Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Abstinent Vampires: An Oxymoron?

Here is an excerpt from a NPR piece on "The Modern Vampire," with two ways of viewing the Twilight vampires. The first (Stephenie Meyer's position) makes them almost heroic because of their incredible restraint. The second (Nina Auerbach's position) says they are just plain boring.

Edward, the hero of Stephenie Meyers' "Twilight" series, has stolen the hearts of "tween" girls everywhere. Fans of this conscientious young vampire live vicariously through his romance with Bella, his high school sweetheart.
Edward and his clan refuse to feed off humans, and Meyer explains that this choice is what makes him so popular.
 "These are vampires," Meyer says. "They are these creatures who exist to hunt humans. They are evil and they choose something different. They find another way. And I think kids respond to the idea that it doesn't matter where I am in life; I always have a choice."
 Nina Auerbach, author of Our Vampires, Ourselves, believes every age gets the vampire it wants.
"Vampires aren't supposed to be restrained," Auerbach says. "They're all our hungers. That's why they're vampires."
In the 1960s and '70s, she says, vampires took young women away from their narrow lives and transformed them. But when AIDS came onto the scene, even the fictional prospect of uninhibited bloodsucking fell out of favor. Though Auerbach says this is completely understandable, she finds this latest crop of vampires kind of ... boring .
"These are very abstinent vampires," Auerbach says. "If he truly loves you, he will not do it to you."
What do you think about the idea of choice in the vampire world? Does it enhance modern vampire stories, or eviscerate the very idea of the vampire? 

(How do you like my old fashioned typewriter font above? Very Mina-esque, don't you think?)

5 comments:

  1. Ok, I have read a few books in a series (I am taking my time finishing them, they kind of got boring at the point I'm at . . . well actually I lost my spot so I'm taking my time in getting back to reading it because I have to reread so much . . . reminds me of when my boyfriend lost my spot in "Breaking Dawn" . . . monumentally annoyed I was . . . ). The series is called the House of Night Series.

    In that series (if you've read them and I get anything wrong I apologize but I'm going off memory here) the protagonist Tally Youngblood becomes a vampire by some guy telling her she will be one. In the society she lives in it just happens, you just become one randomly. They say most famous people (mostly actors, they name a few - Tim McGraw is one I beleive, I dislike country so I didn't pay attention to that part.

    New fledgling vampires can die from the change (for some reason I have yet to read the reasoning behind they come back as special vampires who fit the stereotype better). They do drink blood, but they don't hunt (there are the ghouls of the dead fledglings while they're changing to the new type).

    Yes, that's freakin' weird. P.C. and Kristin Cast have some interesting views on vampires . . . but the book is for those in the "Twilight" age group. Though the older ones because they mention sexual related things in a more obvious way that Stephanie Meyer (when Tally gets to the vampire school she see's her future frienemy and her future love interest
    1 out of the 3 - 4 I know of [spoiler, she hooks up with a teacher, who I believe dies or something . . . creeper] in the hallway, him recieving a blow job (it's implied, but that's what it is, it's obvious . . . why would the mom and daughter duo write that? It's awkward enough talking about the 'birds and the bees' with my mom nevertheless stuff like that . . . but I digress).

    My point is that there are so many other versions of vampires out there and "Twilight" is just getting the major hype. It is because of "Twilight" that The House of Night series is getting a films as well (I like this series better because there is more blood letting and there are some good quotes in those books - also the characters are more interesting).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Personally, in Twilight, I think Meyer pretty much holds down the idea of vampires; besides the fact that they shine like diamonds in the sun. Compared to older literature, I feel that Meyer adjusts her vampire character to something more modern, and relateable to the current ages. From past stories about vampires, they were described as creatures that were evil. Now, it`s like vampires have been transformed to be able to live a more "human" life.

    Overall though, I think everyone has the connotation that vampires are bad, but with the different stories and shows being presented currently, people's opinions and point of views of vampires are changing. Regardless of what they consider a vampire, everyone has their own opinion of what to classify as a vampire.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree. Just thinking about the demographic of people who read twlight. That is what people today like, romance, violence, forbidden love. That is what sells into today's society.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good point. "Romance, violence, forbidden love" are definitely what sells in today's society. Do you think those might be timeless aspects of literature? It sounds a lot like Shakespeare's *Romeo and Juliet* to me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well there is no unique stories anymore, all possibilities have been done and told but it's the different ways to tell a story of two people falling in love it what's intriguing. "Twilight" does it on one way and "Romeo and Juliet" does it is another.

    ReplyDelete