It kind of feels like it was this book's destiny to be cult and nothing more. Very intensely LA, very edgy and provocative. Strong associations with other media I had while reading: Mulholland Drive, Under the Skin, Crash
I flew through this in 3 sittings --Michael Upchurch from The Seattle Times describes the book as having a sort of "hallucinatory glassiness" to it that I think is very cogent. (I was also coming down with/in the middle of a cold while reading, which surely contributed). Short paragraphs, not overly ornate prose, sexy and violent, somewhat surrealist, fast-paced despite there not really being too much action until the final pages. It shares with Mulholland Drive this fixation on the "extras" of LA -- the people living in the margins of the city, those with lost and dying dreams. In Mulholland, this mainly concerns aspiring female actors, but Stainless focuses more on the underground -- drug addicts, dead-end rockers and roadies and groupies, strays, sex workers, etc. People who've been promised and/or are convinced LA is the place to be, but who have sort of become little more than flora and fauna or the nightlife of the city.
The main pair is the focus of the book, though there are a ton of POVs -- Justine, a several-century old French-peasant-turned-vampire, and Keith, an emotionally and physically wasted ex-rock star (and a mortal, but not a thrall). They've been and continue to be both prey and predator -- the blurb of the book notes that Keith lives like a vampire, not just because he cohabitates with one, but also just by nature in his relationships. He's the worst kind of manipulator, really -- a pretty empathetic, guilt-ridden one, handsome and sad and brooding. His previous girlfriend -- very troubled and traumatized herself -- committed suicide during the height of their careers, which eventually led to him going to prison, becoming a heroine addict, being sexually assaulted, and having his hands crippled.
If this sounds like trauma porn -- I was and still am a bit wary of the same thing. A lot of fucked up shit has happened and continues to happen to most all of the characters in this book.
Justine picks up Keith one night to feed off him, but ends up stopping because of his heroine-tainted blood -- he quits heroine and shacks up with her, and they become codependent and fall in love. It is legitimately romantic, despite a lot of disturbing shit that goes on between them -- Justine obviously does plenty bad, but she of course is a literal vampire so it's more forgivable, but I guess the same argument can sort of apply to Keith. Is he any more to blame for having been a sort of leech and predator than Justine is?
Part of the irony is that he largely becomes a better person through his relationship with Justine, while also helping her to trap victims for her feeding. She doesn't kill most, and does clearly have a soul and conscience despite her worries that she expresses to Keith, but she does have to every now and then. With that said, he does have sex with 19-year-old Michelle, which I thought was entirely gratuitous and undermines a lot of Keith's otherwise penitent behavior, but whatever I guess. It is a fully consensual affair, but still felt very extremely unnecessary.
The villain of the book, on the other hand, is just a full-blown Gilles de Rais-esque serial rapist and torturer who preys on the lost youth of LA and puts on demented stage performances with them as his troupe.
Grimson himself was a failed musician and lived with MS which severely crippled him -- Keith seems a sort of exaggerated stand-in. The affair between Justine and Keith does admittedly have its allure -- their relationship is sanctified with blood (and some pretty graphic and deviant sex scenes) but also loneliness and guilt and genuine unconditional love and devotion.
Is it just edgy or does it cross a line into being too much? Is it anymore provocative than Dracula itself is, really? Certainly it's more unsubtle in its deviance and brutality and abuse than Stoker, but I'd argue that most of the shit in this book is not some heinous extension from what is already suggested in Dracula. A lot of critics noted that this feels more like if Bret Easton Ellis or Dennis Cooper or some other Marquis de Sade-admiring grimy iconoclast '90s writer wrote a vampire novel -- I haven't read those authors, but that doesn't seem too far-fetched.
I guess it's something to think about with horror -- it's a genre founded on the grotesque and taboo. When does it go 'too far'? Horror's most often, when done well, about our fears and trauma, but obviously a huge part of the allure is also in the thrill of how that's presented in shocking, unnatural, wicked ways. Stainless has a lot of grimy, risqué, gratuitous shit -- but does gratuitous = too far? And, hell, life is gratuitous, people are gratuitous, especially lonely, hurt people who want to lash out, be noticed, forget, etc.
I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy and feel drawn to this book. It's sadistic and romantic in a way that does get the spirit of the vampire story that makes Dracula so alluring, even if I don't always love individual scenes and dynamics. Again, this has cult written all over it -- I'm not shocked it has a following but never turned into much more.