Vampires and the Zeitgeist

[sartorias]

I always feel a little frustrated when I'm sensing a commonality of some type, but all I'm getting is similarities of image from books/tv/whatever. It always seems to take me far longer to get the simplest clue than anyone around me, as well as to define it

Comments

[asakiyume]

A weird synchronicity with something I saw today. I was biking, and when I reached my destination, there was a car with a bumper sticker that said "Different is good" (it was for an alternative radio station).

I got to thinking about that, and what it meant. And then I came home and read this!

Strange, huh?

I think for many people, and perhaps more so in the past, different was scary and threatening. But for some people, instead of being scary, it's stimulating, exciting, freeing....

[sartorias]

Yes...I think our culture is in major transition mode, so different perhaps is where the energy lies. (There's also the mode of 'looking back'
)

[frumiousb]

Although I believe that we're to the point of packaging difference. The alternative radio station was probably a national brand, with preselected playlists. Difference has become the reassuring option. What does that mean?

I think this has something to do with the conservative pushback from so many young women, for instance.

What does different mean in a world full of niches?

[sartorias]

Could be that it's affirmative--gives one permission. I see all that part of being in transition mode, as one paradigm disintegrates, but another has not yet arisen to dominate.

[asakiyume]

And p.s., I cannot wait to read your story. Truly, truly cannot wait.

[sartorias]

Well, I hope you enjoy it!

[pjthompson]

You should look up Our Vampires, Ourselves by Nina Auerbach if you get a chance. A fascinating study of the changes of attitudes towards vampires and how they're much more reflective of the society in which people live than the mythos. They actually started out in Western literature.

[sartorias]

Sounds good! Thanks! (Though I may have inadvertently reproduced a lot of her research.)

[pjthompson]

Spontaneous co-invention, rather. :-)

[pjthompson]

Oops. And I just realized I never completed my thought. They actually started out in Western literature as quite sympathetic, went through that whole Victorian evil thing, and have reemerged as sympathetic.

[tooticky]

Yes. That makes absolute sense, especially given the people who are generally attracted to fantasy, horror and science fiction, who as you mentioned previously identify as 'different'. Myself included

[frumiousb]

"What about characters who deliberately choose to embrace a monster or their shadow, magical side? I can't think of any right now."

They're generally the bad guys. Willow, from Buffy, becomes Dark Willow for doing exactly that. Somehow, the iconography works so that involuntary acquisition of power is the only antitode to the abuse of power.

I wonder myself if this isn't linked to the persistent nostalgia for hereditary rule that you often find in fantasy. Those born to rule, rule wisely. Those who push for rule are seduced by the dark side of power.

[tooticky]

Isn't it interesting? We often work so hard in real life to pursue knowledge, skills, to empower ourselves in different ways. But we do seem to distrust the idea of people deliberately seeking magical transformation or power in fiction. About the only examples I can think of are magicians, like Ged.
And yes, I think you're right about the 'born to rule' thing. We long for a just king who doesn't want to be king, but is kind of forced into it by over-whelming destiny. But would a person who worked hard to learn everything they needed to know about how to rule wisely and well necessarily be a worse king or leader than the 'annointed'? Myth seems to say 'yes'. But in real life, Aragorn would probably be intolerable.

[frumiousb]

Yes to Aragorn. As a good American child, I also always found Ozma of Oz inherently offensive

Curious and curiouser

[carbonelle]

I would have thought that the whole progressive movement in the U.S. (and possibly the West) from, oh, the '40s on (though of course, it didn't really gain traction until the late '60s) was driven by the meme: "To choose difference is not to choose evil."

So much so that the Establishment in much of the story-making industry, from Hollywood, to New York, and even in the groves of Academe has now taken that concept as a given. If you doubt me, when was the last time you saw a popular movie, novel or set of coursework in which "transgressive" was portrayed as wrong; "conforming" portrayed as noble.

For while, "To choose difference is not to choose evil" can be a useful corrective "To choose difference is not to choose good, either.

The hows and whys and the wherefores of the difference (or the sameness) of the choice are what matters. Sometimes conformity is a very good thing, an act of discipline and wisdom, othertimes, laziness or cowardice.

Re: Curious and curiouser

[sartorias]

This is true...though there's been a swingback in the last 20 years....maybe some conflicting forces here. Anyway, thanks, you've given me some good stuff to ponder.

Re: Curious and curiouser

[monder]

This reminds me of an observation I formed in college. "To choose difference for the sake of being different is not always a good. Sometimes it is a bad thing."

In the safety zone offered at colleges you can see a lot of people who are choosing a difference out popularity rather then thought. At times they follow their difference to an extreme that harms the people around them.

Thus for me I've always been interested in the why of the difference, both in story and in real life. Was it thought or was it to conform to the zeitgeist of non-conformity?

Hoping this makes sense, it may need steeping in more coffee.

Re: Curious and curiouser

[sartorias]

It makes sense to me but then I always asked that question, too.