Paul Bibeau, Sundays with Vlad (978-0-307352778-1)
Three Rivers Press, 2007
Paperback, 292 pages, $13.95
Available on Amazon.com and in bookstores
One thing I can confidently say about Sundays with Vlad is that it is completely unpretentious. Author Paul Bibeau's previous published writing consists of magazine and newspaper articles. Sundays with Vlad, his first book, reads like a loosely assembled collection of those articles, giving the reader a leisurely, meandering ramble through a series of topics more-or-less associated with vampires. Ultimately, we learn more about Bibeau himself than anything new about Dracula, Vlad or vampire fandom. Even the rambles have rambles as Bibeau frequently wanders off on various tangents. By the time I reached the book's conclusion, my copy was bristling with half a pad of sticky notes, and I still wasn't sure just what the entire opus was trying to say.
There are two critical problems that handicap Sundays with Vlad right out of the gate. Bibeau opens his book with a description of his honeymoon trip to Romania in 1999, visiting some of the sites promoted (or not) for their association with the 15th century warlord, Prince Vlad Tepes Dracula. "The tale of how this medieval ruler became the most recognizable figure in the world without changing his image back home was baffling. And more than a story about vampires, it was about globalism, history and national pride," Bibeau writes. But herein lies a dilemma. The fictional Dracula has nothing whatsoever to do with the Romanian warlord. All they share is a name. Dracula, the vampire, was an icon the world over long before In Search of Dracula launched the myth that "Stoker was inspired to write his novel by stories about a real person." There are two completely distinct questions here: first, why vampires, per se, are so popular in American culture, and second, why the myth that Dracula, the vampire, was based on a real person has such a deep emotional appeal that it resists all efforts to debunk it. Bibeau doesn't seem to recognize that these are two different questions, and he never addresses the second one. Sundays with Vlad alternates between poking around in various popular vampire-related enthusiasms (most of which have nothing in particular to do with Dracula--Stoker's or Romania's) and exploring the attitudes held toward their famous Prince and his namesake in Romania and Hungary.
The second critical problem is an omission so glaring, I'm amazed that Bibeau could have overlooked it. Sundays with Vlad dabbles at vampire movies, vampire role-playing games, vampire carnival attractions, vampire (or at least Goth) clubbing, vampire merchandizing, vampire-identification, vampire theatre, and vampire fan groups--but not once does he examine vampire fiction. If your sole guide to the topic was Sundays with Vlad, you would conclude that Dracula was the only vampire novel ever published. Bibeau does not interview or discuss a single vampire fiction author, book or reader. Yet the vampire is a literary phenomenon in English-speaking cultures--since 1819, the vampire has been a metaphor, an icon, and an endlessly malleable image on the printed page. It is in fiction that the vampire attains all its depth, variety and emotional impact, which the games, films and other cultural froth merely borrow. It's no wonder that Bibeau had trouble pulling his themes together--by ignoring vampire fiction, he essentially stood on the side of the well skimming leaves off the surface.
Often, as I read through a chapter, I felt frustrated by the lack of context for what was going on. Bibeau tends to drop us into the middle of his topic and then do backing-and-filling. That may work well for magazine articles but is less effective with book chapters, and sometimes there isn't enough fill. Did Bibeau have any criteria for choosing the films he decided to watch during his "lost weekend" vampire movie marathon? It would have made the most sense to choose movies that were undeniably successful or influential, and watch them in chronological order, but Bibeau does neither. I had absolutely no idea how Bibeau ended up marching in a parade costumed as a puppet bulb of garlic. I wondered how Bibeau found, or selected, the representatives of the real vampiric community whom he chose to highlight (and how he missed me, which in the interests of full disclosure I will confess feeling jealous about). Why MemoryandDream's site, out of the dozen or so major such websites? Why BellaDonnaDrakul, who is not representative of the OVC as a whole--frankly, I have to agree with Jonathon Sharkey's opinion of her. Why give Sebastiaan Todd even more undeserved publicity--why not Michelle Belanger or Merticus of the Atlanta Vampire Association?
Sundays with Vlad would have benefited immensely from a strong editing job. There are many minor errors: it's Imogene Coca, not Cocoa (pg. 43), for example, Acetone, not Acatone (pg. 79), Cthulhu, not Cuthulu (pg. 126) and barbaric horde, not hoarde (pg. 139). There are other careless statements that go beyond spelling gaffes, but I can't address that sheaf of sticky notes in this limited space.
