|
SUPERMAN'S GAL PAL posted:Is that the one written partly by Stoker's descendent that just shits all over Stoker himself? I don't recall specifics, but just constant reminders/implications that Stoker didn't know what he was doing and this book is the REAL story kind of crap. Oh, and Mina and Dracula were totally in love, of course. Blech! There's tons of crappy "how it really happened" romances like that with Dracula though (but a FMV story game of all things managed to avoid that)! Pretty much. It's things like "Oh, Dracula didn't kill the crew of the Demeter, that was actually a virus". And "no, no the true enemy was vampiress Elizabeth Báthory as Jack the Ripper". Bram Stoker himself appears at one point putting on an adaptation of his play and it's, like you said "Well, that's not the REAL story". Then, following on from the "Mina and Dracula were actually in love", is the really bad twist that lovely sequels seem to love; the main character is the son of the previous story's antagonist and his captive - in this case Quincey Harker is the son of Dracula. The Phantom of the Opera sequel did that terrible twist too, iirc. Tl;dr It's pretty much every kind of lovely fanfiction idea they could come up with, after having binged on the last 100 years of vampire movies and assorted cliches.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
Hate Fibration posted:My absolute favorite stories that King wrote are actually his short stories that are just simple human drama. No horror. Same here - my favourites to this day are The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Hearts in Atlantis even though there's this supernatural element with posters, it doesn't overshadow the main story, if that makes sense; it isn't even a horror story - what striked me when I've read it was the overall feeling that everything passes by, everything is ending. What else - Misery not so much, but Dolores Claiborne, yes, especially when the main "villain" of the book helped Dolores. Gerald's Game is great as well although degloving scene is a bit too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
SUPERMAN'S GAL PAL posted:Is that the one written partly by Stoker's descendent that just shits all over Stoker himself? I don't recall specifics, but just constant reminders/implications that Stoker didn't know what he was doing and this book is the REAL story kind of crap. Oh, and Mina and Dracula were totally in love, of course. Blech! There's tons of crappy "how it really happened" romances like that with Dracula though (but a FMV story game of all things managed to avoid that)! Yes. It was a bad book, particularly as Dracula is so good. It basically reads like an edgy 14 year old's fanfic where everyone in the original is either now crazy or a drug addict and Dracula now has totes awesome new powers that he just never got around to use first time around because he forgot or something idk
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Pretty much. It's things like "Oh, Dracula didn't kill the crew of the Demeter, that was actually a virus". And "no, no the true enemy was vampiress Elizabeth Báthory as Jack the Ripper". Bram Stoker himself appears at one point putting on an adaptation of his play and it's, like you said "Well, that's not the REAL story". Oddly enough Anne Rice pretty much did this to herself with her vampire series. In the first book, Interview with the Vampire, the main character is Louis. He is a vampire who was a plantation owner in late 18th century Louisiana. He was turned by a vampire named Lestat who then lived with Louis for a while. Lestat turns out to be quite the monster so Louis kills him and does a bunch of stuff that is the rest of the book. Then at the end of the book he reveals that Lestat survived the attack but is living like a broken down ruin in New Orleans. The book becomes popular enough for her to write a sequel which she decides to do as a prequel called The Vampire Lestat. It retcons all of Lestat's bad actions from the first novel as Louis either lying to make himself look better or not knowing the full truth of events. Like in the first book Louis talks about Lestat bringing sailors home and murdering them, while in the sequel Lestat is all "they were bad people." It also makes Lestat to be the super best vampire ever where he's much stronger than a vampire his age should be because he found the first vampire and drank some of her blood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
