Mar. 26th, 2010

manifesta: (Default)
Vaguely relevant to my last post.

Catherynne M. Valente comments on the downward spiral of the vampire trend.
"The newest trend among vampires seems to be removing any downside at all from actually being a vampire. Gone are the days of Nosferatu or even Dracula--apparently vampires can walk around in the daylight now, whether they sparkle or not (Being Human, The Vampire Diaries, Twilight), are universally hot (everything ever), functionally cannot be killed and honestly no one even tries anymore, can see themselves in mirrors most of the time, and can even touch crosses without going up like a roman candle (True Blood).

"[...] There is no reason to get upset because you get to live forever while not being hunted to death by righteous men, having to avoid delicious garlic, while also having every girl or boy in a mile radius fall madly in love with you. That is not the curse of the ages. That is awesome."
An interesting counterpoint by [personal profile] shiegra in vampires through the ages, or not. I also recommend reading the comment thread.
"Other points that I've found rising to the surface of my mind in derisive discussions of modern vampire stories: if you didn't want to be turned into a vampire and still consider yourself human, you are essentially committing cannibalism. Some people don't want to live forever for damn good reason. There are any number of reasons for vampires to be justifiably freaked out by their state. Who the hell wants to have to assault people to live? Or, alternatively, steal from blood banks, which is another popular subversion that I find hugely problematic. Hospitals need that, you fuckers."
Also a post by [ profile] fiction_theory on urban fantasy as a genre (good stuff in the comments here, too):
"The tale told to me seems always the same, always a disappointment. The story is told in the first person by the same self-absorbed, conventionally attractive, twenty-something, blandly heterosexual, aggressively cisgendered, emotionally needy white woman. I am expected, as a reader, to sympathize with her because of her shoes or her clothes, of which she speaks often and sometimes at length, never mind if such clothing is usually not made for my body or that I may not even be able to afford such things. Because I identify female and so does she, it is expected that her material possessions will elicit a bond between us."
I'm behind on comments, I know! There's so much amazing meta that I've been introduced to since [personal profile] liv's friending meme that I've been preoccupied trying wrap my mind around it all. (It certainly doesn't help that I just got back to my apartment today and classes start up again on Tuesday. Spring Break was blissful while it lasted.)