brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (09/10/85)
> > The Vampire--Jung and Old > VAMPIRE JUNCTION by S. P. Somtow (Somtow Sucharitkul) > Berkley, 1985, $2.95. > A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper > > ........................................... But the extent to which Somtow > tries to put all of Jungian psychology in this novel smothers the > originality that it would otherwise display. > > Evelyn C. Leeper > ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl Interesting. It seems clear that you know a great deal more about Jungian psychology than I. I had not trouble enjoying the novel as a straightforward story, with notes to myself to re-read it to see what else was in it. It may be that, comming from ignorence, the books works better than you, who have some understanding of its depths, might think. -- SKZB
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (09/11/85)
The Vampire--Jung and Old
VAMPIRE JUNCTION by S. P. Somtow (Somtow Sucharitkul)
Berkley, 1985, $2.95.
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
For years vampires have been drawn in the Freudian mode--as symbols of
repressed sexuality in a Victorian era and so on. (Undoubtedly Freud would
say that the vampire's fangs piercing the woman's body are obviously
representative of the penis.) Now, it seems, it has become time for the
Jungians to have their shot at the vampire legend, and S. P. Somtow (an
admitted pseudonym for Somtow Sucharitkul) has obliged with VAMPIRE
JUNCTION.
Since it is less widely known than Freudian psychology, Jungian
psychology should perhaps be briefly explained. The four identifiable
aspects that appear in this novel are the ARCHETYPAL UNCONSCIOUS, the
ANIMUS/ANIMA dichotomy, the theory of SYNCHRONICITY, and the goal of
INDIVIDUATION. The archetypal unconscious forms half of a person's
unconscious, the other half being personal, i.e., composed of the person's
individual experiences. The archetypal, or collective, unconsciousness
seems to be not unlike the concept of race memory. Jung's theory of
animus/anima is another familiar idea--that of each individual having both
male and female aspects. The theory of synchronicity postulates the
coincidence of seemingly unrelated events having similar or identical
meaning. (The same idea shows up in some of the strangest places--for
example, the child-like character in REPO MAN, who talks about how, after
you've just been thinking of a plate of shrimp, someone will say "plate" or
"shrimp" or "plate of shrimp." But then, that's synchronicity for you.)
Finally, individuation (according to Jung) is the process of uniting the
conscious and the unconscious within oneself and hence becoming whole. End
of psychology digression.
Somtow's vampire, Timmy Valentine, seeks out a therapist to help him.
But he needs a Jungian therapist, because he is the Jungian archetype,
formed out of the collective unconsciousness of the human beings who see
him. And they see him as they expect to see him--some as a cat stalking
down the street, some as a flickering shadow, some as a rock star. He finds
Carla Rubens, who tries to deal with the archetype turned flesh. She, in
turn, was previously involved with Stephen Miles, an operatic conductor.
Miles, while at Cambridge, was drawn into a satanic group called "The Gods
of Chaos" (who knew of his pyromania and used that as a hold on him).
During one of their ceremonies many years ago (in which a woman was
murdered) Miles caught a glimpse of Valentine. Now the Gods of Chaos are
re-uniting in Thailand to recover the two halves of an idol that will give
them enormous power. It may *sound* incredibly coincidental, but the word is
*synchronistic*.
Valentine, in his two-thousand-year existence (give or take a century),
has known many ages and many men. The usual symbols that the vampire fears
no longer have any effect on him; with his age comes the wisdom that they
cannot harm him. In most vampire stories, the humans fighting the vampire
must believe in the symbols (especially the cross) to have them work; in
this case, the vampire must believe. Valentine can walk about during the
day, does not fear crosses, is not repelled by garlic, etc. But those that
he makes vampires still have these fears--they have not yet outgrown them.
While this book is written from a Jungian perspective, the frequent
references to dreams seems distinctly Freudian. But these are not what we
think of as dreams, but rather expressions of the collective unconscious.
Valentine's house, with its ever-changing halls and rooms, is shaped by the
union of its inhabitants unconsciousnesses. Whether you find the house, or
Valentine, or the novel, convincing depends in large part on whether you
find Jungian psychology convincing.
And there is the real problem. Somtow can handle the horror scenes
fairly well (though Junction, Idaho, reminds me a lot of 'Salem's Lot). The
premise of a vampire living through various horrors of history is hardly
new, but Somtow does manage to put some twists on it that I hadn't seen
before (and I tend to follow vampire novels). But the story of Valentine's
two-millenia search for individuation, and its culmination, fails to
convince me even on the level required for a vampire novel. I mean, one is
willing to accept *some* mysticism, but it seems unlikely to me that even a
dedicated Jungian would accept this novel. Though Somtow writes with a
certain flair, the inherent unfamiliarity of his concepts (at least to most)
will make this book very difficult to enjoy, which is a pity. I find the
Jungian analysis of the vampire interesting, and it gives a different
interpretation than the usual Freudian one. But the extent to which Somtow
tries to put all of Jungian psychology in this novel smothers the
originality that it would otherwise display.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl