Hamilton has gone so far as to give the supernatural set legal rights. It's gotten to the point where I get really annoyed when I read a story where vampires are immediately evil from the moment they change, slathering, drooling blood-suckers with no hope for redemption. I want to know their back story, can they be reformed, and if not, is there at least an equal and opposite good monster aiding the good guys? Blake, in Hamiton's books not only starts seeing the things she once hunted as humane and human, but she starts to wonder if she hasn't become more monstrous. Is that why this trend came about? Have people been looking at the evil in the world, murder, rape, pedophilia, and thinking, well hell, what's a little blood sucking between consenting adults?
This trend doesn't limit itself to fictional characters, or non-human. There are whole sections in bookstores devoted to ret-conned history, or revisionist history, with plots like "what if Hitler had sold more paintings, or not been in the army during World War I," "what if Lincoln hadn't gone to the theater that night," and now a blending of the two, "what if Pride and Prejudice had zombies?"
Conjecture and speculation are part of what make up good fiction, but is it a worthwhile endeavour to re-write popular and classical literature? And how long should we wait before putting our own spin on someone else's brainchild? How does this differ from the slash fiction found on the internet, where hard core fans write their own versions of events? I am not published, but I don't know how I would feel if, after struggling to be published for years, I finally am, and my "fans" decide not only did I not write my characters properly, they could do it better.
I've been reading Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith, the graphic version. It is entertaining, and I am enjoying it quite a bit. I'm challenging myself to remember from high school English (almost a decade ago) to see all the similarities and differences from the original material I can find as I read. I only ever read for entertainment purposes (at least until I start University again in the fall), so this fits my criteria for something worth spending my time on. Is that enough to make it worth the writing? Given the success of the novel, I am not the only one (although I'm sure there's a certain faction of people who picked it up out of a morbid curiousity, rather than actual interest), as well it has spawned a whole series of books along the same vein, including Android Karenia and Abe Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.
I'm going to continue reading them, so clearly I'm not as outraged by the trend as I might seem, but one that gave me pause, not related to this series at all, but along the same idea of giving an unsavoury character a redemption of sorts, is Fagin the Jew, by Will Eisner. It is the story of a conversation between Fagin, a death row inmate, and a mysterious stranger. It is the telling of Oliver Twist from Fagin's point of view. He gives his hard luck story as a uneducated son of a displaced people. He admits to wrong doings, stealing and conning to make his way, but only because other opportunities were denied to him. The story ends after his death, showing that had he only been in the right place at the right place he would have been heir to a respectable life, rather than dying destitute. Eisner adds details that weren't mentioned in Oliver Twist, including a cameo by a grown Oliver who adds commentary.
The story was rich, and for the most part paralleled the source material. It acts as a commentary on antisemitism, going as far as to accuse authors who used the derogatory terms for people that were common at the time of furthering the prejudice rather than fighting against it. The art is rich and expressive, well conveys the division between wealth and poverty of the time.
How do I really feel about redemption stories and ret-conning? If I'm honest, I think they're great. I've always been one to side with the underdog, I've always wondered what made the villains tick. Think of Gaston from Beauty and The Beast. He lived his life as a macho hunter, the girls swooned over him, his life was set. He decides to marry, and has his heart (or eye at least) set on the girl who is obviously the most beautiful and therefore perfect girl in the village for him. He is rejected, for the first time in his life as far as we can tell. Mentally, don't you think that mess a person up a bit? What would the psych evaluation on this guy look like?
I love the fairy tales told from the Big Bad Wolf's point of view. I like thrillers where we know who the killer is the whole time, and get to hear his motivations, if never truly understand them.
I can only imagine the doorways into slash fiction fan-fiction, in fact I tend to ignore it but I'm sure I've seen on fan-fic sites the words, "this is based off of Cullen_babe52's story entitled..," so it's already happening. Do we need to draw a line in the sand? Even the Bible says, "there is nothing new under the sun(Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV)," and that's not exactly the newest tome out there. It's been 2000 years, it's hard to imagine us coming up with anything new now, so I'll just keep reading what entertains me, and hope for the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment