Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
People are both allowed to like whatever they want and also not like whatever they want. Subjective tastes are subjective.
What are you reading in 2025?
- Thread starter Elodan
- Start date
Paul Farquhar
Legend
But, if you are going to critique a work, it helps if you have read and understood it.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I just finished reading The Black Vampyre: A Legend of St. Domingo, an 1819 work by Uriah Derick D'Arcy, and even before I can get into a summary of the story or my thoughts on it, there are several notes which need to be made.
For one thing, "Uriah Derick D'Arcy" is a nom de plume; the real identity of the author has never been confirmed (though several theories have been put forward, with varying degrees of likelihood). Similarly, the version I read was the 2020 edition, published by Gothic World Literature Editions, an imprint of Leamington Books. That's worth noting simply because this version of the story comes with a long foreword, a long section of notes after the fact, and even a full reprint of the book's Wikipedia page (which I'm not entirely sure is legal).
In fact, the use of Wikipedia is even more notable than this reprint; looking up references (such as the Panic of 1819 and Lord Byron's The Giaour) found in the foreword and the ending notes, I found several sentences which were near-exact reproductions of lines from those Wikipedia pages as well. Now, I didn't go back and check the versions of those pages from October 31, 2020 (when this book says it was published), so I can't conclusively say that what's here was copied from Wikipedia; for all I know, this book's writings were copied for those pages. But this book's openly copy-pasting the entirety of the page for the titular text makes me dubious.
Having said all of that, what's here is a tale of a young African who's brought to Haiti, where he's subsequently beaten to death by his owner, only to arise as a vampire and later take revenge upon his killer's family.
Or at least, that's the basic gist of the tale. The actual execution is a bit more circuitous, and even taking into account that vampires weren't the familiar concept that they are today (even considering that this story was written as a reaction to John Polidori's The Vampyre), a lot of things here seem drawn out at best, and nonsensical at worst.
For instance, leaving aside that the titular vampire in question seems to have been some sort of unnatural being from the beginning (his owner having to go to extreme lengths to kill him), he apparently waits somewhere around a decade before coming back for revenge. Ostensibly this is because he's killed as a child, and—after killing his slayer's infant son—comes back only once he's grown up, but this establishes that vampires physicall age, a point contradicted later on when that same vampire notes that his kind are immortal (in terms of not growing old).
There's also the rather odd manner of his revenge, in that the person who killed him dies shortly thereafter, leaving behind a widow who remarries twice, only for both of those husbands to die as well. Only then does the vampire reappear, seducing and vampirizing the widow, after which he brings all three of her husbands back to life as vampires, only to convince the second and third to fight a duel, which ends in a draw, and the vampire then kills them. He at that point reveals that his servant boy is in fact the widow's son (despite, when the child was "killed," there having been left a dessicated corpse in his cradle), and that he (the vampire) has forgiven his slayer and bids them adieau, wanting the now-vampirized family to go live in Europe in peace.
But wait, there's more! On the way to the coast, the family then stumbles across a cave where that same vampire is holding a secret meeting of vampires and slaves, plotting to overthrow the white colonists who rule Haiti. But the meeting is broken up by the soldiers who enforce the colonial rule, killing everyone, and the vampirized couple's son reveals that he's the one who tipped off the soldiers. He then pockets a vial with the cure for vampirism (which had been held by the titular vampire), and his family takes it, becoming human again and living happily ever after...except for the former-widow being revealed to be pregnant with the vampire's offspring.
Now, that's a fairly rough outline, but it doesn't actually stop there.
We then get an afterword by the author (it's literally titled "Moral") wherein he rails against those who make a living off of the hard work of others, calling them all vampires. Clerks and bankers are denounced, as are "dandies" and those who "traffick in stock and merchandise," and this is where the people who added the contemporary foreword say that the story is anti-capitalist in nature. I'm less certain of that, however, because in this same section the author also rails against literary critics, forum orators, and "divines," labeling them all as vampires as well, as they make their living off of denouncing the hard labor of others.
