Vampires and human/vampire romances in True Blood vs Buffy vs other vampire fiction
I've just finished season 2 of True Blood and started season 3 (I've only seen up to 3.1), and I've got very mixed feelings.
WARNING: Spoilers for the first 2 seasons of True Blood; small spoilers for The Vampire Diaries (mostly season 1), mild spoiler for season 3 of Being Human UK (nothing related to the main characters os big arcs).
I'd appreciate if you didn't reveal spoilers for episodes of True Blood after 3.1, except to generally tell me if my conclusions still hold for the rest of the show. My views of the show have changed quite a bit since season 1.
I think that TB is becoming my least favorite representation of vampires in recent fiction, bar Twilight. Sure, a lot of fiction gets to mix its vampire metaphors and those metaphors aren't perfect (BtVS and AtS did it, Being Human does it) but I think they're all over the place in True Blood and it's become really problematic.
True Blood seems to be, besides Twilight, most sympathetic to vampires as a whole, and despite the bad things they do, we're supposed to see them as a minority that has the right to be a part of society; they aren't the villains, the villains are always prejudiced humans. This is why we get pitted against them a caricature of conservative extremist evangelical Christians in the Fellowship of the Sun. It's an easy way to make vampires look better if that's the kind of opposition they have.
In season 1 the show seemed to make vampires some minority/counter-cultural group that's being integrated into the mainstream society, with some of them favoring integration and some wanting to stick to their own rules and be out of society. The prejudice against vampires has overtones of prejudice against the LGBT community and sexual or cultural minorities in general, the attitudes towards a human/vampire relationship like that towards an interracial relationship, etc. None of those is a perfect metaphor, of course, what with vampires being actually dangerous to humans, but I could go with it. Especially when the most memorable character was a human who is a gay black drug dealer/prostitute/cook who's still really badass and likeable.
But with season 2, the vampire community seemed less like some counter-culture, and, other than individual vampires like Jessica, they started looking a lot more like decadent slave-owning aristocracy, especially when the Queen of Louisiana was introduced. Being Human had a storyline about upper middle class vampires who claim to be 'civilized' and who have their own human willing slaves (literally) that they harvest for food and treat like you'd treat a cow, but the whole thing was portrayed as really ugly and messed up, not sexy and glamorous. In True Blood it doesn't seem like we're supposed to dislike them, even though the voluntary aspect is more problematic than in BH due to TB's vampires ability to glamor people. But anyway, even if those humans are just pathetic sheep and it's their choice, am I really supposed to sympathize with the vampire organization and lament the humans' prejudice against them - even though they're basically slaveowners? And that in a show set in the (cartoonish) American South?
It gets even worse since, it's not just that the vampires consider humans inferior, but season 2 made humans look really inferior. They're the ones who are susceptible to Maryann's brainwashing (= sheep), while the supernatural beings aren't, and the supernatural beings are the only ones who get to be heroes. Even Andy, who's seemed like the unlikely hero of season 2 (which was wonderful), ends up brainwashed once he's surrounded by other brainwashed humans. Lafayette ends up brainwashed too, and was mostly underutilized in season 2. Sam isn't human. Sookie, apparently, isn't quite human either. I liked Tara in season 1, but they made her look dumb in season 2, unable to notice something was up with Maryann. The pecking order couldn't be clearer, Tara really can't be a heroine or get to save her own (black) former-murderer-manipulated-by-an-evil-woman, unlike Sookie's (white, Southern gentleman, former slaveowner) former-murderer-manipulated-by-an-evil-woman.
Of course I'm sure Alan Ball, being the guy who created Six Feet Under, didn't want things to look like that, but well, the show's metaphors are a mess of unfortunate implications.
Then there are the vampire/human romances. Sookie/Eric might be more interesting and sexier than Sookie/Beeel which is really dull, but I'm not sure I can really care about romances based on the fact that someone had to drink a vampire's blood, which applies to both of those ships. So far they're making it seem like any time a human drinks a vampire's blood, this kind of connection happens. So does that mean you'll have an attraction and emotional connection to just any random vampire if they have to give you their blood to save your life? If it happens 5 times, will you be feeling it for 5 of them?
Like Buffy, current vampire franchises - True Blood, Twilight and The Vampire Diaries all have the heroine (well, female protagonist - I find it hard to call Bella Swann a heroine) in romantic relationships with a vampire or two. But, as people were observing in the recent comments on Mark's review of BtVS episode 'Angel', in most of those the power is very much on the side of the vampire, who happens to be male in 90% of such fictional stories. Not so on BtVS - because Buffy is a strong character and a Slayer, therefore at least an equal to them, and she is the superior one physically and, more importantly, the vampires aren't higher than her socially, but the opposite. And most importantly, Buffy's story is about her, about her duty as a Slayer, not primarily about the vampires and a girl who gets involved with them.
