Vampires and Werewolves and Zombies, Oh My!

I get the feeling that we live in a Golden Age of fantasy.  Fantasy, science fiction and horror stories and tropes have never been more popular or seen as many talented authors working in their genres.  For me, the interesting question is, "Why?"  What is it about these stories and characters that fills a need for us as audience members and consumers? Concepts like witches, wizards, zombies, vampires and werewolves have been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so why are we seeing them used exponentially more now?

I think the genres and stock character reflect the unconscious and conscious fears our culture causes while providing a coping mechanism for these same anxieties.  Collectively, technology scares and inspires us, as it changes our world in ever faster and potentially dangerous ways.  In response, we see the development of science fiction, where stories revolve around technological advances and allow us to confront our fears of change.

Or take fantasy.  Most fantasy works borrow heavily from Tolkien.  I think there are two basic reasons for this: quest/manhood narratives and belief/world mythologies.  Frodo and Bilbo are classic, Joseph Campbell, 'Hero of One Thousand Faces," young men on quests.  And as Campbell points out, the quest narrative is a dramatization of the passage from youth to adulthood.  Ultimately, the quest endpoint drives the narrative, but the personal growth of the main character arrives through the meeting and overcoming of the challenges that happen on the journey (with help from an older wisdom figure like Gandalf or Albus Dumbledore). 

Similarly, Tolkien presents a world where the mythology and beliefs of the characters is fully defined.  Much of the fantasy written in the last 60 years mirrors this, grounding the action in a world where good and bad are defined, the gods and demons present are certain and the actions of the characters take on cosmic or moral importance through how they align with the good and bad of the world (as opposed to the hero deciding they are moral or important through some existential determination).  

I think these characteristics account for the explosion of fantasy's popularity in the last 60 years.  Our culture generally doesn't have a clearly defined transition from youth to adulthood, especially for men and it has, on some level, moved towards a secular outlook, rejecting any particular belief system or mythology as true.  So a reason fantasies, especially among young men, as so popular is that they provide a space where young men have a purpose (complete the quest!), have a defined way to transition to manhood and have moral clarity or spiritual certainty about their actions..  

Where I think this gets really interesting is when we look at stock characters or monsters.  Because of Harry Potter, Twilight, and the proliferation of zombie stories, wizards, witches, vampires, werewolves and zombies have entered the popular conscious in a way I think unique in our history.  And I think the popularity of these types of stories and stories concerning these stock characters reveals a lot of the broader cultural fears and issues with currency for people today.

Wizards and witches, especially in the Harry Potter world, are two sides of the same coin.  I think traditionally, wizards are more about age and knowledge, with the potential for being either good or bad.  Witches have an almost exclusively negative connotation because I think they exemplify fear of female sexuality (love potions, becoming "bewitched" by a beautiful woman, etc).  For the modern versions, I think magic is our image for rapidly evolving technology. The things we do every day would seem magical to anyone from from 1900 (with the possible exception of Nikola Tesla) and Harry Potter shows us a story of youth mastering power to fight for good.  I think this resonates with audiences, expressing hope that the youth of today will use technology more responsibly that previous generations.

Vampires are all about sex. Fear of sex but also fascination with its power.  All the way back to Dracula, male vampires have been seducing female targets.  Twilight is slightly different because Edward holds off for a bit, but at heart, vampires are sex symbols.  They live eternally, as will your DNA if you have children.  They are "supposed" to be resisted and wrong, though you chances of actually resisting them involve heavy reliance on the church (crosses) or smelling bad (garlic).  Otherwise, there is something seductive about their power.

Werewolves are about fear of masculinity/puberty/aggression.  Any man who's been through puberty knows what it's like to be a werewolf. One day, you're just hanging out with your friends, playing, the next thing you know, you're hairy and angry and attacking people for no reason.  What makes a werewolf scary is their seemingly uncontrollable transition from reasonable man to physically powerful, enraged, violent attacker.  Now, I think that mirrors fears about male aggression, about the uncontrollable violence men have unleashed throughout history. It's what makes Twilight werewolves so annoying, especially the casting of Taylor Lautner.  Taylor is a good looking dude, but he has no body hair. Seriously, a hairless werewolf?  He's a feminized version of the werewolf.  The Twilight werewolves take away the things that make werewolves interesting and powerful stock characters.

Finally, zombies.  We've seen an explosion of zombies in the popular culture recently. It used to be a couple of monster movies from the 30's and Night of the Living Dead.  Know you've got World War Z, Zombie Survival Guide, 28 Day, 28 Days later, the Walking Dead and many more.  I think it reflects our fear of the other, especially the political other.  Zombies are unthinking hordes of being, unable to be reasoned with, wanting to eat (destroy) your brains (your beliefs, thought process, etc).  It's basically the expressed fear that the other side politically is unreasonable, always wrong and out to destroy your reasoning or beliefs.  And as our political climate gets more dysfunctional and antagonistic and less able to function (basically the last 30 years), we see an explosion of zombies in popular culture.

