Some years ago I was in my agent's office and, I may be remembering this wrongly, but she sort of slumped and said "People just read for entertainment!" She was trying to encourage me to do/say less in my work.
In an attempt to follow her advice, the novel I have coming out next year is my first published effort at writing a book with no content. My pal read the book and said the airplanes were more main characters than the humans. I think that's pretty much of a compliment actually as I love airplanes.
Bridget Jones and all the chicklit books that followed on her spike heels is the pinnacle of having absolutely nothing to say and yet revolutionized/created an entirely new genre of literature. This chicklit thing that's now pretty much dead, because people want to read about the real dead--vampires--and reading about Jimmy Choooos is not as sexy as being ravished by a hunky undead guy.
Has anyone ever explained why vampires need blood to "exist"? Wouldn't milkshakes be just as good?
I read a post elsewhere about Tru Blood (based on the Sookie Stackhouse books) on one of the premium channels and since I wouldn't watch it even if I could sanction paying for all that junk, I was shocked at the goings on. It sounded like pornography. And women and gay men really like it.
So apparently this is what readers and viewers want. Entertainment without content. Unless vampires and chicklit actually has content I'm not aware of, in which case, please post a comment and explain it to me.
Cinematically, the German director, F.W. Murnau, showed the world the first really popular vampire in I think it was 1922 but I'll go check. Yes, shot in 1921 and released in 1922. That makes it in public domain for anyone who wants to find it on the net and download it. It's a classic. This isn't quite the Frank Langella sexy vampire you might be be conjuring up in your mind's eye. Imagine being ravished by this fine fellow. (What am I missing?!)
|F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu|