tired of the obsession with "ethical" vampires and also "good" vampires who don't eat.
i think there's a lot to be said about fatphobia and the glamorization of EDs in vampire media, particularly in more modern depictions... i don't want to place the blame solely on twilight because this was happening way before the 2000s but i do think that had a huge impact with meyer's weird obsession and unwillingness to depict the vampires as anything other than thin and pale (and her singular fat aka tall and curvy vampire is described as "intensely feminine" and we don't have time to unpack all of that in this post)
saying that vampire venom "melts the fat" off of people, or that the vampire venom turns a person into their "ideal self" - who is the one saying my ideal self would be skinny? why is that the ideal at all?
i also just find it soooo fucking boring to neuter your vampires in this way. the whole point is to explore these deep desires and impulses and especially in romance these power imbalances that come from human/vampire relationships. i find the "good" vampire to be such a cop out. why even make them a vampire. twc vampires are just glorified super soldiers that work for the government. twilight vampires are just a bunch of mormon models. there's no real substance to them. even if you wanted to make an argument about edward, it falls flat because stephanie meyer doesn't write him intentionally, she genuinely thinks this shit is romantic & isn't ever really interested in exploring their age gap or edward's hunger.
i think interview with the vampire (the show) approaches the "good" vampire in an interesting way with louis. the decision to make him a gay black man adds so much to his desire to be "good" (accepted) and there's more to it than just him not wanting to eat humans; he's worried about the way the world will perceive him. and he still has so much love for claudia despite how different they are and the things she's done (but ultimately he still chooses lestat over her!!!) and he tries to influence daniel's perception of her, too. i also like that they still actually show him eating, versus the cullens, who i don't ever recall being shown on screen (or in the book) eating anything.
when i write about the hunger in blood choke, i worried about how people would react to the hunting scenes in ch2. overall, way more positively than i expected. there's a lot more i want to expand on especially in the next chapter, and i worry about how it may look right now in the game's unfinished state. i don't want the hunger to be something bad, at least not at its core. everyone is hungry. everyone eats. and i wanted to make it so the vampires in my world could not just opt out of it. they can't eat animals, they can't sustain on blood alone, they have to eat.
when it comes to the mc, they struggle with the hunger, but it's more than that. like with louis, it's the combination of that visceral hunger but also being gay and gender nonconforming, someone who has always been an outcast in society struggling to find their way back in after having their memories and sense of self completely wiped clean. their hunger is a manifestation of this idea they have of their past self - the potential for them to become the next Standard - and their physical/sexual desire that they repressed for so long now untethered due to their lack of memories as well as waking up in a more accepting world.
i think this is a much more interesting way to approach the hunger as opposed to painting the actual act of eating as inherently evil. in twilight, all the good vampires don't eat, even when bella is a human she doesn't eat. in dracula, lucy is only ever good when she doesn't eat. and when she does eat, she becomes an evil, indulgent sexual demon that is a threat to all men and she has to be destroyed.
female vampires always get the worst of it; they are sexual deviants, they want to kill all men, they asked for it, they're disgusting and vile for desiring anything from food to sex to independence. this of course goes way back; again, look at lucy. even in more "progressive" vampire media like bit, the lesbian vampire is evil, hates all men, and is tricking and seducing her female companions into it.
it's interesting to see how far back these trends go. dracula and carmilla all the way up to the modern depictions today. the "good" vampire narrative almost never works; i think because the idea of what is "good" is always going to be influenced by the person creating it. edward is not a "good" vampire. he is a 108 year old man who preys on a teenage girl; this should have been far more important to his character than whether or not he, as a vampire, drinks human blood. but instead he's considered good because he only eats deer and he's skinny and white and looks like a model, and because stephanie meyer says he is.
i don't write all this to say that these topics can't be explored (twilight is terrible for many other reasons, and i think iwtv does do it well) but just to point out why, in my opinion, the "good" vampire is usually such a weak narrative. who decides what is good? and there are other ways to explore the themes of desire and humanity than just restricting their diet... just because your vampire doesn't eat humans does not make them automatically good. and to be frank no vampire will ever be ethical!!! that's the point!!!!