These are the fears or anxieties I see our culture dealing with through these stock characters and genres.  Let me know if you have other examples or ideas in the comments.

Sure, NOW stamina is a bad thing!

Last week, there was an op-ed column in the New York Times called "Sexism's Puzzling Stamina" (which can be read here).  Now, I happen to think it was written mostly so "sex" and "stamina" could appear in the headline and provide fodder for snarky blog-post titles. And let me say up front, sexism is not a good thing.  It's destructive and an area where out society has a lot of work to do.  But I really don't think it's continued existence is all that puzzling.

I think issues of gender are going to be a frequent topic I post about.  I think about it a lot and have since at least college, maybe earlier.  So this is just a first foray into this arena. But I think this is a good place to posit my introductory thoughts on this subject.

I was born 22 years after 'The Feminine Mystique" was published.  I grew up in a society that preached women could do anything they wanted.  It's just something that I have accepted as given.  But my entire life, discussions of gender have really been discussions of either queer identity or feminism.  The entire focus is on the experience of being a female or being outside heteronormativity. But we're operating on an assumption that the male experience has been fully explored (because we lived in a patriarchy in the West for so long, weren't all those discussions of human experience basically male slanted?)  And I think they were somewhat slanted, no doubt, but they weren't about being male specifically.

Look at the cultural signposts identified in the op-ed column.  Leaving aside the movie argument, I find the statement

"he persistent stereotype of a woman whose career devotion is both seed and flower of a tortured private life" incredibly myopic because it's ignoring that the same thing applies to men. I mean, Don Draper's private life is so ordered and free of drama. And as if the "distant father always at work" trope operated without any basis in lived experience. When someone is career driven at the expense of family, there is a cost, regardless of sex. Because alternatives exclude and choices have consequences.


I understand the uproar about the Fox clips. It was a bunch of scared old men lamenting change. But I think that's only the surface analysis. The reason it's troubling for men that women are now the "breadwinner" in so many homes is, culturally speaking, without the role of breadwinner, what exactly is a man's role? Now, I think men need to figure this out, but I don't think the anxiety is really all that unbelievable. The opening up of cultural roles that occurred for women because of feminism didn't occur for men. If it had, engagement rings wouldn't exist (the engagement ring's sole purpose is to prove you're enough of a breadwinner to blow a paycheck or two on a shiny thing), we'd there'd be no societal qualms about adult men supervising small children or being "house husbands" and motherhood would not be as exalted so far above fatherhood in our culture.


I could go on (is it good or bad that women author's don't aggressively self-promote? does the author understand what Title IX was supposed to do?), but I think the point is, sexism persists because there is no discussion, or real forum for discussion, about the role of men in our society. The discussions taking place are framed as "women's" issues and the potential that redefining cultural gender roles could effect men profoundly never gets discussed.


Our cultural narratives never got updated. Boys are still taught to be breadwinners, to provide, above all else. I think it's the reason the Godfather films continue to resonate- men understand the tension Michael goes through and his willingness to do anything, no matter how evil, to protect and provide for his family. And, rightly or wrongly, the emphasis on female experience and, to a much lesser degree, queer experience, are discussions that seem to only take away roles or status, without offering new options. So sexism continues because it's a defense mechanism. Our society doesn't even have a recognizable vocabulary for men to talk about their issues (a holdover from the stoic, unemotional role men are taught to fulfill).


That's why I think you see sexism persisting in our culture. Until men decide to take an active role in discussions and there is a receptive audience to voicing men's concerns (or a space culturally for men to work out their issues among themselves without being accused for creating "old boy's" clubs), this is an issue that won't be resolved nearly as quickly as it should.

Original Sin

I wanted to acknowledge that some of these ideas came from Prof. Mark McIntosh, former Professor of Theology at Loyola University Chicago and current Professor of Theology at Durham University, some 10 years ago.  Funny how an idea can resonate and cling to a person.

I've wanted to discuss the second creation story in Genesis for a long time.  Personally, I've always preferred the first creation in Genesis.  I find comfort in its emphasis on the creative power of language and our inheritance of some divine power to shape and create our world through language.

In contrast, the Adam and Eve story always rubbed me the wrong way.  As long as I can remember, I've enjoyed learning. Acquiring new knowledge is one of my sources of joy.  So how can I reconcile that with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge being the source of sin?  Even written out as the Knowledge of Good and Evil, wouldn't that knowledge be a good thing?  Otherwise, how would you know which actions were good and which evil? If Eve had already had this knowledge, she would have known disobeying God was evil and wouldn't have done it!  It seemed like an enormous Catch-22.

