 |
| Source: Amazon.com |
The Mummy - or Ramses the Damned, by Anne Rice
From the book’s cover:
"The reader is held captive, and, ultimately, seduced."
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
Ramses the Great has awakened in Edwardian London. Having drunk the elixir of life, he is now Ramses the Damned, doomed forever to wander the earth, desperate to quell hungers that can never be satisfied. Although he pursues voluptuous aristocrat Julie Stratford, the woman for whom he desperately longs is Cleopatra. And his intense longing for her, undiminished over the centuries, will force him to commit an act that will place everyone around him in the gravest danger....
Synopsis:
This one I can do in one paragraph. But I'll try not to pass on my bias just yet though. No promises though.
Egypt, 1914: an Egyptologist uncovers the tomb of Ramses the Great, aka Ramses the damned, who, once exposed to the sun, begins to return from his ancient slumber. But he isn't a bad mummy in the traditional Universal Pictures monster movie tradition, but is instead a good king of ancient Egypt who has drunk the elixir of life and is doomed to live forever (thus the "damned" part). Oh, and he used to love Cleopatra, who never forgave him for not giving said elixir to Mark Anthony when it might have made a difference. Eventually Ramses happens upon our lady Cleo lying in state as an unidentified mummy, and being rash, he brings her back to life with the elixir. But Cleopatra doesn't come back as a "nice" mummy, but goes around killing people whenever the mood strikes her. Oh, and there are some paper-thin British-type characters thrown in around this plot. You'll barely notice them, so the less said, the better.
There you go. That's basically it.
 |
| The author, Anne Rice. / Source: Wired.com |
What I liked about it:
Well, it starts off well enough. The initial scenes of Ramses de-tombing (is that a term? I don't know) evoked my interest. And the plot twist about the mummy's curse just being around to keep people from waking Ramses up for no good reason was clever. Not fully convincing, but a good swing at a different perspective on the same old "moan... groan... I'm a mummy"- thing.
And I do respect Rice's ability to do research and make her writings sound like they came from a different period. Though I am admittedly not a historian of that particular period, (the early 20th century Edwardian period) she manages to make it come alive, to a certain extent, through her author's pen. And the presence of stereotypical characters, like the dastardly Henry, or the weak heroine Julie, makes you think this is going to be a fun romp. And who can say that Cleopatra isn't quite an evil vixen? She does bad girl real well, that Cleopatra.
1932's The Mummy, starring Boris Karloff. I love the part at around the 54 second mark when the narrator says "...and brings a scream to your lips," and then the guy shrieks like a little girl.
What I didn’t like about it:
Hmmm... What can I say? I didn't like this book? Yeah, that's what I can say. I didn't like this book. Why, you ask? I'll fill you in with a quick run-down. Stay with me here.
First, what is wrong with Anne Rice that she can't write truly strong male characters? Does she have no one in her life that reflects such masculinity that she can use in her characterizations. She paints Ramses as such a hot shot, but really he is weak like all the rest of the men in this book. She keeps telling us that he is a potent fellow, but Ramses' actions never really convince me. Other than the fact that in his lust he takes Julie's virginity. But I wouldn't call that strength, by any means. I know he probably wouldn't have been a so-called "gentleman," based on the time he came from, but does he have to be a "lech" instead? It makes him seem like a character from what I'd perceive to be a poorly written romance novel.
This leads into another topic to cover. What's up with all the sex in this book? Cleopatra is quite the slut in the book. She comes across like one of those Natasha Hendstrom films where the alien DNA gets mixed with human DNA and the resulting creature appears like a hot woman, but she goes around eating men who try to have sex with her. Only Cleopatra just has sex with men and then breaks their necks. And post-coitus/murder she has these weird flashbacks that are probably an attempt to explain her lack of human feeling, but just across as confusing. Was she a bad guy or not? Help me out, somebody.
You know, as I was preparing to write this review, I went to Amazon for the jacket material, and being curious, I looked at some of the reviews that were less enthusiastic (apparently many people liked this thing... really?). One such review mentioned that the book reads from a third of the way in like a Harlequin Romance novel. Like I said above, that is the gist of my thought, if not the exact wording. Why all the emphasis on sex and violence? I'm certainly not the most sensitive guy I know - I like my cheap violence in my entertainment like any other red-blooded American male. But this was way over the top. It seemed as though it had no point.
Moving back to the subject of Cleopatra, why does Rice feel the need to vilify the female? I recall some pretty bad ladies in her Vampire books as well. It's not that I need to stick to the old standby of the male mummy being bad and females being inherently good, but it seems like Rice goes out of her way to make Cleopatra sadistic. At the same time, Ramses is... well like I said, he is just weak. Neither character is at all satisfying.
 |
| You can't talk about mummy fiction without throwing in a picture of a real Egyptian mummy, now can you? This guy is one of the less gruesome images a Google Image search produced. Not that I mind gruesome old dead people, but I know some of my audience does. Oh, and the cool thing about this guy is that he is the second oldest recorded case of prostate cancer. Ain't science great? Dead 2,200 years and they still can give him the glove treatment. / Source: CosmosTV.org |
What I learned, if anything:
Nothing that I can think of. Other than the twists that Rice throws in to the old wheeze that is the mummy story. You know, "explorers go seeking a tomb, discover it is cursed, unearth a mummy, it wakes up and then the mayhem ensues?" She turns that paradigm on its head, which was nice. Made me look at the ideas differently. Too bad I just didn't like the results.
Recommendation:
I did like a few of Rice's earlier books, most especially The Vampire Lestat. Well maybe "liked" is too strong a term for a couple of them. Let's say I liked Lestat, but found her other early works... "interesting." On the other hand, I didn't like The Mummy, or Ramses the Damned.
To be kind, I understand that Anne Rice wrote a lot of her stuff out of a wellspring of feelings pent up from the death of a loved one. I don't recall who she lost, though such information could easily be looked up. And so the fact that there is a lot of morbid material in here could be excused that way.
At the same time, I see no purpose for the excess of sex and the violence in this novel. It can't even be called "stylish," as it lacks any sense of taste or nuance, from my point of view. I think I'll stick to 1999's The Mummy, starring Brendan Fraser, for my bandage-wrapped thrills. Or the old Universal Pictures Mummy movies. And Rice's creation can back in the sarcophagus without a second thought, in my opinion. By all means, if you haven't read it, don't bother. Unless of course, you must read all of Rice's works. Like if you lost a bet or something.
Learn more about The Mummy, or Ramses the Damned, by Anne Rice, on Amazon.com
The parting comment:
 |
| Source: LolSnaps.com |
Since it is near election time in the States, I thought I'd throw this one in. I don't know whether to call this funny or ironic. Or how about "fun-ronic?" No, probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We're pleased to receive your comments, but the author does check submissions before attaching them to the blog. See, it's only theoretically a free country in here...