Most notable, however, is how at the end of this "Moral," the author finally declares himself to be a vampire, apparently because his work has been "spun out of his own bowels." (Which is presumably a rather polite way of saying that his work is, ahem, excrement). It makes the entire diatribe seem ironic, rather than a serious takedown of a capitalist economy.
Even stranger, this afterword isn't the end, as there's a letter from the author to a pair of local publishers mocking their sensibilities, followed by a long poem about vampyrism.
While that's the end of the text, the publishers then include a response from those publishers, which makes jabs back at the author in an excellent representative showing of how flame wars predate the Internet by a very long time indeed.
Overall, this was a very strange bit of literary history. While one can absolutely take note that this is (as far as I know) the first tale of a black person being the vampire (move over, Blacula), the story unto itself seems disjointed and meandering, even taking into account that literary standards were different two hundred years ago; while having notes and explanations does help smooth over some of the less-comprehensible patches, the entire thing still comes off as odd, though in that respect the questionable reliances on Wikipedia seem ironically appropriate, particularly given the original author's uncertain identity and shows of animosity toward his contemporaries.
As a historical artifact, this is absolutely worth reading, but I'm not sure I could recommend this to anyone looking for entertaining literature.
For one thing, "Uriah Derick D'Arcy" is a nom de plume; the real identity of the author has never been confirmed (though several theories have been put forward, with varying degrees of likelihood). Similarly, the version I read was the 2020 edition, published by Gothic World Literature Editions, an imprint of Leamington Books. That's worth noting simply because this version of the story comes with a long foreword, a long section of notes after the fact, and even a full reprint of the book's Wikipedia page (which I'm not entirely sure is legal).
In fact, the use of Wikipedia is even more notable than this reprint; looking up references (such as the Panic of 1819 and Lord Byron's The Giaour) found in the foreword and the ending notes, I found several sentences which were near-exact reproductions of lines from those Wikipedia pages as well. Now, I didn't go back and check the versions of those pages from October 31, 2020 (when this book says it was published), so I can't conclusively say that what's here was copied from Wikipedia; for all I know, this book's writings were copied for those pages. But this book's openly copy-pasting the entirety of the page for the titular text makes me dubious.
Having said all of that, what's here is a tale of a young African who's brought to Haiti, where he's subsequently beaten to death by his owner, only to arise as a vampire and later take revenge upon his killer's family.
Or at least, that's the basic gist of the tale. The actual execution is a bit more circuitous, and even taking into account that vampires weren't the familiar concept that they are today (even considering that this story was written as a reaction to John Polidori's The Vampyre), a lot of things here seem drawn out at best, and nonsensical at worst.
For instance, leaving aside that the titular vampire in question seems to have been some sort of unnatural being from the beginning (his owner having to go to extreme lengths to kill him), he apparently waits somewhere around a decade before coming back for revenge. Ostensibly this is because he's killed as a child, and—after killing his slayer's infant son—comes back only once he's grown up, but this establishes that vampires physicall age, a point contradicted later on when that same vampire notes that his kind are immortal (in terms of not growing old).
There's also the rather odd manner of his revenge, in that the person who killed him dies shortly thereafter, leaving behind a widow who remarries twice, only for both of those husbands to die as well. Only then does the vampire reappear, seducing and vampirizing the widow, after which he brings all three of her husbands back to life as vampires, only to convince the second and third to fight a duel, which ends in a draw, and the vampire then kills them. He at that point reveals that his servant boy is in fact the widow's son (despite, when the child was "killed," there having been left a dessicated corpse in his cradle), and that he (the vampire) has forgiven his slayer and bids them adieau, wanting the now-vampirized family to go live in Europe in peace.