Bella Swann is obviously completely pathetic so I won't even mention her; Elena Gilbert is one of the weakest characters on TVD and her main appeal is that she looks like someone else, and (at least so far - I've only seen the first couple of season 2 episodes), she's mostly just reacting to what Stefan, Damon and the other vampires are doing; and Stefan is the one who's proactive, in charge and sorting things out all the time.
Sookie on True Blood has more personality and spunk, but she doesn't have the story of her own that isn't about getting involved with vampires, becoming a part of their world and dealing with their problems. Furthermore, as season 2 focuses more on the vampire community than Sookie spends more and more time with, she comes off as a Cinderella; vampires might be portrayed as a misunderstood minority on TB, but Bill and Eric are both aristocracy compared to the townsfolk that Sookie grew up with. If anything, Sookie is moving up in the world due to her relationship.
By contrast, when Buffy gets involved with vampires, she's practically "slumming it"; souled Angel on BtVS and chipped/souled Spike aren't even a part of a vampire community, they are more outsiders than she is. Her relationships with them are unlikely to raise her social status. She's no Cinderella waiting for the prince. Maybe Angel's mansion with old artefacts and love of old poetry makes people forget about this fact, but while Angel may be a mysterious brooding older man and Buffy is a teenage girl, he's really a "loser" with no job, friends or family (or is estranged from his vampire family) who's making her his sole purpose in life. (He only gets back to his vampire family and gets back some power in the vampire community after he turns evil, at which point he, of course, isn't her boyfriend.) On the other hand, Buffy's the one who has a "job", a mission, friends and family, and goes to school in addition to that. It's even more obvious later with Spike - who's not only lost his standing with the vampire community and can only cheat at kitten poker, and is looked down on by Buffy's friends, but whose image and style is a complete opposite from the Gothic aristocrat stereotype, who has a lower class persona and with his fashion style and image even manages to give an air Unsuitable Punk Boyfriend to people who have no idea he's a vampire (like the social worker in Gone).
And this is one of the reasons why I much prefer BtVS's vampire romances to those of the other franchises mentioned. Those newer stories seem very regressive in comparison. This entry was originally posted at http://timetravellingbunny.dreamwidth.org/. Comment here or there, as you like.
WARNING: Spoilers for the first 2 seasons of True Blood; small spoilers for The Vampire Diaries (mostly season 1), mild spoiler for season 3 of Being Human UK (nothing related to the main characters os big arcs).
I'd appreciate if you didn't reveal spoilers for episodes of True Blood after 3.1, except to generally tell me if my conclusions still hold for the rest of the show. My views of the show have changed quite a bit since season 1.
I think that TB is becoming my least favorite representation of vampires in recent fiction, bar Twilight. Sure, a lot of fiction gets to mix its vampire metaphors and those metaphors aren't perfect (BtVS and AtS did it, Being Human does it) but I think they're all over the place in True Blood and it's become really problematic.
True Blood seems to be, besides Twilight, most sympathetic to vampires as a whole, and despite the bad things they do, we're supposed to see them as a minority that has the right to be a part of society; they aren't the villains, the villains are always prejudiced humans. This is why we get pitted against them a caricature of conservative extremist evangelical Christians in the Fellowship of the Sun. It's an easy way to make vampires look better if that's the kind of opposition they have.
In season 1 the show seemed to make vampires some minority/counter-cultural group that's being integrated into the mainstream society, with some of them favoring integration and some wanting to stick to their own rules and be out of society. The prejudice against vampires has overtones of prejudice against the LGBT community and sexual or cultural minorities in general, the attitudes towards a human/vampire relationship like that towards an interracial relationship, etc. None of those is a perfect metaphor, of course, what with vampires being actually dangerous to humans, but I could go with it. Especially when the most memorable character was a human who is a gay black drug dealer/prostitute/cook who's still really badass and likeable.
But with season 2, the vampire community seemed less like some counter-culture, and, other than individual vampires like Jessica, they started looking a lot more like decadent slave-owning aristocracy, especially when the Queen of Louisiana was introduced. Being Human had a storyline about upper middle class vampires who claim to be 'civilized' and who have their own human willing slaves (literally) that they harvest for food and treat like you'd treat a cow, but the whole thing was portrayed as really ugly and messed up, not sexy and glamorous. In True Blood it doesn't seem like we're supposed to dislike them, even though the voluntary aspect is more problematic than in BH due to TB's vampires ability to glamor people. But anyway, even if those humans are just pathetic sheep and it's their choice, am I really supposed to sympathize with the vampire organization and lament the humans' prejudice against them - even though they're basically slaveowners? And that in a show set in the (cartoonish) American South?
