Answering Steve's problems with vampires.

So after posting his nice review, Steve Perry also had some problems with the whole idea of vampires, so I thought I should answer him.

http://themanwhonevermissed.blogspot.com/

Dear Steve,

Oh, boy.  I think you're wrong about this in so many ways I'm not sure where to start.  I'm not mad, I just think you're off-base.  I hope you don't mind a good argument.

First of all, I didn't plan to defend myself on this.  I think when a writer asks for critique, he should accept it gracefully and gratefully.

However, since you aired your criticisms to the public, I feel like I should answer.

So let's start with the picture on the top of your blog.

What is that posture?  I've never seen anything like that outside a yoga class.  What is the purpose of it, besides looking dramatic?  Have you ever actually held such a gothic and non-utilitarian knife as the one this character is holding?  Have you ever actually seen one?  The character is ridiculously air-brushed handsome, not much like any real person I've seen outside of fashion ads.  Oh, am I to believe he "never misses?"

No doubt he's a lover of women, a killer of men, an expert in all things martial, and probably a gourmet cook.

This isn't meant to be an attack -- but to point out that all genres have their tropes which the people who like those genres accept, but which from the outside can look iffy.

What I'm trying to say here is, James Bond isn't real.  Jack Reacher isn't real.  Travis McGee was so laconic that he was catatonic.  Spenser is a ridiculously accomplished P.I., so expert in all things that I couldn't stand him.  Earl Swagger, bless his hard bitten little heart, doesn't exist.

Vampires aren't real.

There probably will never be intergalactic fleets  zipping around the universe, or time travel machines, nor will we get "beamed up."

Most western fights were messy, back-shooting, unequal affairs.  Most cops never fire their weapons in the line of duty.  Most martial art fights would probably stop after one or two heavy hits.  Most guys beat up as much as they are in movies wouldn't get out of bed for a week.

A cop who never fires his gun makes for a boring cop story.

What I'm trying to say is, you're drawing the lines as to what you find believable that seem somewhat arbitrary.

Here's the thing.  If you found a body in a motel room with two puncture wounds drained of blood -- you wouldn't think it was a vampire, Steve.  I doubt you would believe in vampires until one had its fangs in your neck.

You would think, as do the characters in my story, that it is some nutcase who either thinks he is a vampire and/or is mimicking one.

So I have set the premise of my story that vampires are rare, that they destroy the evidence usually (they even have a rule about it) and that this is an unusual circumstance.

It reminds me of my wife who will sometimes lean over in the middle of some fantastical movie and say, "That part isn't believable."

"That part isn't believable?  But the part where he's flying around and bouncing off bullets is?"

All genres ask that you "suspend your disbelief."  All genres, granted, ask that you make it believable within the parameters of your premise. But certain things are given.

"Make it believable within the parameters of your premise."

As a bookstore owner, I have all types of readers.  Some can't suspend their disbelief enough to even read fiction.  Others draw the line at genre.  Still others draw the line at comics.

So as much as I like modern SF, for instance, I've gotten to the point where when they start drawing technological rabbits out of hats, it's no more believable than zombies or vampires.

Besides -- vampires?   I mean, really?

When I was a little boy, I was watching Sea Hunt, with Lloyd Bridges, and my dad made the comment that the character had more adventures in one episode than most cops would ever have in their entire lives.

I've always remembered that.  Always known that what I read is mostly ridiculous.

But also ridiculously entertaining.