But wait, there's more! On the way to the coast, the family then stumbles across a cave where that same vampire is holding a secret meeting of vampires and slaves, plotting to overthrow the white colonists who rule Haiti. But the meeting is broken up by the soldiers who enforce the colonial rule, killing everyone, and the vampirized couple's son reveals that he's the one who tipped off the soldiers. He then pockets a vial with the cure for vampirism (which had been held by the titular vampire), and his family takes it, becoming human again and living happily ever after...except for the former-widow being revealed to be pregnant with the vampire's offspring.
Now, that's a fairly rough outline, but it doesn't actually stop there.
We then get an afterword by the author (it's literally titled "Moral") wherein he rails against those who make a living off of the hard work of others, calling them all vampires. Clerks and bankers are denounced, as are "dandies" and those who "traffick in stock and merchandise," and this is where the people who added the contemporary foreword say that the story is anti-capitalist in nature. I'm less certain of that, however, because in this same section the author also rails against literary critics, forum orators, and "divines," labeling them all as vampires as well, as they make their living off of denouncing the hard labor of others.
Most notable, however, is how at the end of this "Moral," the author finally declares himself to be a vampire, apparently because his work has been "spun out of his own bowels." (Which is presumably a rather polite way of saying that his work is, ahem, excrement). It makes the entire diatribe seem ironic, rather than a serious takedown of a capitalist economy.
Even stranger, this afterword isn't the end, as there's a letter from the author to a pair of local publishers mocking their sensibilities, followed by a long poem about vampyrism.
While that's the end of the text, the publishers then include a response from those publishers, which makes jabs back at the author in an excellent representative showing of how flame wars predate the Internet by a very long time indeed.
Overall, this was a very strange bit of literary history. While one can absolutely take note that this is (as far as I know) the first tale of a black person being the vampire (move over, Blacula), the story unto itself seems disjointed and meandering, even taking into account that literary standards were different two hundred years ago; while having notes and explanations does help smooth over some of the less-comprehensible patches, the entire thing still comes off as odd, though in that respect the questionable reliances on Wikipedia seem ironically appropriate, particularly given the original author's uncertain identity and shows of animosity toward his contemporaries.
As a historical artifact, this is absolutely worth reading, but I'm not sure I could recommend this to anyone looking for entertaining literature.
Last edited:
Old Fezziwig
this is a low-flying panic attack
I like to mix in books on football with my other reading as palette cleansers, and I just finished How to Win the Premier League by Ian Graham this morning. As a Liverpool supporter, I found some of the information inside interesting on a behind-the-scenes level, if a little gossipy, but the material on using data and analytics in football was ultimately disappointing. Overall, the book was shallow -- it hints at interesting things more than it talks about them. This makes sense given Graham's got a consultancy business to run in the area that his book is covering, but there was little here that I couldn't find elsewhere with more detail and presented more thoughtfully (Michael Cox or Paul Tomkins have covered a lot of this stuff with similar conclusions).
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
The Discworld core book PDF was released to backers. I’m absolutely devouring it. Such a great light system. I’m honestly surprised Modiphius made this. The rules themselves take maybe 5-10 pages. The advice is mostly stellar. Though there are a few missteps and glaring omissions. This is already easily one of my top five rules light RPGs. So good. I need to continue my Pratchett read through.
Eyes of Nine
Everything's Fine
IIRC, those were the only ones he wrote before his untimely death...
Retros_x
Hero
While battling myself through "The Way of Kings" I've read "The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Huge" by Taylor Jenkins Reid.
Very positively surprised by this book, a booktok hype that it is actually worth the hype. I really liked the structure with the narrative frame of the journalist interviewing the old actress and the "bloodless" mystery of why did she specifically got hired as an unknown writer and who of her 7 husbands Evelyn truly love?
And than we deep dive into Old Hollywood, but an alternative Universe of it where all the characters are fictional actors and actresses and producers and they make fictional movies. But obviously several real personalities and moves were inspiration to this book - i really like this approach. It gives the author the opportunity to tell their story but still root it in real history.
