Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - A satire of revisionist history?

No, really, we do have plans to review more books!  Pinning Scott down when he's home is just rough.  We would rather PLAY!  Outdoors, even!

However, I do have a bunch to say about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  I'm not quite finished, but awfully close.  Maybe something else will be said on the subject.

Let me start by briefly explaining the difference (imo) between a Historian and a history buff/enthusiast.  In college, I was taught that truth in history is about studying the sources as well as the information they present.  Who wrote the information you are reading?  When did they write it?  Are they a contemporary?  A witness?  Someone who is writing something that has been passed orally before they put definitive words to it?  Why did they write it?  What's the ulterior motive?

Basically, what is the reliability level of the source and what else is out there to back it up.

People in society tend to hear something and not ask where it came from or why it is said, but they have no trouble believing it is true.  When it comes to historical subjects, this amuses me sometimes because people think they sound so intelligent by what they "know", but in reality, it's fiction.  Especially amusing is when I know where the legend came from, but it has been distorted by oration to be ridiculous.

Additionally, we have my pet peeve for historical fiction (specifically fiction that is creating a story set in history, not the well-researched fiction that is basically non-fiction, but because the author fills in the blanks, it is considered fiction).  Fiction writers who use history as a setting love to throw in famous historical figures.  Not everyone in the 1870s met Billy the Kid and not all gangsters hung out with Al Capone.  It's just ridiculous.  Having the novel BE Abraham Lincoln was one of my biggest reasons for avoiding it at first.


Knowing that, you'll understand my reactions.  When I first heard the title, I thought, "What?  That is some far-fetched crap."  Then the curiosity set in.  Curiosity is what has driven me to read many horrible books (don't stop here.  I'm not saying it's horrible.  More to come on that.)  My brain kept saying "How on earth is he going to make that happen?"  Granted, there are holes in my knowledge about Abe, but much of it is because there are holes in what we as historians CAN know.  Vampire Hunter?  That's obvious insanity.  It would take quite a trick to make that plausible in any world, I thought.  So, of course, I finally bought the book.

As is typical, it's like I have three people in my head reading any book.  There is a part of me that is constantly amused because I feel like Grahame-Smith has taken all these legends we hear about Abraham Lincoln, set aside the question of whether or not it could be true, and found a very creative way to make it work.  I look at it like it's not just revisionist history to the extreme.  It's a satire.  Somewhere in there, he's a make a joke on the fact that legends become larger than life.  I expect it's not his intention, but that's how one part of my brain keeps reading it.

Another segment of my brain notices the ways in which he is breaking the rules of writing (like I do, actually).  I do think one of my biggest hurdles in reading is that I see flaws in the technical aspect of writing whereas most people can look past that and see only the story.  This has made me rough on most best sellers, but I am coming to realize that I am allowed that opinion even though other people try to tell me I'm just not smart enough to understand and that's why I don't like those best sellers.  Technique and mechanics are an important part of writing.  His mechanics are fine and the technique isn't specifically awful, it just breaks the rules of what is "supposed" to work, and still tells the story in an enjoyable way.

Sometimes a great writer tells a horrible story.  Sometimes a great story is saddled with a horrible writer.  In this case, I should dislike the writing, but I don't.  Without spoiling too much, it is a little back and forth and not very smooth, yet it works.

The third part of me is enjoying the story and style separately from that.  With a strong conclusion, the story itself can be great.  His style keeps the story moving and there are a lot of fun events.  Obviously Abe Lincoln really did associate with a lot of the people famous from that period so they have to be mentioned.  I'm torn every time it happens, though, but I think it's because it's clearly fiction using a famous person's name.

I haven't gone through a book this fast for about a year.  Even books I really really enjoy take me 10 days to 2 weeks.  I started this about a week ago and think I may finish it today (6 days).  Yeah, I'm not a "stay up all night" reader.  I feel I absorb more if I give myself a chance to digest every few chapters and come back refreshed.  I rarely re-read a book because when I try, I find I remember pretty much every nuance because of the way I read in the first place so why bother when there are so many more books out there to be found?

Time to finish this one and move on to the next.


Edit to add: I realized a couple of things bothering me about this book, but talk about spoilers.  The vamps never get a fair shake.  Abe rushes in and kills on little more than suspicion most of the time.  Too much True Blood if I'm worried about the vampires?  Probably, but does it really jive with the man freeing slaves?  It almost belittles Abe's reasons for freeing slaves and by the end, I really did feel like the vampires were not given a chance.  A little uneven.  More on this later.  Scott is going to read the book *after* the movie.  Perhaps there will be interesting comparisons to be made...