They Don't Have to Sparkle

[carbonelle]

Over at John C. Wright, Famous AuthorTM's blog, he celebrated the feast of the Magi a.k.a. Twelfth Night by dissing good vampires. Or perhaps, he had a somewhat more extensive point to make: the reader can make up his own mind. As soon as the contrarian impulse fired, I wasn't really paying attention. Not my strongest suit, I admit. En avantSo

Comments

[keestone]

Good point re: clarifying monster. I was making a quick generalization because I wanted to expand the discussion of monsters from the Good/Evil dichotomy that was carrying over from Wright's post, particularly since we were bringing in some Science Fictional vampires where the good and evil are kind of irrelevant questions, but fear is still definitely there. It certainly wouldn't be nicely syllogistic anyways, as we may fear monsters but that doesn't mean everything we fear is a monster. If we were actually trying to pin down "monster" as a definition, there would probably have to be a "Not Like Us" (or "inhuman" if speaking from a human perspective) bit in there as well, since that's what underpins everything from calling people who have committed horrible crimes "monstrous" to the humor of the Gingerbread man in Shrek telling the Prince, "You're a monster!" (And one of the things SF can of course do wonderfully is point out how "like us" can be such a limited perspective and a wrong-headed prejudice.)

I haven't read Lamplighter yet. I'll have to look for it at some point.

[carbonelle]

The good/evil dichotomy is yet another reason why the monster/monstrous terms are so useful. To say "you're a monster" of a human being is on par with saying "You're a pig!" or "Son of diseased dog!" etc. Fine metaphorical language, but if the people involved start taking it literally, problematic. It's like saying "Good dog" and really thinking the creature has the capacity for good (or evil) and so one can hold the beast morally accountable when the next-door neighbor's cat gets into the back yard and the greyhound chases, and if no-one intervenes, will kill it.

I write this because I don't really follow: "we were bringing in some Science Fictional vampires where the good and evil are kind of irrelevant questions." Eh? SF vampires can include monsters that prey on people, but are only fearsome to the extent that poisonous snakes and scorpions are (Star Trek's Salt-eating vampire thinggummy). They also include vampires where the vampirism is a kind of disease (Peeps), or the result of an alien physiology. But the latter aren't monsters, though they can be monstrous, and usually are for plot purposes.

I rather unfairly took the micky out of The Academy viz sex, when I do know very well, that's Hollywood's bugaboo (that and Daddy Issues. Oy) The Academy is obsesssed with Oppression and tribes. Which is where they get in trouble with monster stories, because for them the good/evil dichotomy is based on what you are and what tribe you belong to. If it's an approved tribe, than the protagonist is a good guy, no matter what moral choices he makes, if not, then not. Hence the "but is he the Real monster?" etc. Though i'ts rarely put it that way: the ability to say something very simple--something which would sound mind-bogglingly inane in plain language--in dressed up, pseudo-hifalutin' Academese is a wonder to behold. (Interrogate and all the variations used to avoid "talk about" or "discuss" just to name the first that pops into my head).