August 24, 2013
I can see why some people might be taken aback, even offended, by this book. Grahame-Smith, in the spirit of his most famous novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, takes something famous and beloved (this time, rather than a literary work, the life of a beloved former president) and mixes the original (in this case, the facts about Lincoln's life and presidency) and mixes them with supernatural elements (in this case, vampires). I found the premise of the novel, and that of its predecessor, to be fascinating, so I was excited to read it. So in my criticism of it, I'm still able to take it for what it's worth: a fun story.
I felt like the novel held up for the first part. It was extremely well-written, and Grahame-Smith turns young Lincoln into a realistic character, who doesn't seem so far removed from the real thing, even as he's swearing to hunt down vampires to avenge the death of his mother. The scenes of him cutting down vampires were certainly made to be filmed (and the movie version of this came out last year), and I found myself wondering how the story would continue, how the author would mix in these elements with the more well-known details of Lincoln's life, with his rising political career and presidency.
That's where the story started to fall apart a bit, unfortunately. Now, the story maintains that Lincoln entered local politics on his own volition, to address the needs of men, not of vampires. But then, as he becomes a rising star in Illinois on his own, he is recruited by his vampire ally, Henry, to run for president, since he understands the truth about vampires and knows how they're involved with slavery in the south.
The book maintains that Lincoln always felt that slavery was a sin, but in the book, it's the idea that vampires are using slaves to quench their thirst (and manipulating slave owners into serving them), and his witnessing of a slaughter of helpless slaves by a brood of vampires that stirs his passion. Like, what, the institution of slavery wasn't bad enough on its own without throwing in that element? Still, that part of it was actually pretty clever. In fact, the idea of vampires being so prominent in the south (like in New Orleans) tied in well with Anne Rice's famous vampire stories. Still, I felt like the premise got a little shaky at that point, and it felt like the fiction of Lincoln-as-vampire-hunter and Lincoln-as-president were too split, not as well intertwined as the first part of the book. One critic, when the novel first debuted, said that it was "too neat" or "too tidy." I feel just the opposite, that the second half of the book was slopped together in comparison to the first.
Making John Wilkes Booth a vampire was unnecessary. I mean, if he were a vampire, then him shooting the president, rather than, I don't know, attacking him in bed (with no vampire bodyguards around anymore after Lincoln banished them following his son Willy's death, wouldn't that have been really easy?) and drinking his blood just seems weird. What I think Grahame-Smith should have done was made Booth a slave to the vampires...like, they'd threatened him to kill the president or else, or had brainwashed him or something. It just didn't hold up at all. At times I felt like Grahame-Smith had to contradict some of the points that he'd made just in keeping with history, because if he'd been true to his descriptions of vampires and their powers, Lincoln would have died many times over. In some cases, luck was on his side...but that was too often the case.
I saw the ending coming from a mile away. Henry, after the death of Lincoln's first love, then of two of his sons, made an offer to turn them into vampires, so it was pretty obvious what was going to happen after Lincoln was put into his coffin. But now, this ending does not hold up with the introduction to the novel. Grahame-Smith, like Jonathan Safron-Foer, inserted himself as a character into the story, but only briefly. He'd been commissioned by Henry to write out Lincoln's "real" life story, with Lincoln's private journals to aid him. The question of why is never answered; if he'd been keeping the story a secret for so long, then why bring it to light now? Also, where's Lincoln at the beginning of the book, when Henry was getting the author to write the story? And what is their connection to Martin Luther King, Jr? Is the reader supposed to believe that he, too, was turned into a vampire, to continue fighting the forces of true evil for all time?
Lincoln's allowing himself to be a vampire didn't stay true to his character, not even the way Grahame-Smith wrote him. So, I don't know, I was feeling pretty annoyed with the ending. Overall, I did feel like this was a fun book to read, not one to be taken seriously in the least. While the pictures were a fun addition, I didn't feel like they added much to the story. Grahame-Smith includes these, as well as frequent footnotes of fact and fiction, to give the impression that this work was written as a biography, not as a work of fiction. That's kind of cool, I guess, but at the same time, the author, because of his access to the journals, has access to (fictional) Lincoln's most intimate thoughts and feelings. So it kind of has two different tones to it...again, not mixed very well.
I would be curious to see the film...in fact, if it's available to stream on Netflix, I may just kick back and watch it tonight. Grahame-Smith is definitely more of an entertainment writer than a literary author, and as I thought as I was reading the scenes with Lincoln chopping up vampires, this book was made to be a film, so maybe it translates better into that medium. I'll probably read another work by Grahame-Smith at some point...Pride and Prejudice and Zombies has fascinated me since I first heard about it a few years ago. I wonder if we'll see many more novels from Grahame-Smith...he published another history-fantasy mash-up with Unholy Night, a book about a Wise Men and Jesus as, I don't know, vampire hunters or zombie killers or something to that effect. But it seems to me like Grahame-Smith has found his place in Hollywood, and I would guess that that was his intention all along.
Oh, and one last thing. No mention of Frederick Douglass? Not one? He could have been an interesting addition to the book, as like a witness of the horrors of vampires in the South or something. I wonder why the author would choose to omit this particular historical figure. Douglass's relationship with the president is one that I've always found fascinating, so I was disappointed that the author couldn't work it in somehow...again, that leads me to view the novel as being lazily put together.
 |
| Abraham Lincoln was a complex man, our greatest president, and one ugly ass motherfucker. But he was no vampire hunter. |
 |
| According to good old Wikipedia, Grahame-Smith is currently penning a sequel to the classic film Beetlejuice. I'd love to see that one; that movie is one of my all-time favorites. |
No comments:
Post a Comment