Prof. McIntosh provided a much more compelling interpretation.  As I recall it, he submitted that the real sin of Adam and Eve, and repeated by every human since the dawn of time, is not believing that there is enough on Earth to meet our needs.    I've been thinking about this a lot lately and think it could be narrowed to the knowledge of difference.

Without the knowledge of good and evil, humans would be unable to identify and give meaning to the differences between us. When Adam and Eve blissfully traipsed through Eden, stark naked, they felt no shame or concern because they were not aware of a difference between them, or at least one that mattered.  However, after eating the "fruit" of knowledge of good and evil, they are shamed by their nudity.  Instead of a natural, healthy curiosity, it's been replaced by anxiety and shame.  I don't think Original Sin is tied to sexuality in any way, I just think it was the image used to most immediately describe this awareness of difference.

And we see this play out in our everyday experiences.  All the classic sins, which I believe boil down to choosing self over others, regardless of the cost to others, stem from knowledge of difference.  Why would anyone feel greed, unless they were aware that someone had something different from them.  Why would anyone feel pride, unless they were aware they had something different from other people.  The entire litany of ways we fail to "love your neighbor as yourself" boil down to our ability to see the difference between ourself and our neighbor (and variously acquire the difference or keep our neighbor from changing that difference).

I also think the Knowledge of Difference had a secondary effect.  And I think Jesus was aware of it and tried to tell us.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us not to worry about providing food or clothing to ourselves because God provides these to the lowliest of creatures, who don't work for food or clothing.  As we are the image of God on Earth and (arguably) substantially more important to God than sparrows and lillies, won't God also provide for our needs?  This is commonly understood as a condemnation of materialism, but I think it suggests a much more empowering and terrifying truth.

  In Eden, man did not toil to provide food or clothing for himself.  Jesus is telling us that nothing needs to have changed.  We weren't expelled from the Garden of Eden. WE ARE STILL THERE. We've just lost the ability to see it.  Once we are able to see the differences between people, we lose the ability to see that everything we need is already provided in such abundance that there is no reason for us to want.  Jesus is challenging us to bring the Kingdom to Earth and doing so means recognizing we're still in Eden.  That life can be ours and the only thing standing in the way of it is ourselves.

It's a (Wo) Man's World- The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock

Text for the poem can be found here.

"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock" by T.S. Eliot has been one of my favorite poems since I first read it.  Something about it has always spoken to me, but I know many people struggle with interpreting it.  While it is somewhat impressionistic, I think trying to understand the "plot" or narrative of the poem is missing the point.  Specifically, I believe the poem is about male anxiety in a female social space. Let me explain.

First, you have the Epigraph.  It's a quotation from Dante's Inferno and I think it's a significant choice.  It's telling the reader the  frame of reference to approach the poem from.  Translated, it means:

"If I but thought that my response were made
to one perhaps returning to the world,
this tongue of flame would cease to flicker.
But since, up from these depths, no one has yet
returned alive, if what I hear is true,
I answer without fear of being shamed."

This speech is given by one of the damned souls (tongue of flame) in Hell after Dante asks him what he did to end up there.  The soul replies, if he thought anyone outside of Hell would here his story, he wouldn't tell it, but because no one every goes to Hell and escapes, he assumes his secrets are safe.  

This sets the stage for the poem.  Prufrock, the speaker, is revealing to you, the reader, what causes him torment.  And, like the stories in the Inferno, it's one not bound by physical space or time restraints. Instead, it's a poetic statement about Prufrock's suffering.  

Another tidbit to keep in mind is that the original working title for this poem was "Prufock Among the Women."  In the world of normal heterosexuality, "Love Song" is a more poetic term, but I think it obscures the intent for today's reader.  This poem is not about frustration, anxiety and emasculation generally, but very specifically about those feeling being caused by women (not through specific behavior, just their intimidating presence).

The first stanza (Lines 1-12)  essentially sets the tone of the poem. We know immediately that Prufrock's view of the world is somehow off.  We get images of etherized patients, emptying streets, cheap hotels and bars and emptying streets.  The feelings of cheapness and dirtiness are important, but they are general images.  Most importantly, Prufock foreshadows his real dilemma, "the overwhelming question" but tells the reader not to ask what it is.  Focusing on what the question "is" is not the point.  

The next section, Lines 13-36, is further mode and place description. It sets the "action" of the poem in the dirty city, but more importantly, in a female space.  "The room" where the women are speaking is a salon(all the talk of taking tea, coffee spoons and cake), a social space for ladies of high culture to discuss art, politics, etc.  The repetitions about time evoke the tedium cause by these social coffee or tea parties, and the ways that, socially, the decisions and pauses you make can have repercussions much more complicated and fast acting than Prufrock feels comfortable with.  Prufrock is entering a realm where women's social codes rule, which means communication that is more subtle, indirect and, for a straight man wishing for female attention, risky than normal interactions.

