John Seavey’s Storytelling Engines: Angel

[Zahir]

I used to know someone who went to a booksigning with Anne Rice and she asked about the whole AIDS/HIV issue.  According to her, Anne Rice's comment was "They're immortal.  Get it?"

I agree with Quentincollins that although technically Countess Zeleska in Dracula's Daughter was the first "reluctant vampire" on film (the title character of Varney the Vampire in the early 1800s also was sometimes very relucatnt), Barnabas was the first "hit" of such an idea and almost certainly ushered in Louis, Nick, Angel, etc.

But comparing Barnabas and Angel is a bit tricky because you have to remember their vampirism was very different.  Joss Whedon's shows explicitly described what a vampire was--namely, a human whose soul has been replaced by a demon.  Not, interestingly enough, their mind.  The mind is the same.  Internal evidence of the both series would seem to indicate the soul is something like a spiritual "organ" that encourages people to feel empathy for one another as human beings, which seemed to be a foundation for moral standards.  Take that away and it is like removing every single inhibition, then replace them with the drives of a predator.

So far so good (kinda/sorta).

Yet vampires of DS seem different.  It seems as if becoming a vampire altered the personality, but mostly by giving the new undead an overwhelming hunger as well as more aggression.  This showed up in all sorts of ways, but in Barnabas' case this meant a much more fierce temper (as poor Willie can attest).  Yet unlike Buffyverse vampires, DS vampires seem to feel waves of bloodlust.  Barnabas, interestingly, went through long periods without feeding (this may have to do with the sheer length of time he was undead).  Angelique showed the capacity for self-control but no real interest in it, whereas vampires like Chris Jennings just seemed to be appetites with legs.  One suspects it is largely a matter of willpower and personality.

On the other hand, certain aspects of Barnabas' story do seem to resonate for this kind of story.  The troubled family, the love/hate relationship with one's maker, the dreadful toll taken by those close to the vampire, the struggle for some kind of redemption through good works--all these are present in Barnabas, Louis, Nick and Angel when you think about it.  Details vary quite a bit, but the essentials are there and one can note how other "reluctant vampires" failed to grab the imagination--including the lead in Moonlight and that show on Lifetime--also failed to have these elements.  Not that I'm claiming that this is a formula for good vampire story-telling, but that those details did resonate and if you're gonna tell a truly rivetting tale of this genre you need to have details that resonate in some such way.

[Gothick]

In season 3 of Forever Knight, they did an episode that was an interesting exploration of the whole HIV/AIDS thing and how it could or could not impact vampires.  I think the episode was called "Fever."

G.

[GooberCollins]

Re Monster Book, basically, they just mentioned the show several times and got some facts wrong; if I recall correctly, their biggest goof-up was saying that there was only one trip back in time and basically said that Angelique and Quentin both made their first appearances in the same storyline. They either wrote it terribly unclearly or just screwed up.

If I remember correctly, in the books that are serving as the basis for TrueBlood, HIV/AIDS had mutated to a form where it indeed could affect vampires, as well. But in DS vampire "rules," it probably was essentially a non-issue.

I do think that Angel and Barnabas are just two completely different characters. Yes, they're both reluctant vampires, but as I said before, Barnabas seems far less concerned with redemption, for one thing. Heck, Spike cared more about that than Barnabas did. It's also interesting how [spoiler]Spike's love for Buffy made him a better person, eventually leading to the restoration of his soul, whereas Barnabas's love for Vicki made him want to kill Burke and chop off Jeff's head.[/spoiler]

[Mysterious Benefactor]

[spoiler]...whereas Barnabas's love for Vicki made him want to kill Burke and chop off Jeff's head.[/spoiler]

Yes, well, that's our Barn. 

[GooberCollins]

Sure is! 

[quentincollins]

It is true, in DS love tens to push people into doing monstrous things. Love drives [spoiler]Angelique to destroy everyone around Barnabas, love drives Barnabas to try to embrace Josette, Maggie and Vicky as vampires, love drives Barnabas to kidnap Maggie and torment her, love drives Beth to try to kill Quentin.
Love also drives Julia to try to help Barnabas even as she covers up his crimes.[/spoiler]
There are examples of goodness in love, with the more pure loves of Joe/Maggie and Jeff/Vicky but there are many examples of how love destroys. DS certainly wasn't afraid to explore the dark side of human nature.
I hadn't though tabout it, but Barnabas really doesn't seek out redemption. He does change over time, but he never spends too much time trying to repent, he just moves forward. And even once Barnabas changes into the anti-hero figure, he still is presumably killing whores on the warf, we just don't see it or hear about it very much.

