Tuesday, March 8, 2016
THE READING RHEUM: VAMPIRE$ (1990)
Continuing my tradition of writing quickie book-reviews here, I'll just say that I'd never heard anything good or bad about John Steakley's VAMPIRE$. I read it for no other reason than to draw comparisons to the John Carpenter film when I get around to it, even though I'd been informed that the movie takes almost nothing from the book's plot.
Having read it now, I can understand why: the book reads like a clumsy amalgam of Kenneth Robeson and Sam Peckinpah. The cadre of vampire hunters aren't much better drawn than the heroes of the Doc Savage adventures, but in theory one is supposed to care about them as they sit around boozing and regretting their pasts, as one sees so often in Peckinpah films like THE KILLER ELITE.
The story is episodically plotted and thus depends on the supposed charm of the characters-- meaning that it held no charms for me (though the opening scenes at least were pretty kick-ass).
I feel "vampirized" of my precious time for having bothered to read this one.