spooky like this! posted:Oddly enough Anne Rice pretty much did this to herself with her vampire series. In the first book, Interview with the Vampire, the main character is Louis. He is a vampire who was a plantation owner in late 18th century Louisiana. He was turned by a vampire named Lestat who then lived with Louis for a while. Lestat turns out to be quite the monster so Louis kills him and does a bunch of stuff that is the rest of the book. Then at the end of the book he reveals that Lestat survived the attack but is living like a broken down ruin in New Orleans. Which reminds me, the next book in the series is coming out the end of November, and is titled "Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis," so its a pretty safe bet it'll belong here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Pretty much. It's things like "Oh, Dracula didn't kill the crew of the Demeter, that was actually a virus". And "no, no the true enemy was vampiress Elizabeth Báthory as Jack the Ripper". Bram Stoker himself appears at one point putting on an adaptation of his play and it's, like you said "Well, that's not the REAL story". I think there's also a scene where Elizabeth Báthory variously disguises herself as both Jonathan Harker and Dracula so she can shag Mina. (Anno Dracula is the only "sequel" to Dracula one really needs.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
spooky like this! posted:Oddly enough Anne Rice pretty much did this to herself with her vampire series. In the first book, Interview with the Vampire, the main character is Louis. He is a vampire who was a plantation owner in late 18th century Louisiana. He was turned by a vampire named Lestat who then lived with Louis for a while. Lestat turns out to be quite the monster so Louis kills him and does a bunch of stuff that is the rest of the book. Then at the end of the book he reveals that Lestat survived the attack but is living like a broken down ruin in New Orleans. It's one thing to poo poo over your own legacy, it's quite another to do it to someone else. Dracula the Un-dead didn't even seem like a good natured but ultimately bad attempt at contributing, it came across as a cash grab based on his great uncle's work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:(Anno Dracula is the only "sequel" to Dracula one really needs.) Fred Saberhagen's "The Dracula Tape" is pretty fun. I haven't read the rest of the series though - I'm not sure it needed to continue after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Dienes posted:Which reminds me, the next book in the series is coming out the end of November, and is titled "Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis," so its a pretty safe bet it'll belong here. So would her Sleeping Beauty series, if anyone was willing to admit they read them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Yes. It was a bad book, particularly as Dracula is so good. It basically reads like an edgy 14 year old's fanfic where everyone in the original is either now crazy or a drug addict and Dracula now has totes awesome new powers that he just never got around to use first time around because he forgot or something idk Are you kidding? The original Dracula book is awful, awful, awful. Dreadfully plodding and puritan schlock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
I enjoy the original Dracula a lot and it's one of my favourite books but it's really not difficult to see why Dracula is so often re-imagined as an anti-hero. Van Helsing comes off as a somewhat deranged fanatic who's only in the right because Dracula himself is basically pure evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Considering the original novel came out of rampant xenophobia of swarthy Europeans invading Britain and defiling white women, there really should be room for a more modern take on it. The only people willing to write it just want to gently caress a vampire, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Which is funny, because book Dracula was an ugly as sin old man, which some people might coincidentally recognize as "corpse-like". Nosforatu was actually a fairly straight adaption of Dracula(although an unlicensed one, hence the title just being German for vampire and the count being named Orlok, and they invented the sunlight weakness to make for a cheaper climax).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
pookel posted:I'm thinking of all the long-awaited sequels to cult classic/fan favorite books, and I can't come up with a single one that wasn't terrible. Has it EVER been done well? Tehanu was awful, everyone said the new Harry Potter book was awful (I haven't read it myself) ... I was never a big fan of The Little Prince, but holy gently caress what cash-grabbing piece of poo poo would decide it needs a sequel?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Since I was familiar with adaptations before I read the book itself, I was surprised to learn that one of Dracula's most prominent physical features in the book is that he has a prominent moustache. You never think of Dracula as having facial hair and I suspect it's because Christopher Lee never wore one in any of the Hammer films (though if I recall correctly, Gary Oldman did in the Coppola movie).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:There's posters all over London for some lovely sequel to The Little Prince. Fight Club 2 was a sequel to the movie written by the book's author, and it loving sucks..
