Usually I write up a fat, juicy little intro to my reviews, but today I’m going to cut to the chase. Baltimore SUCKED! Here’s what I think happened: A very talented artist who does some very cool and goofy things got it into his head to write something serious and fumbled the genre he chose. Or something like that.
The setup: Three men with haunted pasts are summoned to a cursed town by soldier-turned-vampire hunter, Lord Henry Baltimore. Baltimore has been searching for a vampire king in order to avenge the loss of his family and wife to the scourge. The three men will join in the battle for Baltimore’s very soul and spirit. The book is illustrated throughout with drawings by the very talented Mike Mignola. Readers may remember Mignola from the Hellboy series and The Amazing Screw-On Head, among other things. Here’s more information about Christopher Golden, who I am unfamiliar with.
What’s good about Baltimore? Vampires, adventures on the dark side, and one good story (out of 4) about a haunting. I think that the book aspires to be something interesting and unique. To me, it hearkens back to some older adventure fiction, and has a kind of steampunk sensibility. For instance, it has something of the flavor of Jules Verne novels like Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, or Wells’ War of the Worlds. (Except that, unlike those books, it sucks). It has adventure, travel, and moral fortitude.
What’s not so good about Baltimore? I was reminded of Moby Dick, of all things, but probably not for the reason you’re thinking. When I read Moby Dick, I was like “It’s halfway through the book and the ship hasn’t sailed and we’re reading about a pastor!” The book is practically over before anything really happens. The first part of the book tells how Lord Baltimore becomes the sworn enemy of the vampires. The second part of the book consists of the three men swapping tales of their own brushes with the supernatural. The third part gets you somewhat caught up with what Baltimore has been doing recently, in epistolary format. Finally, the fourth part of the book is the showdown between the vampire king and Baltimore (and his henchmen).
What sucks about Baltimore? Dull, two-dimensional, interchangeable characters; a vampire hunting hero with a jointed wooden leg who carries dumb vampire-hunting gear; a vampire novel with absolutely no eroticism or even titillation; no meaningful female characters at all; mechanical writing; a weird thing in the beginning about toy soldiers that doesn’t really figure into the rest of the book.
Let’s see those numbers.
Creepy Factor: 3 out of 5
Suspense Factor: 1 out of 5
Weird Erotic Tension Factor: 0 out of 5
Funny and/or Strange Factor: 0 out of 5
Final result: Because of Mignola, the artwork, and the subject matter, this book jumped off the shelf at me and demanded to be read. Finishing it ended up being a dull chore, and I am especially bitter because I expected better. Guys! Guys! Don’t bother writing a vampire novel without any eroticism. You might as well just make it about werewolves or something. Don’t get me wrong – I like werewolves. Some of my best friends are werewolves, but they’re not sexy like vampires.
Baltimore by Mike Mignola and Christopher Golden – Bantam Books – 2007
DON’T Buy Baltimore at Amazon
Thanks for reading another one of my book reviews. See you next time!
Related posts:
RSS Feed
I have to be honest in saying that your review of Baltimore sucked.
I disagree with you stating that the writing is mechanical and that the characters are two-dimensional.
I found the writing to be bleak but descriptively lush.
If you didn’t get the toy soldier metaphor, than you were skimming over this book or not paying attention to what you read.
Also, this work is more in the vein of Poe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Lovecraft, rather than the poor comparisons to Verne, Wells or Melville.
The characterization was more than adequate in bringing period realism and human texture to Baltimore’s friends.
It seems your primary beef with this work is gender oriented in that it didn’t employ enough cliched vampire-erotic/ romance devices, which has been beat-to-death in vampire fiction.
This work was great because it brought back the convincing darkness and visceral horror of the vampire back to the foreground, which has been missing from a lot of the genre from quite sometime.
Stick to Twilight, Anne Rice or some airbrushed Fabio-with fangs type work if you can’t handle this type of well-executed original Vampire fiction.
Baltimore was a breath of fresh air to a heavily-treaded genre.
Valis_77,
You basically go through my objections to the quality of this book point by point and then say “That’s not true.” Let’s take my biggest sticking-point, that the characters are two-dimensional, which you say is not true. One way to test character development in a story is to see if you can describe a character without using its name, physical description, occupation, or anything other than its personality. Since I just saw the new Harry Potter movie, I’ll use Harry Potter characters as an example. I’m going to describe some characters, and not just main characters, in such a way that anyone who has seen the movies should be able to guess who they are:
1) Totally loopy. Sees things that others can’t.
2) Gets scared or angry easily but ultimately dependable.
3) Long-suffering, earnest. Gets into trouble. The underdog.
4) The smart one. Can be irascible.
5) Bullying and cruel. Acts out of fear. Works to enforce status.
Works pretty well, wouldn’t you say? No need for gender or age, even. I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t do that with the characters from Baltimore, except maybe for the artist, and he was an incidental sideline character. The rest of the characters are identical cardboard cut-outs that resemble haunted men – except that one has a wooden leg.
P.S. You’re welcome to leave comments on my blog, but I would prefer if you didn’t insult my intelligence when you do so. Thanks!
Thanks!
Sincerely,
The Dark