[Zahir]

Well, now wait a minute--how do we know Barnabas wasn't feeding from cattle, as he did when he first arose?  Or perhaps with time vampires need less blood in general?  We don't really know, because that was among the many questions two which DS never really gave any hint of an answer.  Barnabas didn't talk much about redemption, but he did his best to try and protect his family as well as others whenever possible. 

I was actually thinking for a bit in the other direction.  Seems to me you could easily make the point that the whole Barnabas/Josette/Reluctant Vampire story could have been suggested by three classic horror movies:

The Mummy with Boris Karloff, which had as the center of its plot Imhotep trying to find and reclaim the princess he had loved and for whom he died.  Even though she was now reincarnated as someone else.

Werewolf in London not only had a cursed hero in an inverness coat (!) but also was about his trying to keep his condition a secret while seeking a cure.

And of course Dracula's Daughter in some ways is a distaff version of the whole plotline, with Countess Zaleska seeking a cure for undeath from a male doctor with whom she falls in love, but who does not feel that way about her.  There's even a romantic triangle!

Not that I'm suggesting Dan Curtis, Sam Hall, etc. were committing plagerism.  Far from it!  But the ideas and plot elements they used--and which have now become such staples as to be almost cliche--did exist prior to DS and may have helped fertilize the imagination of the writers.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Sam Hall wasn't actually a part of the writing staff when the idea of Barnabas being a reluctant vampire was conceived.    And as for DC, well, he fought the idea because he wanted Barnabas to be strictly evil.    It was Ron Sproat and Malcolm Marmorstein who, through much persuasion, finally convinced DC that a reluctant vampire was far more interesting than a strictly evil one. And the rest is history. 

[Taeylor Collins]

Indeed MB.  I was gonna point that out but you beat me to it. 

[Zahir]

Mysterious, can you point me to some documentation of what you say?  I'm not doubting you--just want to read up more on such things.  Would adore knowing more about how different story-telling decisions were made!

[Mysterious Benefactor]

There are videos of Ron Sproat's appearances from the early Fests. I couldn't tell you at which appearances he discussed the evolution of Barnabas (possibly all of them) because I've only read the transcripts - and unfortunately I don't recall the years. The transcripts are possibly still available on the Internet somewhere, but I have no idea where. And the books in which he discussed the matter are long since out of print. However, I probably have something around here from back in the '80s that at least has excerpts from them. When I get a chance I'll try to track something down...

[Taeylor Collins]

A lot of the transcripts are from the glory days of ZINES.  Have I mentioned how much I miss zines.  LOL Yes I have a million times. Zahir, I will try and look through some of my old zines for transcripts as well.

[Midnite]

Zahir,

There's an interview with Sproat (where Edward Gross, unfortunately, consistently calls him "Sprout") in the DS Tribute Book that discusses the evolution of the Barnabas character:

"...Dan hated a lot of what we blocked out storywise, because it made Barnabas sympathetic. Dan never wanted him to be sympathetic. He hated it."

And then there was HoDS, sigh.

Sproat also talks there about the contribution by Frid, who "suggested that we write against the evil and he would play against it, which would make it more interesting."

[Zahir]

So interesting! 

This reminds me a lot of Gene Roddenberry and TREK.  Kudos to the man, but much of what made TREK so successful was the team working on it, especially Gene L. Coon.  When Roddenberry got to make sweeping edicts for the new TREKs he came close to driving a stake through the heart of his creation forever.  He was the one who decreed "no conflicts between Starfleet personnel" which was a rule that forced the writers into one formula after another (usually involving a brand new particle) and virtually never allowed the regulars to interact in any meaningful way.  Hence their efforts to get around that rule with DS9 and VOY, which were both superior to TNG inho.

Likewise, from what you're telling me, Dan Curtis didn't really "get" what made Barnabas popular and interesting.  Of course, after doing HODS he then did a turnaround and tried to use the same device to make Dracula somewhat sympathetic in his own adaptation of that novel, starring Jack Palance.

That was after HODS, right?   

[GooberCollins]

I was just discussing that with someone a few days ago off-site. I think Dan Curtis totally missed the point of Barnabas's appeal - people were watching him not merely because he was a vampire, but because he was a well-written character being portrayed by a great actor. DC apparently misinterpreted this as the fans going gaga for the supernatural stuff, leading to a (to paraphrase Gerard) "the more spooky crap, the better!" philosophy. I am, of course, using the word crap in a general sense here; there are parts of DS I'm not terribly fond of, but none of them are crap.