Lines 37 to 48 further emphasize the gendered nature of Prufrock's anxiety.  Here, his concerns are with his physical appearance (balding and skinny), which he is trying to cover up through concentrating on his dress. These are not concerns most men have when interacting with other men.  However, this is all a ploy to build his confidence, to actually dare disturb the universe. 

Lines 49-69 explore why Prufrock feels so anxious in this female space.  He feels familiar, but not comfortable with the social code expected in the salon.  He feels his whole life has been confined by this code (measured out in coffee spoons) and fears the reaction of women when he decides to express his true feelings.  For him, it would be a presumption upon the good taste and feelings of the women. In the past, when he has tried, the direct attention of his audience makes him feel like a bug specimen, dead and pinned down for examination.  The last stanza of the section should reinforce that this anxiety isn't general, but specific to his interaction with women.  As a straight man, the undercurrent of sexual attraction is part and parcel of this anxiety.  He's notices small physical traits (arm hair) and scents, distractions from trying to communicate, but also something he can't help but be distracted by.  

Lines 70-74 are simply his hypothetical reaction to trying to explain himself at the salon.  If he were as honest there as he is with us?  The very idea strikes him as absurd and causes such self-loathing that he wishes he had been born a crab or lobster instead of a man.

Lines 75-110 show Prufrock expressing his failure to communicate and the fear that drives it through a series of hypothetical breakthroughs. He forthrightly admits that he has no confidence in himself. Despite agonizing over his inability to speak with women, both generally and sexually, he feels that he can't.  He's no prophet and doesn't feel like his speech has value.  Prufrock attaches great importance to his unspoken feelings (impossible to say what he means, but it's an overwhelming question, the universe squeezed into a ball, the truth of Lazarus back from the dead).  But he doesn't even begin to speak for fear of the reaction of the women in the salon, who so casually (adjusting a shawl or leaning on a pillow) would crush him by saying he misunderstand them.

Lines 111-131 are Prufrock's rationalization for his failures to speak and be understood by women and his expression of fear that he will never be able to connect with women.  Emphatically, it would NOT have been worth expressing himself.  The Hamlet comparison is particularly telling.  Most people consider themselves the protagonist in a story about their own lives.  Prufrock has such a poor opinion of himself that he identifies with Polonius, being a bit player in the drama of other people's lives and not the main character of his own. Instead, he resigns himself to his inferiority, concentrating on his advancing age, more manageable questions of appearance and what to eat.  He sees women (the mermaids) interacting, making men happy by involving themselves with men's lives, but it's not for him.  Instead, he will watch from the shore, be an observer of their grace (he's going to continue going to the salons, it's as close as he can get to relationships with women), and when they speak with him, he will continue to drown, unable to communicate or interact.

So, that's how I read Prufrock.  I think I've always liked the poem because I identify with Prufrock's nervousness and lack of confidence when talking with women. While the poem can be read as an exploration of alienation and anxiety generally, I think the language and imagery points to a very specific gender experience.  Ultimately, that why I think trying to figure out what the "overwhelming question" is missing the point.  It's a combination of general opinion and sexual feeling, because both are present for Prufrock in his interactions with women.  That's why the imagery building up has sexual overtones (focusing on how the women look) but the responses of the women seem to be to a more "polite" type of conversation. And because these feelings and anxieties are not "manly", they were only so truthfully explained to us because, like the speaker in the epigram from the Inferno, Prufrock isn't expecting his feelings to be communicated to the world.

  Hopefully, this will help you gain a different perspective on this poem and enjoy it a little more fully.  Let me know in the comments! 

Hello World

Once upon a time, when I was less adept at knowing when to speak and when to listen, I had a teacher tell me that my comments in class and conversation were like parts of a monologue that continually ran in my head but that the connections between what I said were often not communicated.  I think that's basically the same for most people, but it always stuck with me (hence the name of this Blog).  Now, I've decided to try to catalogue the various ideas and reactions I've got bouncing around in my brain.  As many of you will know, I've been very active on facebook the last year, but it doesn't really allow for more complete development of thoughts.  So, at least in theory, this will allow a more accurate look at what's going on in there.

 I expect there to be analysis of politics, abstract theories on society, reactions and reviews to the things I'm reading/playing/watching/listening to and maybe even some creative writing.  If you know me, you know I've always been a little eclectic and this blog will probably reflect that. For those of you more astrologically inclined, it will be pure Gemini with Mercury in close conjunction.  For instance, I'm thinking there will soon be posts on reading poetry, masculinity in culture, my interpretation of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis and the new Queens of the Stone Age album.  Hopefully you'll find it interesting enough to comment on and maybe we can foment some discussion here. If not, I hope it's entertaining and a little food for thought. Happy reading, more to come soon.