With no index or references, Sundays with Vlad doesn't presume to be a comprehensive treatment of its topic, and Bibeau never condescends to his material or his interview subjects. Even as a personal journey, it would have been a more coherent book had it avoided the magazine article structure and been more tightly edited. The chapters set in Eastern Europe make lively reading, however, and I appreciated the chapters about the figures in the real life vampiric community. Since I am presently attempting to assail the whole notion of "energy-feeding," I especially enjoyed Bibeau's notes on "Breatharianism." Reading Sundays with Vlad is like shopping at Building #19: there's a lot here to like, but you have to sort through the bins on your own.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Baby vampires and disturbed grown-ups
I read a number of vampiric community messageboards. Several of them include a forum for "troll baiting." Posts made by abusive, or clueless, individuals are moved to this forum and other members of the board are given free rein to ridicule, abuse and denigrate the poster to their heart's content, in this forum only. I suppose the intention is to divert the flamewars that often follow certain kinds of posts from the main body of the board. Whatever their intention, these "troll-baiting" forums are nothing but an excuse for self-indulgent and immature behavior of the worst sort by purported adults. The provoking posts are rarely worth bothering with at all, but the "troll-baiters" quickly surpass even the most abusive of their targets in sheer mean-spiritedness and infantilism. It's amazing how much time some people have on their hands to waste on such trash.
Eight years ago, when I was running my own messageboard, and contributing to others, I tried to convince other moderators that there was only one way to deal with trolls, abusers and nuisance posters--only one, no exceptions. The problem posts are instantly deleted on sight and never discussed, replied to or mentioned ever again. Period. Trolls are usually trying to stir up conflict, and they thrive on flamewars--they get a tremendous sense of self-importance from upsetting other people on the messageboard. But no matter how often this scenario was repeated, and how much I tried to demonstrate to other moderators that they were contributing to the problem, not helping it, people in the OVC never learned. They continued to play suckers and fall into the trolls' trap, every single time. Troll-baiting forums only corral the nonsense into a limited area.
For the most part, this would only be annoying. But recently I watched a "troll-baiting" unfold that had some very unsavory elements indeed. I won't say which messageboard this was on, nor identify the principals involved. I stumbled across the thread because I was looking for updates in a different topic that had been moved into the troll-baiting forum.
A new member of the board, who stated that she was 14 years old, had responded to an "Intro" post by criticizing the poster's grammar. Yes, it was a bit snotty--but no more than 14-year-old girls often are. If it had been my board, I'd have just deleted the post, no comment.
But of course, the purportedly adult suckers on the messageboard started sniping at the young person, and the whole thread was moved into the troll forum, where it proceeded to simply blow up--page after page of long posts attacking the young person for her subsidy-published book, her MySpace page, and other completely irrelevant things. They just wouldn't let it alone.
Now, there's nothing unusual about that--except that these were all self-proclaimed adults, ganging up on a 14-year-old. Not one of them seemed to feel they were doing anything inappropriate. The ringleader in the attacks was a 45-year-old (so claimed, anyway) who made lengthy posts diagnosing the young person as a "Narcissist" and expounding on why "Narcissists" could never change and are intolerable to be around. As far as I know, this 45-year-old is not a mental health professional and is not qualified to diagnose--although this 45-year-old evidently has extensive personal experience with mental health issues. As the 45-year-old continued to pummel the 14-year-old in this thread, I found myself getting more and more queasy. I hate the "troll baiting," anyway. It's stupid and juvenile, which is also how I'd characterize the alleged adults who indulge in it. But this went beyond that. For a 45-year-old to spend that much time and energy heaping public abuse on a 14-year-old for so little provocation was just...wrong. More than wrong, it was sick.
My main concern with the young person was the fact that she'd "borrowed" the name of my website, By Light Unseen, for her MySpace screenname. I reported this to MySpace and shortly afterwards the young person changed her screenname. As far as I was concerned, that settled things. I was curious enough to download the young person's book, which was free of charge, from the subsidy publisher's website. It's...well, it's stories written by a 13-year-old. But it could be far worse, and at least it's not fanfic, that cancer of creativity that is draining the last vestiges of original thought from most aspiring writers these days. Predictably, the troll-baiters crowed that they deserved credit for the young person changing the screenname, although we have no idea why that happened. The troll-baiters also jeered at the young person's listing her age, in her MySpace profile, as "100," as though the young person was pretending to be an "immortal vampire." The young person was claiming nothing of the sort. Many minors use ridiculous numbers for their age in their MySpace profile, because MySpace includes age in the page title. 14-year-old girls who don't want to be harassed by creeps and perverts usually fudge their age. But this young person was honest about her age everywhere else.
The troll-baiters got bored and moved on, finally, and I'm sure that hapless young person will never trouble that messageboard again. Meanwhile, this news item appeared in my online news filters.