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
dracula might be the worst book to be regarded by anyone as literature it also has the sexual politics of a viking attack
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:
What I'm saying is that Dracula has worse sexual politics than a viking attack. SurreptitiousMuffin has a new favorite as of 23:27 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Since I was familiar with adaptations before I read the book itself, I was surprised to learn that one of Dracula's most prominent physical features in the book is that he has a prominent moustache. You never think of Dracula as having facial hair and I suspect it's because Christopher Lee never wore one in any of the Hammer films (though if I recall correctly, Gary Oldman did in the Coppola movie). He did indeed have a moustache, but only in his weird younger form in England, not the creepy hosed up old dude at home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:Are you kidding? The original Dracula book is awful, awful, awful. Dreadfully plodding and puritan schlock. It's a strong first chapter followed by a whole lotta nonsense
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:He did indeed have a moustache, but only in his weird younger form in England, not the creepy hosed up old dude at home. He makes up for it with the weird hair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Since I was familiar with adaptations before I read the book itself, I was surprised to learn that one of Dracula's most prominent physical features in the book is that he has a prominent moustache. You never think of Dracula as having facial hair and I suspect it's because Christopher Lee never wore one in any of the Hammer films (though if I recall correctly, Gary Oldman did in the Coppola movie). I think Dracula has a mustache in most of the Castlevania games, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:What I'm saying is that Dracula has worse sexual politics than a viking attack. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
I also remember there's a bit where Harker remarks on Dracula having hairy palms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Dienes posted:Which reminds me, the next book in the series is coming out the end of November, and is titled "Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis," so its a pretty safe bet it'll belong here. You know your target audience consists of only moms when your book title sounds like a Hidden Object game
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Hate Fibration posted:My absolute favorite stories that King wrote are actually his short stories that are just simple human drama. No horror. I did enjoy the story where a family goes on an interplanetary trip through a teleporter than drives you insane if you go through while fully conscious. The father tells the son a sanitized story of the discovery of the portal effect, telling him just enough that he gets curious and holds his breath when they administer the sedative gas. It was fairly light on the horror stuff but it had some genuinely creepy moments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
yeah The Jaunt rules
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Cumslut1895 posted:Revival was amazing. The Wind Through the Keyhole was great too. Come to think about it, all of his recent work has been a few steps above most of his books I actually really, really enjoyed 11/22/63. It was light on the King standbys of magical black people, magical retards, and weird sex scenes, interesting execution of the high concept idea, and actual had some nice emotional beats and a good resolution. Still a bit too long though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I also remember there's a bit where Harker remarks on Dracula having hairy palms. Dracula represents that DASTARDLY FOREIGN SEXUALITY so he probably jerks it a whole lot
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
canis minor posted:Same here - my favourites to this day are The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Hearts in Atlantis even though there's this supernatural element with posters, it doesn't overshadow the main story, if that makes sense; it isn't even a horror story - what striked me when I've read it was the overall feeling that everything passes by, everything is ending. What else - Misery not so much, but Dolores Claiborne, yes, especially when the main "villain" of the book helped Dolores. Gerald's Game is great as well although degloving scene is a bit too much. It's the only King book I recommend to people without a disclaimer (like, "the ending doesn't make sense" or "the last 500 pages sucked"). Bag of Bones was pretty good, too, but a) it falls apart at the end, and b) I can't handle reading the horrifyingly realistic, detailed gang rape scene. Like if that stuff ever bothers you even slightly, don't read it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Anyone ever read the YA book King wrote for his daughter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I enjoy the original Dracula a lot and it's one of my favourite books but it's really not difficult to see why Dracula is so often re-imagined as an anti-hero. Van Helsing comes off as a somewhat deranged fanatic who's only in the right because Dracula himself is basically pure evil. this. dracula is one of my favorite book, (Victorian horror/writing in a epistolary style) the idea that modern science stops vampires, thing is, blood typing wasn't invented yet. so lucy was getting who knows what kind of blood in her.(which i am sure the fan ficitionists have used as an excuse.) Slime posted:Dracula represents that DASTARDLY FOREIGN SEXUALITY so he probably jerks it a whole lot yeah that too. don't some women like vampires safe "rape" fantasy or some stuff like that. plus that unded Slavic dick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Anyone ever read the YA book King wrote for his daughter? If that's The Eyes of the Dragon then for my money it's pretty good. But I like a lot of King books that other posters have said they hate so don't take my word for it. He's a real YMMV author.