I love the character of Evelyn. She is complex and flawed but somehow you are still rooting for her and you can't help but be amazed by her dedication to come up with a plan and execute it - even they are sometimes truly immoral ones. I also liked the reflections about fame and persons who search fame, why they do it. Of course its a narcisstic and ego driven goal, but that doesn't mean they must be without compassion, love and empathy.
The article snippets that are commenting the events were also great and the contrast between what the public think is happening (or what the press sells them) and what actually is happening in the life of stars is funny but also quite interesting, especially if the characters play them and artifically create the image the want to create. My favorite poignant contrast was when one article praises an actress and ends with something like "its a good time to be her" and then you turn the page and the next chapter starts with "I don't want to do this" said by that actress when producers try to persuade her to do a sexual scene in a revealing outfit.
I still had some gripes that caused the book being not a 100% succes for me. Mainly that although some heavy, traumatic evens are happening i felt that many of the emotional beats don't hit quite well for me, especially because its SO FAST PACED. There are important live events and life times that just get jumped into and jump into the next one, especially in the last chapters, that it could not unravel the full impact on me.
Still a really entertaining read, that left me wanting for more by the author, which luckily is available.
Very positively surprised by this book, a booktok hype that it is actually worth the hype. I really liked the structure with the narrative frame of the journalist interviewing the old actress and the "bloodless" mystery of why did she specifically got hired as an unknown writer and who of her 7 husbands Evelyn truly love?
And than we deep dive into Old Hollywood, but an alternative Universe of it where all the characters are fictional actors and actresses and producers and they make fictional movies. But obviously several real personalities and moves were inspiration to this book - i really like this approach. It gives the author the opportunity to tell their story but still root it in real history.
I love the character of Evelyn. She is complex and flawed but somehow you are still rooting for her and you can't help but be amazed by her dedication to come up with a plan and execute it - even they are sometimes truly immoral ones. I also liked the reflections about fame and persons who search fame, why they do it. Of course its a narcisstic and ego driven goal, but that doesn't mean they must be without compassion, love and empathy.
The article snippets that are commenting the events were also great and the contrast between what the public think is happening (or what the press sells them) and what actually is happening in the life of stars is funny but also quite interesting, especially if the characters play them and artifically create the image the want to create. My favorite poignant contrast was when one article praises an actress and ends with something like "its a good time to be her" and then you turn the page and the next chapter starts with "I don't want to do this" said by that actress when producers try to persuade her to do a sexual scene in a revealing outfit.
I still had some gripes that caused the book being not a 100% succes for me. Mainly that although some heavy, traumatic evens are happening i felt that many of the emotional beats don't hit quite well for me, especially because its SO FAST PACED. There are important live events and life times that just get jumped into and jump into the next one, especially in the last chapters, that it could not unravel the full impact on me.
Still a really entertaining read, that left me wanting for more by the author, which luckily is available.
Justine Moore
Villager
I’m planning to finish The Witcher series and then dive into the Devil’s Night cycle. My BookTok is filled with recommendations for both, and I’m really excited to see what happens next. I’ve heard a lot of praise for both, but I don’t want to spoil anything for myself so if anyone has already read them, please keep any spoilers to yourselves! It’s way more enjoyable when you experience it for the first time without knowing what’s coming. I’m also curious about how the two series compare in terms of world-building and character development, especially since The Witcher has such a rich universe and Devil’s Night seems to have a very different vibe. Let me know if you’ve read either of them — but again, no spoilers!
Retros_x
Hero
The witcher is a very interesting fantasy series with a lot of switches in vibe. I did like that, but I know a lot of readers disliked when the author did some, lets call it experimentations with the writing style. Its mythology is also quite heavily inspired on european (especially slavic, but not only) mythology and fairytales. Not the disney fairytales, the dark focloristic tales that disney based their movies on. But you might recognize some if you know the disney movies.
If you know the games be prepared though that a lot of the characters and their relationships are different than in the games (Triss...) and IMO way more complex, Geralt himself included very much.
Similar Threads
