With the complete and total Twilight craze it seemed appropriate to go back to the novel that reignited society's interest in vampires. Of course we had Dracula way back when who was inspired by Vlad the impaler (which Elizabeth Kostova touched on in The Historian). It seems that every author who takes on vampires creates their own ideas of which of all the Vampire myths are true.
I'd seen the film adaptation and I'm always hesitant as I find most films slice and dice books with the occasional one in twenty actually turning out well. As I read this book, I couldn't help but compare to the film. The book tended to prove to me that Hollywood (for once) did the seemingly impossible: actually improved upon the original content. The film stayed faithful to the many gems the book created, while cutting the part of the book that was the most sluggish, even the casting (which I am always critical of) was perfection. Claudia turned out to be one of the most brilliantly written characters and it made me all the more shocked that they were actually able to find a child actor capable of pulling it off. (which I believe Kristen Dunst did)
Now I realize that this reads more like a review of the film, but I felt that having seen the film first, I couldn't help but think of the comparison whilst reading the book. I felt that the interview format of the book, while unique, ultimately worked better on the screen. I most enjoyed this book, but it doesn't appear to be a series that is going to cause an addiction the way that the Millennium trilogy did.
B
No comments:
Post a Comment