Done to Death

There's a rather recent debate that comes up so often it feels as ancient as the mythology it forgets to research: vampires.  Namely, the argument against writers that vampires can't have sex.

On the gross part, we assume the dead can't have sex.  While this is logical, a little research sows that yes, yes they can.  Pregnant female corpses will give birth to a baby if it's late enough in gestation; most of these reports say the woman's heart stopped and restarted after the baby was born.  Aristotle is said to have been born this way (I can't find any information as to whether his mother survived).  But men?  Surely--yes.  Male corpses, so long as the boy is very fresh, can get live women pregnant (this is what happens when an interview with a necrophile gets on the internet--someone who didn't want to know ends up finding it or hearing about it).

On the mythology end, not all vampires are dead.  Some are just monsters, and most used to be werewolves before a distinction was made between the two.  Dead or not, the vampires of Romanian myths were sexual predators, attacking maidens and responsible for unwanted and unexplained pregnancies.  The famous Dracula derives from this, and in both film and book he is a very sexual man, hard for the chaste and sheltered women to resist.

But ultimately there is only one quick answer to the debate: vampires are made up.  They aren't real. No matter the symbolism, origin, or region for them, modern or ancient, they're just legend.  It's up to the authors and creators to decide if they can have sex, let alone impregnate who or what they want.

Imagination has expanded our ideas on fictional creatures, it's not for demanding a single version.

Happy V-day, by the way.  Sorry for the creeps.

The Twilight Years were already upon us

The Twilight Saga has gained a lot of infamy to the point of being nearly iconic of a bad book, just short of the book that was almost Twilight fanfiction, 50 shades of Gray.

There are legitimate problems with the book, which I'll address.  If you like it while acknowledging those flaws, go ahead.  You not liking the book is not the point of this blog.  The point is to shed some light on some history about the books.

First, the book did not start a vampire craze or change vampires to something sexual they never were before.  Vampires have always been sexual predators when they were called Vrykolak (spelling may vary depending on your resource for research), from the Romanian/Romani mythology.  This, along with a rash of mysterious attacks reported in a newspaper in the 1600's where the terms 'vampire' was first used, along with two similar books published before it, were all the cumulative inspiration for the famous Dracula.

In that book, which scholars say was the beginning of mainstream vampire novels, Dracula seduced several women, convincing nearly all of them into pre-marital sex before killing them.  Most film versions, from those trying to stay true to the book, to expansions, to spoofs kept the sexuality and made it a prominent part of the movie

Twilight didn't bring vampires to worrying about what they were or wanting to stick it to beautiful women, either.  That honor goes to Anne Rice of the Vampire Chronicles fame (and much infamy) and the Carpathians romance series.

Here's where things get tricky, and for several reasons.  The Twilight Saga did and did not do something new, and it's one of he more legitimate complaints against those who hate the series. Decades ago, fantasy short stories were all over magazines.  Dungeons and Dragons didn't exist, computers games were all text and one color, and the genre was proud to be a 'No-Girls-Allowed' club.  Sadly, this defined fantasy and still does today; nearly every story was blatant wish-fulfillment. While there was nothing wrong with escapism, these stories had a fierce male-empowerment edge, granting men voluptuous women who sought after nothing more than his muscles and what lay beneath his loincloth.

To this day, these stories and attitudes are what generate the sexism found throughout geekdom and nerddom. Men should be granted titles, men should be ornaments while weak men are those who don't conform to a testosterone-filled heterosexual ideal and strong women really just want to ride a man's maypole and will instantly become submissive to the might of one afterward.

The relevance to the Twilight Saga is only obvious when one considers the story if the genders of the main characters are switched.  Bella, the man, is perfect, loved by all, highly skilled while aloof in being learned and deep.  He is torn between two women, Edward and Jacob. The first is very proper, but refuses sexual congress despite wanting it so much due Bella's good looks, skills, depth, and aloofness, for he is afraid on the consequences and what his family would think. The second is a wild woman, a child of nature and magic, whose free spirit entices Bella.  The villain is jealous of how so many are drawn to Bella's attractiveness, and he uses both women to his gain with promises of sex and love, making not only them, but many others willing to die to protect him.

This is stick archaic fantasy, but now catered to women, but with the same male empowerment.  The ones who recognize this have the most legitimate complaint without seeing the history, merely the symptom of it.  For both those who look at the past and those who don't want a future spawning from the flaws of this book, the major question is the same: what if a woman threatened suicide after physically striking a man hard enough to make him bleed?

Too many of these complaints

A strange complaint today (and for the last twenty years) is that there's too many of a certain kind of story.  First it was ninjas, then wizards, then vampires, then it was...I've lost track.

There are several problems with these complaints beyond how annoying they due to how often they're said.  First, they follow every media fad, never sticking to the original complaint.  They shadow popularity, trying to drag it down for reasons I have yet to conceive, other than a sheer dislike for popularity of anything besides themselves. (If anyone can tell me why,I'd like to know).

The second reason is the more obvious to those who stop to think for a second or two about the complaint.   Exactly who defines 'too many?' Is literature really something to limit to a finite number?  Does each subject have the same numerical limit?  How is that limit determined?

And then there's what those who read find flawed about the argument.  Too many?  With all the possibilities in regards to plot, setting, style, character, genre, audience, theme, and tone?  Every single possibility has been covered already?  Are you sure?

When you dissect the argument even slightly, the only real thing that there are too many of is possibilities.

Whodunnit

Who ruined vampires?

Do you really want an answer?

Do you?

You. 

Anyone who thinks something like vampires can be ruined is the reason they’re being ruined.

Vampires are a world wide belief with hundreds of variations of time and place.  They embody man’s fear of the unknown and being helpless, be it by nature, mistrust of his arranged wife, for a baby’s health, for stalkers that you’re never aware of, for your own instincts, for what happens when one dies—or supposedly does, for someone’s immortal soul. Vampire stories can have been any length, from flash fiction to long series of novels.  They span stories of all mediums for all ages across all genres.

Tell me, is it one person who wrote a few books who wants to snuff out thousands of years of history across the globe, or people who don’t like a few books and are willing to burn the rest along with them? 

If trying to end creativity is what those who dislike the series push for, then I, sadly, side against them.

For all the faults of her as a writer, trying to actively end creativity of another is not one of them.  Can you say that about yourself?  If not, you ruin far more than just vampires and have only yourself to blame.