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:this. dracula is one of my favorite book, (Victorian horror/writing in a epistolary style) the idea that modern science stops vampires, thing is, blood typing wasn't invented yet. so lucy was getting who knows what kind of blood in her.(which i am sure the fan ficitionists have used as an excuse.) It's interesting seeing the old medical texts judging when to start blood transfusions, back before they figured out blood typing. Crazy nuts mad science. quote:The danger from extreme loss of blood, when this reaches two thirds of the total amount in the economy, lies in the want of proportion between the volume of the vascular contents and their capacity, and this danger is met by the volume of fluid introduced whether this contains albumen and blood corpuscles or not. "Sorry man, you only lost half your blood, no transfusion for you. The skeptical medical texts are also great. quote:To elevate transfusion from its theoretical position in the healing art and from its doubtful value in medicine as a therapeutic measure the operation must be simplified. As a rule blood transfusion should be dispensed with and an artificial substitute found. Tunicate has a new favorite as of 01:07 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
So let's talk about She's Come Undone. This is the first book that I can remember reading, realizing I despised the main character, and finishing off via hate-reading. I read this book because my mother was following Oprah's book club and she asked me to read it along with her. This book is awful you guys. The writing isn't particularly offensive that I remember, no - it's the plot that kills it. The main character, Dolores, is a freaking psychopath, and what really killed me was a review quote on the book saying that the main character was such a realistically written woman, wow this author sure knows women well! Dolores' father leaves her and her mother early on. Her mother works as a toll booth operator, and I believe is killed when a car loses control and hits her booth. The character is raped by a neighbor that her mother was involved with, because of course she is. These events are all considered plenty of justification for everything she ends up doing as the book continues. Here's a couple of things this oh so fantastically written lady character does: - becomes obsessed with her college roommate's long-distance boyfriend, Dante. He sends love notes and nude photos, which she steals and hoardes. After college and therapy - in which she loses a lot of weight via starvation by imagining all of her food is covered in mold so that she doesn't eat it - she decides to find Dante and engineer a relationship with him. She finds his address and moves into the apartment across the hall from him. She makes sure they end up together, and then their entire relationship is depicted as him being an emotionally abusive manipulative rear end in a top hat, despite her being the manipulative rear end in a top hat. When she reveals how they became a couple, he leaves her. The bastard. - has an entirely consensual lesbian one night stand with the lonely janitor of her college. After the janitor falls asleep, she pours bleach into the janitor's fish tank, killing all of her fish which we have just learned not two pages earlier are the janitor's prized possessions and likely only "friends." This is the point that I actively started hating Dolores because it was just a straight-up spiteful action. There's a really fantastic fat person = literal whale equivalence, too. As in the character at one point nearly drowns rolling around on the beach because she's just so insanely fat at 250 pounds. Just a blubbery mass! I remember that when she's rescued and being examined, a doctor comments about how working on her will be like operating on a whale. At the end of the book, Dolores sees a whale breaching the ocean, representing her happiness. As a fat whale. Get it??? Even though by this point she's lost all the fatty fatness so the metaphor doesn't actually make sense anymore. But women are all convinced we're fat whales anyway, so it still works right? Right?! Ladies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:yeah The Jaunt rules Of course, that's what it's called. I couldn't for the life of me remember the title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:If that's The Eyes of the Dragon then for my money it's pretty good. But I like a lot of King books that other posters have said they hate so don't take my word for it. He's a real YMMV author. I did read it years ago and remembered it being kinda weird but not terrible. Had some awkward sex scenes befitting a winner of the 'worst sex scene in fiction' award.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
She's Come Undone was written in 1992 and described as "comedy, drama." I guess the rape of the underage main character is the "drama" part. Oh, and it was written by a middle-aged man, what a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
SUPERMAN'S GAL PAL posted:She's Come Undone was written in 1992 and described as "comedy, drama." I guess the rape of the underage main character is the "drama" part. Oh, and it was written by a middle-aged man, what a surprise. I will never stop being annoyed with male writers who clearly haven't the first clue about how women's weight and shape correlates to clothing sizes. The one that sticks in my mind the most was in Silence of the Lambs, where a female character who is described as being both tall and broad-shouldered in addition to being fat is supposed to be about a size 16, while being 5'10" and weighing 160 lbs. (For those of you who are men or don't use U.S. measurements, someone who is 5'10" and weighs 160 lbs is probably a size 6-8 and is not quite Hollywood skinny but definitely in the "attractively fit" range.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
It annoys me whenever writers include exact weight/height/clothing measurements in their stories, it's never not weird. Unnecessary and boring to read too. Why would you write down your character's medical chart instead of describing them with, you know...descriptive language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:23
|
|
