markk

I came across this last night while browsing the graphic novel section at my local B&N, and I decided to give it a try. It's about a virus that transforms 1% of the human population into vampires of all types, and the resulting clash with the remaining 99% of the human population.

To be honest it wasn't terrible, and I powered through it in about an hour. But my discontent with it came to the surface when I read the promotional blurbs from Maberry's fellow authors:

After reading those, I wondered if they were talking about the same book. A "fresh take"? All Maberry did was take some elements that have been in circulation for the past few years (a little from Daybreakers, a chunk from The Passage, some elements from Kim Newman's Anno Dracula, etc.) and mix them together in different proportions. It took all of the "high-thinking" of a Hollywood executive who thinks "fresh" is defined doing the same thing in only a cosmetically different way.

Perhaps I wouldn't have reacted as negatively as I did if it wasn't for the recycling of so many tropes and stereotypes. Bleeding-heart liberal who tries to hold onto his humanity in inhumane times? Check. Close-knit squad of soldiers who shoot first and ask questions later? Check. Deep state conspiracy pursuing a different agenda? Check. And so on. As I said it's not terrible, but it certainly doesn't justify the hype it's received.

Perhaps I'm being too critical, but it's frustrating to see how so much horror out is celebrated for its originality when all it's doing is following the dominant paradigm. A couple of decades ago, the idea of a world in which vampires were omnipresent would have been innovative. Now I read something like this and it just has a "been there-done that" feel to it. It's an insult to truly imaginative work to peddle something like this as it, no matter how many authors you can find to provide positive jacket quotes.