Monsters. Myths. Urban legends. Fairy tales. These are some things that have been adapted in a bazillion ways. Storytellers take the original material, then infuse it with a shiny new twist. They could even change genres in order to explore that original material in a different setting with different rules.
Which leads me to this:
AWFUL grammatical errors aside, I am bothered by this, folks. Not because I am a rabid advocate of sparklepire rights (even though I believe they should have their rights both acknowledged and respected). Not because I prefer my monsters pretty and CGI'd all the time. This isn't why I cringe whenever I read or hear someone berating authors for their "lame" and "not scary" versions of once-feared creatures. Hell, I might find some of those new versions lame and not scary, too.
But I have no problem with lame and not scary. I choose not to engage with these reinterpretations, and my life goes on.
I have a problem with clinging to one version of anything.
Variety is the spice of life, but it's also what makes literature worth reading. Imagine if all vampires were sparklepires who watched their romantic leads while they slept. Now imagine if all witches were super smart with weird hair and poor social skills. Now imagine if all aliens were blue and had six-packs and flew on pterodactyl-looking creatures. Would you be excited to read books with this version offered to you over and over? Or would you be excited to discover new ways of looking at the same archetype/monster?
I know which boat I'm floating on. Long live reinterpretation, even if I don't like how that reinterpretation plays out in the end.
What about you? Where do you stand on the reinterpretation spectrum? Are there any reinterpreted monsters/stories you prefer to the original?