51 notes
·
View notes
[Image Description: A digital painting depicting Feldspar standing to the right of a campfire, facing away from the viewer and upwards. They are holding an arm outstretched above them and the other gesticulates as if they were telling a story. Several fireflies surround them and their shadow falls to their right. Wreathed in the smoke of the campfire is a scene of their campsite in Dark Bramble. Three large twisting brambles, the anglerfish fossil’s teeth, and three pine trees are suspended upside down, stretching downwards toward Feldspar and the campfire. A plume of stylized curling smoke stretches across the top of the scene from Feldspar’s ship in the top right corner. The ship is sparking with electrical failure. End Image Description.]
my piece for the @travelers-encore-zine !!! I think this came out a bit more conceptual than I wanted but I still like it!
Thank you to the mods for making this happen, putting everything together and being an amazing support team!!! Thank you to my fellow contributors for being so lovely and making such amazing things and sharing this project with me, I'm really happy I got to be a part of it!!
315 notes
·
View notes
it is interesting to me that ive seen lately (n yknow this is subjective and likely not any real social force just what ive seen) many queer people simultaneously talking about taking back and embodying unpalatable and ‘unmarketable’ queerness (the recent return to the terms faggot and transsexual come to mind) which i think is pretty evidently shaped by the conservative moment were in of demonizing queer ppl and especially gnc and trans people as predators--it reads as a return to queer isolationism in the face of external hostility, imo--while at the same time ive seen a lot of rallying around the “original” 6 stripe rainbow flag as opposed to any of the purportedly ‘factional’ flags of different queer identities, with the assumption being different identity flags divide us while the rainbow flag encompasses everyone and its kinda fascinating to me bc the rainbow flag is probably the single most marketable and palatable and uncontroversial symbols of queerness which has been seamlessly uptaken by those who wish to sell it back to us as gets pointed out every pride month with all the cringey pride merch....
i dunno you could maybe take that as a point of hypocrisy and claim the queer community is itself in a conservative moment rn where its returning to a sense of history and historical continuity (perhaps even out of that sense of external threat) or even that the queer community has for some time been in a conservative moment given the like, decade of identity discourse and lashing out at any people deemed to not have a sufficiently established history or however we should categorize the bihets/ace discourse/transtrender-tucute discourse/pan discourse/bi lesbians discourse (because lets be frank its essentially all the same discourse just keeping up its momentum by leapfroging from one target to the next) which i think is, like, SOMEWHAT true but not entirely?
its more interesting to me, in any case, as an expression of a conflict the queer community is facing given that current state of affairs RE antitransness and that very recent history. like, the simultaneous need to retreat to a safe sense of community which is welcoming to the very things the outer world is demonizing ie mutable gender, complex or contradictory experiences of gender, gender expression which is hostile to the cis binary, but also the ways in which it has to grapple with those discourses which have largely defined the community infighting for again the past decade. its queer people begging the question ‘how can we make the queer community welcoming to the girlfags and genderfucks and tboys who are being threatened when we have spent so much time making the queer community a hostile place for anyone with a non-conventional or not easily (or even just palatably) sortable sense of queer identity’. and the answer it seems to be grappling with at the moment is like, welcoming all that diversity of experience but being absolutely averse to naming it. yes we love all the fuckery with gender and sexuality never be marketable but like, ew, why are you calling yourself [insert microlabel here]. you can be genderweird but you cant call yourself genderweird. you can only exist as queer in the broadest possible way (the all-inclusive gay pride flag!) but if you try to name the specifics or use those identity labels weve been fighting over for years youre doing it wrong (the progress pride flag is now ugly and cringey and ‘too much’). i think theres something also to the way (at least on this site) transmisogynistic discourses have really taken hold as legitimate (though yknow i wont downplay how much a problem transmisogyny has like. always been in queer spaces no matter what) in the name of protecting n defending trans people. like its just regurgitated transmisogyny but its being mobilized supposedly in the service of helping trans people. idk its definitely getting a little late for me to string this together fully coherently but theres a throughline there, in the ways certain ideas are being consolidated and reified as ‘yes were more progressive now!’ when i think theres definitely something to question there in terms of like...are we? are we actually? are we doing better by the people were trying to help or are we setting strict standards and forcing ppl to adhere to them again?
