We Are Steeped In Blood So Far....(Macbeth).

I'm glad to be a bit early with this one, considering the tribulations that have occurred recently that have prevented me from maintaining some sort of schedule. These tribulations centre around a bacterial infection, and the taking of an anti-biotic drug (Biaxin, since you ask) that is taking its own sweet time in killing the bacteria dragon. Pity there isn't a drug called Siegfried, who, after chatting up the dragon for a little, proceeds quickly to slay it. Then it is off to find Brunnhilde and her protective ring of fire and -- [that's enough Wagner: ed.]

In any event, I had loads of time on my hands, and was driven to watching far more television then I ever had before. Or will again. My sainted aunt! Mind you, I have always had my suspicions about this medium. After all, the word is half Latin, half Greek. How could any good come of it?

First came a barrage of religious shows that preached eternal salvation if only one followed the rules as set out by whatever preacher was holding forth. The only common denominator appeared to be the ongoing need for financial contributions, which, if I recall the New Testament correctly, was the exact cause of Christ turfing the financiers out of the Temple.

The came the talk shows -- Dr. Phil et al -- where I encountered any number of people being interviewed who were batshit crazy and seemingly proud of it. It was actually a relief to stumble into General Hospital, which is at least an honest soap opera.

But what staggered me, and the reason for the title of this piece, was the number of shows related to the care and feeding of vampires.

Now I well realize that anything to do with blood extraction is tricky. No government that I know of does this directly, as they do with (rapacious) taxation. I mean, a government would find it difficult in the extreme to defend taking blood directly from the citizenry. Hence the use of arms-length organizations such as the Red Cross to do this. Yet this extraction holds a macabre fascination, something Bram Stoker got onto with his Dracula, and vampires have had a very successful run indeed.

Unfortunately, most television shows featuring vampires are rubbish. The creatures cavort about in the sun, do well in school assignments, and many are helpful and good. Stoker would be appalled. There are, however, two exceptions, one from the past, one current.

In the past, Buffy The Vampire Slayer got full marks, not for the story line, but for the writing sub-text that flowed through the show. One example of this will suffice. A teacher hands back an essay assignment, remarking, "Well, Willow, I really can't critique your use of pure reason." (Work on that folks -- there is a clue in the fifth word.) I was hooked on the show from that point on.

The current show that impresses me is True Blood. The thesis: a blood substitute has been developed -- by the Japanese, who else? -- that allows vampires to 'come out of the closet', a term used advisedly. In truth, the show is not so much about vampires as it is about social upheaval and bigotry. And often the show's sub-text is more important than the main plot line, which can and often does goes completely over the top in terms of violence and sexuality. But back to the sub-text. Example -- at a bar, a newspaper is briefly seen on a table with the headline, "Brad and Angelina adopt vampire baby."

Works for me.

However, it was a relief when Irving showed up with the latest copy of the New Yorker. Good. Off went the television. Bye, bye vampires. But I had only turned one page when I encountered the following cartoon. Two teenage girls are shown leaving a classroom, with one saying to the other, "There are no vampires in our school. We are SO unlucky!"

One can only hope, as Conrad's Lord Jim did when he swallowed the pearl, that this too will pass.





The popularity