BBC needs literary SF Fans to take part in programme

[knivesout]

I know a fair number of our members are from the UK, so here's something you might want to look into:

Battle of the Books is a BBC4 series where celebrities and fans argue the merits of a pair of well known novels - and you are hereby cordially invited to join in.

At present the BBC want to boost the audience for the Valis (Philip K Dick) Vs Brave New World (Aldous Huxley) discussion, due at 7pm on March 23 2004 at Capital Studios in Wandsworth, London. Other opportunities will follow and include Ballard's Crash and Anne Rice vs. Bram Stoker

More info and contact details: http://thealienonline.net/ao_030.asp...id=11&iid=2240

Let us know if any of you get involved in this. Looks like fun!

[I, Brian]

Good call - well spotted.

[littlemissattitude]

Too bad I'm not in the U.K. I'd like to get into that Anne Rice v. Bram Stoker arguement.

[knivesout]

Which side would you take? Even though I really don't like Rice's works, I would think she is the better writer by far. Stoker was a very hit-and-miss sort of writer, from what I can make out. I enjoyed some of his work - especially short stories - and found others, like The Lair of the White Worm to be utterly without merit.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by knivesout

Which side would you take? Even though I really don't like Rice's works, I would think she is the better writer by far. Stoker was a very hit-and-miss sort of writer, from what I can make out. I enjoyed some of his work - especially short stories - and found others, like The Lair of the White Worm to be utterly without merit.

Actually, I've only read "Dracula" by Stoker. So I'd probably approach the difference between the two on the basis of how that stacks up to Rice's vampire novels. I very much liked "Interview With The Vampire" and "The Vampire Lestat", and didn't like "Queen of the Damned" nearly as well.

"Dracula" disturbed me more than almost any fiction I've ever read. I almost didn't finish it, it bothered me so much. For me, it just had this oppressive feeling of evil done to people arbitrarily and with a real joy. So maybe that means that Stoker accomplished what he set out to do, and that he was a great writer - in that book at least. Or maybe it just means that he wrote something ugly. I'm not sure which is the case. As far as I could see, there was nothing of humanity at all in the Count - he is just a monster. Is there pure evil out there in the world, and monsters (of the human kind)? Probably. I think we saw that in Fresno on Friday. But does it accomplish anything to write about it in such stark terms? I'm not sure that it does, if it disturbs people to read it so much that they don't read it at all.

Rice's vampires, on the other hand, have more of a sort of humanity to them - even the evil ones. Louis, of course, longs to be human again, which is his problem. And Lestat, well Lestat loves humans too much but I don't think he really wants to be one again. But both of these characters ultimately say something about what it means to be human, from the point of view of creatures who were once human but are no more. I am fascinated with Rice's vampires, as much as Stoker's vampire repels me.

I think, on the whole, I'd have to come down on the side of Rice, simply because her vampire novels - espcially the early ones - take up the theme of what it means to be human. Stoker, on the other hand, just provides a picture of evil, and of the helplessness of humans in the face of that evil. He may have been saying something important but, at least for me, he did it in so repellent a way that I nearly did not finish reading his book. You can't get your message out if people won't read what you've written.

[knivesout]

Stoker certainly did not have anything important to say. And his other works do contain the same cruel streak you've mentioned. Dracula is a portrait of a cold, inhuman killer, little more. While I continue to prefer my vampires to be heartless undead predators, I have to say that Rice tapped into the more psychologically intruguing aspects of the vampire myth and played them out into interesting characters and situations. I continue to dislike her work - a matter of taste - but beyond the pioneering aspect, Stoker does not, sadly, measure up to Rice.

Hmmm - maybe we should also kick off a few debates like the ones in Battle of the Books?

[littlemissattitude]

Not a bad idea at all. I can't think of any good subjects for these right now - it's way too late at night here. But I think this could be interesting.

And as far as the Rice v. Stoker issue, I think that Rice has gained such a following primarily because she has so thoroughly explored the sensual aspects of the vampire mythos. Her vampires (some of them) are capable of a kind of love. Stoker's novel on the other hand, while it has some of that sensuality in it (the film versions have magnified that, of course), seems to use the sensual only in the service of the Count's use of it as a lure for his victims.

I don't know. As I said, it's getting late, and I'm probably rambling at this point. I'm going to have to put some more thought into this whole issue. It is interesting.

[knivesout]

The sensual or sexual aspect (blood is an essential bodily fluid after all) has always been central to the vampire myth. Even in Stoker's work, it was expressed in a way most suited to appeal to the repressed sexuality of the times. The Count was a foreigner, and an evil one at that, so his 'ravishment' of Lucy and Wilhelmina could be used as a source of vicarious thrills, veiled with righteous indignation and the knowledge that no decent person would have done such a thing.

I think Anne Rice updated this aspect, and the more I think of it the better her work looks - at least in theory. Still can't stand to read the stuff though. And I think that's because of the overly sensitive nature of Rice's portrayals. At some point I think she is also excessively romanticising her vampiric characters, and that's where my discomfort stems from.

We should think of a few debate topics - maybe after the Book Club settles in for a few more months' although I think dwndrgn has that well under control.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by knivesout

I think Anne Rice updated this aspect, and the more I think of it the better her work looks - at least in theory. Still can't stand to read the stuff though. And I think that's because of the overly sensitive nature of Rice's portrayals. At some point I think she is also excessively romanticising her vampiric characters, and that's where my discomfort stems from.

Well, my theory is that Anne Rice is essentially a romance novelist. Her idea of what constitutes romance is more than a bit twisted at times, but still, her approach is very much from that direction. And that wears thin after awhile. Also, I think she has a rather unfortunate tendency to break taboos just to see if she can shock the reader. This is more true of some of her other work than it is of the vampire novels, but it happens to an extent there, as well. Now, I'm no prude, and I'm pretty hard to shock. But I'm not a bit fan of writing the shocking just to see what kind of reaction it will get, and I think that is her goal sometimes.