21 notes
·
View notes
Hi! Genuinely curious. I know a lot of artists don’t like qrts on Twitter because they remove engagement from the original post, but on tumblr, the engagement stays with the original poster, so I’m curious why you don’t want comments on reblogs. Is the engagement thing why you don’t like comments on your art, or is there a different reason?
hi! so im going to write this post with the assumption some people who read it may be unfamiliar with tumblr so pls excuse me if im explaining things you personally already know/is considered common sense/etc... i am also unsure which parts i should consider common knowledge/how far to explain so please forgive me if i overexplain a bit!
so on tumblr, comments on art do not affect engagement, but it is still commonly held etiquette not to add comments directly onto reblogs of art.
the reason for this is that when you add a comment directly onto a reblog (ie, not in tags nor the reply function) is that the comment becomes permanently affixed to that version of the post. it becomes a secondary caption, basically; it is not the same as a reply on twitter or a comment on insta. if the reblog with the comment is reblogged by someone else, that comment will remain and can continue to be shared, even if the commenter were to later delete the post. you now then, effectively, have a new version of the post that has additions to it.
this has become somewhat more of an issue lately, as tumblr recently updated to remove the ability to go to where somebody reblogged a post from. which is to say, if somebody encountered a post that has a lot of additive comments on it, but wanted to reblog the original/a version with less or different comments, they can no longer do so unless they scavenged someones blog for the post manually.
generally speaking, many artists prefer no direct additions be made to their posts (although sometimes people add image descriptor IDs, which i dont mind people doing) so that only the original iteration exists and can be reblogged, without anything extra added onto it that isn't meant to be there. the reply function (looks like a chat bubble at the bottom of a post) is a newer addition, but most people still prefer to add thoughts/commentary in tags -- since reblog tags only serve an organizational purpose within someones own blog/exist to help filter content warnings, it is very commonly used to add comments, since that will stay within someone's specific reblog and will not affect or change a post. original posters are still notified of every reblog and their tags (and i really like to go through and read/reread tags), so any commentary can still be appreciated and seen even without having to attach it to a post directly
tl;dr: id just prefer my art posts to be able to stand alone and be able to be shared that way w/out extra comments/a comment chain on them
i hope this helps answer the question...!
11 notes
·
View notes
misogyny moment maybe but i do think the “support all women on spn” mentality did damage to ppl’s ability to think critically bc there is no reason for donna to be as liked as she is. like with jody she at least gets more development but to be honest, it’s barely anything. both of them just exist to be super special cops who give sam and dean an in with cases when relevant so they can aid their vigilantism and perform vigilantism of their own! like they literally use their jobs as cops to make them more efficient hunters! and to be honest, i do hate how sam and dean’s inclusion into the hunting community through jody turned out and ive said a thousand times before but it never stops annoying me.
but like with donna her introduction into hunting is as like a. girl power thing. with jody, they were still following the narrative that acknowledged the harm and violence of hunting and she became involved in it bc her child who was brought back to life killed her husband, it was traumatic and horrific. but for donna it was abt empowering herself and being a better cop and shit like. the whole show is premised on the idea that hunting is destructive and horrific. and yet as the show goes on, hunting becomes a super special secret club abt how cool it is to shoot people.
2 notes
·
View notes