Presented a few pages to the folks at the playwrights unit yesterday. Discovered a few legitimate concerns regarding a potential adaptation for Polidori's THE VAMPYRE.
1. The story follows Aubrey, so he is never present when the vampire strikes. Michael, who loves vampire stories, wants to see some blood.
2. MO also reminded me that all vampire tales clearly set out their RULES. After all, even I know what happens to vampires from Twilight in the daylight.
The fact that this is the first modern vampire story - ever - means a lot of what people take for granted about vampires, especially their weaknesses, are taken for granted. If those rules are not followed, it is extremely confusing.
In fact, the first time it was clearly stated that sunlight is deadly to a vampire wasn't until Nosferatu.
3. What is Ruthven's "kryptonite"? According to the story, he doesn't have one. Not garlic, not mirrors, not daylight, not sleeping in his native earth, nothing.
4. SG inquired about Ruthven's "arc". Again, he doesn't have one. It's not his story, he's just the monster, it's Aubrey's story. And because no one reading the tale knows what a vampire is, the mystery lies in discovering Ruthven is one - and what that means.
Which brings me to perhaps the most majestic change I believe I need to make to this adaptation - the title. I believe it needs to be something other than THE VAMPYRE, because that is so simple, and so weighted with preconception. Calling it THE VAMPYRE means there is one, somewhere in the story. What if that is in doubt?