Perhaps two horror classics are Frankenstein (sf) and Dracula (fantasy). I once said that Frankenstein addressed an important issue whereas Dracula did not but it was pointed out to me that vampires symbolize exploitation.
Frankenstein has two aspects: the horror of the shambling monster and the issue of the role of science, in particular whether scientists might usurp the role of the Creator. Anderson addresses the morality of the creation of human life in the appropriately entitled Genesis.
I still rate Frankenstein far higher than Dracula.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I can understand why vampire stories does not appeal to you. And I'm not particularly fond of the theme myself (aside from what I consider the best written examples given us by Stoker and King). And I also consider vampirism, on the face of it, implausible. But what made Stirling's Shadowspawn books so interesting to me, on that point, was how plausible he made vampirism appear, from a science fictional POV.
I've never read FRANKENSTEIN, so I can't honestly comment about the book, but I have read DRACULA, and feel able to make a few comments. Besides exploitation, in a negative sense, Count Dracula gives us an image of the monster as aristocrat, of a monster who subtly and seductively preys on his victims, makes them WANT to be preyed on. And we certainly see that with Stirling's Shadowspawn, in how they can make their victims feel pleasure in being bled. To become ADDICTED to being drained of blood.
I agree that FRANKENSTEIN is best classified as proto-science fiction. DRACULA, along with Wilde's THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GREY and Stevenson's DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE, is best classified as Gothic fiction.
We see a brief and amusing mention of vampires existing in Anderson's OPERATION CHAOS and how they and Italians simply did not get along. But we never see these vampires and exactly how they "operated."
Sean
Think of it as a metaphor for exploitation... 8-).
Mr. Stirling,
That works for me!
Sean
Post a Comment