Reader Response

Thank you for your patience and understanding and also your perseverance in returning to check my blog, day in and day out...relentlessly and doggedly waiting for a new, exciting update.

And so, to buy some time for myself and entertain you, Dear Reader, please read the comment which was so graciously worded and eruditiously composed by our Dear Reader, Mr. LaScurry.

Fear not, Gentle Readers, for I fully intend to answer this comment in due course!*

*Author may or may not actually intend to answer said comment in any course; present, future or otherwise.

Harem said...(in regards to "Reader Response Responding III")

Dear Sir,
While I admit that you make an erudite and academic argument for the inherent gayness of vampires, I must still disagree with your thesis. After exhaustive probing into my recollection of all things vampire, I shall present to you my argument respond to your points below.

First I turn to the origins of the vampire. While scholars once believed the vampire a myth stemming from graves uncovered during Crimean War (the bodies within showing the characteristic signs of decomposition in a dry, cold environment, ie pallid flesh, receding gums [the appearance of fangs], and receding nail beds) it is now clear that any examination of the vampire must begin on that fateful island of Byron’s where in one bacchanalian weekend both Frankenstein and the Nosferatu were born. Being creatures of nightmare summoned forth to life through art and lots of drugs, these ideas were drawn largely in reaction to Victorian repression and stagnation. Whatever we may say of the relationship of Byron and his manservant, or perhaps even Byron and Shelley, it cannot be transferred to the image of an avenging nightmare who cares not for values, not for life, not for art. In fact the very notion of implying human sexuality to such a vessel rings hollow.

The pureness of Nosferatu was forever changed by Bram Stoker in his classic exposition. It will recalled that Dracula was always driven by human passions and even perhaps emotions. It is perhaps the fact that Dracula was more human than previous incarnations that we can accept this from what is substance a creature of pure evil. What is obvious, however, is that Dracula lusted after a woman and kept a harem of no less than three hot vampire babes. This is decidedly ungay.

In turning to more modern interpretations we see a range of vampire models from the effete dandy to the asexual killing machine. While generally it can be said that vampires reflect (or ought to reflect) their human bodies in form only, there are so many examples to the contrary that the exception has perhaps become bigger than the rule. If it is accepted that vampires can potentially display some of their former human traits, then we can justify sexual predilections in either direction, but we cannot pigeon hole them into gayness. It is certainly clear that vampires are equally opportunity feeders, but must this extend to their sexual behaviour as well? It would be fallacious to assume so.

Perhaps more research is required into the classification and behaviour of the various vampire models before any clear generalizations can be made. I think based on the foregoing, the only tenable thesis is that vampires can be, but are not necessarily gay. Much depends on the portion of society they reflect. It would seem that the vampire is a tool of the moral conscience, a cautionary character that, no matter where or when he is incarnate, rails as a consequence of excess. We might call him the Victorian Hangover.

I turn to your points:

"1. Vampires, as a rule, must wear frilly shirts, form fitting vests and scandalously tight pants."

We often see the Victorian dandy vampire as the classic model, but is this an accurate description of him? If one looks at Gary Oldman’s Dracula he is quite rakish, but we cannot call him a fop. I must admit that vampires have a curious predilection toward tight fitting clothing, but then again so do professional wrestles, football players and cage fighters. We equally see squalid a dirty heroin junky vampires in modern depictions. A vampire’s attire must hark back to the excess to which he is directed.

"2. Vampires spend their off hours enjoying fine wines, bacchanalian feasts and parties of which only the most fanciful in our population could enjoy. Vampires, however, attend these soirees frequently."

This again depends on the Victorian archetype. This is the situation in which the vampire was conceived, but it has far outgrown these aristocratic beginnings.

"3. Vampires have no affectations for humans of any particular sex, which not necessarily making them "gay", it does in fact make them "not-straight". Which leads to my next point;"

I of course agree with the first principle, but the second is logically unsound and assumes a false premise. We must distinguish between feeding and sexual preferences. If I have not have a preference between broccoli and cauliflour, it does not mean I want to do it with either one of them.

"4. a vampire bite brings two faces together extremely close, uncomfortable for me, but not for a vampire. It is not custom for males to kiss other males on the necks or any other body part for that matter; transgressors of this rule are surreptitiously viewed with suspicion of gaynessity; and vampires too, despite it being a feeding method and not kissing; the difference being purely semantical."

As you will gather from above, I view the difference as functional rather than semantic, and give it proper weight. While I am forced to agree that lips-on-neck is a singularly gay action, we must in this instance again compare it to lips-on-broccoli. I would comment that other activities bring males faces quite close – boxing, wrestling, drunken-head butting – are we to view these activities with suspicion as well?

"5. Suppose I were to awake from my usual restful sleep to have some guy grinning and leering over my bed slowly pulling off my covers. Intentions aside, that's still pretty gay."

I am hard pressed to disagree, and must concede this point.


I would close simply with the point that nicely groomed eyebrows aside, Angel was primarily concerned with getting it on with Buffy.

H.L.

PS - lycanthropes are way more gay than vamps. Just look at that word: Lycanthrope. Totally gay, dude.