It's difficult to imagine an adult, and the parent of a teenager, who could justify being that cruel and deceptive. She definitely has no business being a parent, I'm certain of that. I shudder to think of the model she has been for her own teenager. Whether the young victim would ultimately have committed suicide anyway--since there are numerous clues in the article that her life was filled with problems and she had a history of mental health issues and medications--is something no one can say. But when the victim's mother says, "But when adults are involved and continue to screw with a 13-year-old, with or without mental problems, it is absolutely vile," she is absolutely correct. Vile, and sick. How could anyone be an adult in America these days and still not realize that?
Eight years ago, when I was running my own messageboard, and contributing to others, I tried to convince other moderators that there was only one way to deal with trolls, abusers and nuisance posters--only one, no exceptions. The problem posts are instantly deleted on sight and never discussed, replied to or mentioned ever again. Period. Trolls are usually trying to stir up conflict, and they thrive on flamewars--they get a tremendous sense of self-importance from upsetting other people on the messageboard. But no matter how often this scenario was repeated, and how much I tried to demonstrate to other moderators that they were contributing to the problem, not helping it, people in the OVC never learned. They continued to play suckers and fall into the trolls' trap, every single time. Troll-baiting forums only corral the nonsense into a limited area.
For the most part, this would only be annoying. But recently I watched a "troll-baiting" unfold that had some very unsavory elements indeed. I won't say which messageboard this was on, nor identify the principals involved. I stumbled across the thread because I was looking for updates in a different topic that had been moved into the troll-baiting forum.
A new member of the board, who stated that she was 14 years old, had responded to an "Intro" post by criticizing the poster's grammar. Yes, it was a bit snotty--but no more than 14-year-old girls often are. If it had been my board, I'd have just deleted the post, no comment.
But of course, the purportedly adult suckers on the messageboard started sniping at the young person, and the whole thread was moved into the troll forum, where it proceeded to simply blow up--page after page of long posts attacking the young person for her subsidy-published book, her MySpace page, and other completely irrelevant things. They just wouldn't let it alone.
Now, there's nothing unusual about that--except that these were all self-proclaimed adults, ganging up on a 14-year-old. Not one of them seemed to feel they were doing anything inappropriate. The ringleader in the attacks was a 45-year-old (so claimed, anyway) who made lengthy posts diagnosing the young person as a "Narcissist" and expounding on why "Narcissists" could never change and are intolerable to be around. As far as I know, this 45-year-old is not a mental health professional and is not qualified to diagnose--although this 45-year-old evidently has extensive personal experience with mental health issues. As the 45-year-old continued to pummel the 14-year-old in this thread, I found myself getting more and more queasy. I hate the "troll baiting," anyway. It's stupid and juvenile, which is also how I'd characterize the alleged adults who indulge in it. But this went beyond that. For a 45-year-old to spend that much time and energy heaping public abuse on a 14-year-old for so little provocation was just...wrong. More than wrong, it was sick.
My main concern with the young person was the fact that she'd "borrowed" the name of my website, By Light Unseen, for her MySpace screenname. I reported this to MySpace and shortly afterwards the young person changed her screenname. As far as I was concerned, that settled things. I was curious enough to download the young person's book, which was free of charge, from the subsidy publisher's website. It's...well, it's stories written by a 13-year-old. But it could be far worse, and at least it's not fanfic, that cancer of creativity that is draining the last vestiges of original thought from most aspiring writers these days. Predictably, the troll-baiters crowed that they deserved credit for the young person changing the screenname, although we have no idea why that happened. The troll-baiters also jeered at the young person's listing her age, in her MySpace profile, as "100," as though the young person was pretending to be an "immortal vampire." The young person was claiming nothing of the sort. Many minors use ridiculous numbers for their age in their MySpace profile, because MySpace includes age in the page title. 14-year-old girls who don't want to be harassed by creeps and perverts usually fudge their age. But this young person was honest about her age everywhere else.
The troll-baiters got bored and moved on, finally, and I'm sure that hapless young person will never trouble that messageboard again. Meanwhile, this news item appeared in my online news filters.
It's difficult to imagine an adult, and the parent of a teenager, who could justify being that cruel and deceptive. She definitely has no business being a parent, I'm certain of that. I shudder to think of the model she has been for her own teenager. Whether the young victim would ultimately have committed suicide anyway--since there are numerous clues in the article that her life was filled with problems and she had a history of mental health issues and medications--is something no one can say. But when the victim's mother says, "But when adults are involved and continue to screw with a 13-year-old, with or without mental problems, it is absolutely vile," she is absolutely correct. Vile, and sick. How could anyone be an adult in America these days and still not realize that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)