It gets even worse since, it's not just that the vampires consider humans inferior, but season 2 made humans look really inferior. They're the ones who are susceptible to Maryann's brainwashing (= sheep), while the supernatural beings aren't, and the supernatural beings are the only ones who get to be heroes. Even Andy, who's seemed like the unlikely hero of season 2 (which was wonderful), ends up brainwashed once he's surrounded by other brainwashed humans. Lafayette ends up brainwashed too, and was mostly underutilized in season 2. Sam isn't human. Sookie, apparently, isn't quite human either. I liked Tara in season 1, but they made her look dumb in season 2, unable to notice something was up with Maryann. The pecking order couldn't be clearer, Tara really can't be a heroine or get to save her own (black) former-murderer-manipulated-by-an-evil-woman, unlike Sookie's (white, Southern gentleman, former slaveowner) former-murderer-manipulated-by-an-evil-woman.
Of course I'm sure Alan Ball, being the guy who created Six Feet Under, didn't want things to look like that, but well, the show's metaphors are a mess of unfortunate implications.
Then there are the vampire/human romances. Sookie/Eric might be more interesting and sexier than Sookie/Beeel which is really dull, but I'm not sure I can really care about romances based on the fact that someone had to drink a vampire's blood, which applies to both of those ships. So far they're making it seem like any time a human drinks a vampire's blood, this kind of connection happens. So does that mean you'll have an attraction and emotional connection to just any random vampire if they have to give you their blood to save your life? If it happens 5 times, will you be feeling it for 5 of them?
Like Buffy, current vampire franchises - True Blood, Twilight and The Vampire Diaries all have the heroine (well, female protagonist - I find it hard to call Bella Swann a heroine) in romantic relationships with a vampire or two. But, as people were observing in the recent comments on Mark's review of BtVS episode 'Angel', in most of those the power is very much on the side of the vampire, who happens to be male in 90% of such fictional stories. Not so on BtVS - because Buffy is a strong character and a Slayer, therefore at least an equal to them, and she is the superior one physically and, more importantly, the vampires aren't higher than her socially, but the opposite. And most importantly, Buffy's story is about her, about her duty as a Slayer, not primarily about the vampires and a girl who gets involved with them.
Bella Swann is obviously completely pathetic so I won't even mention her; Elena Gilbert is one of the weakest characters on TVD and her main appeal is that she looks like someone else, and (at least so far - I've only seen the first couple of season 2 episodes), she's mostly just reacting to what Stefan, Damon and the other vampires are doing; and Stefan is the one who's proactive, in charge and sorting things out all the time.
Sookie on True Blood has more personality and spunk, but she doesn't have the story of her own that isn't about getting involved with vampires, becoming a part of their world and dealing with their problems. Furthermore, as season 2 focuses more on the vampire community than Sookie spends more and more time with, she comes off as a Cinderella; vampires might be portrayed as a misunderstood minority on TB, but Bill and Eric are both aristocracy compared to the townsfolk that Sookie grew up with. If anything, Sookie is moving up in the world due to her relationship.
By contrast, when Buffy gets involved with vampires, she's practically "slumming it"; souled Angel on BtVS and chipped/souled Spike aren't even a part of a vampire community, they are more outsiders than she is. Her relationships with them are unlikely to raise her social status. She's no Cinderella waiting for the prince. Maybe Angel's mansion with old artefacts and love of old poetry makes people forget about this fact, but while Angel may be a mysterious brooding older man and Buffy is a teenage girl, he's really a "loser" with no job, friends or family (or is estranged from his vampire family) who's making her his sole purpose in life. (He only gets back to his vampire family and gets back some power in the vampire community after he turns evil, at which point he, of course, isn't her boyfriend.) On the other hand, Buffy's the one who has a "job", a mission, friends and family, and goes to school in addition to that. It's even more obvious later with Spike - who's not only lost his standing with the vampire community and can only cheat at kitten poker, and is looked down on by Buffy's friends, but whose image and style is a complete opposite from the Gothic aristocrat stereotype, who has a lower class persona and with his fashion style and image even manages to give an air Unsuitable Punk Boyfriend to people who have no idea he's a vampire (like the social worker in Gone).
And this is one of the reasons why I much prefer BtVS's vampire romances to those of the other franchises mentioned. Those newer stories seem very regressive in comparison. This entry was originally posted at http://timetravellingbunny.dreamwidth.org/. Comment here or there, as you like.