Our Vampires, Ourselves

Rating:
Summary: Paranoia and Loathing
Review: Auerbach got one thing right. Vampires are a reflection of the times. Nina as a literary critic has a wonderful sense of lower criticism, in fact, I say she's been bitten by the redaction bug. She longs for a day when the genre will be released from its patriarchal chains and be allowed to act freely as an expression of homosexual love. I personally don't care what your sexual preferences are, I do care that people shouldn't try to change the past, re-write it so to speak, and call it history. The past is static. The present is another story.

I have a question for the more feminist-minded among us. If we get rid of our patriarchal shackles and allow the female--especially the lesbian--vampire to do what she wills with her victims, how does that mitigate against the fact that it is still the female who is seduced (aren't ladies more than helpless masses of hormones?), and destroyed? Meet the new (female) despot, same as the old (male) despot. This is progress? This is something to be proud of? The closest thing to women being on equal terms with men in vampire lore today is Buffy.

Auerbach basically restricted her discussion of vampire lore to the western--read British and American--traditions. There are other traditions, especially Greek and Russian, who represent vampires in a more three dimensional perspective. These monsters are much more than adrenaline and hormones, and would better dignify the embattled in our society, male and female.

Now don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with adrenaline and hormones. But if we are reduced to them, then there isn't really that much to us. We might as well embrace ghosts as the accurate representation of who and what we are in society.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting take on the familiar
Review: Cogently argued, thoughtfully presented, entertainingly written. Since purchasing this book when it was first published, I've reread parts of it many times, just for the enjoyable and lively style of argument. Sure, there are many points I disagree with (but I could say the same for Neitzsche and Wittgenstein, too), but I always put the book down impressed by Auerbach's style and imagination. Others may claim that the book warrant only a single star in terms of a rating, for no other reason than their disagreement with the thesis. I say, whether you wind up agreeing or disagreeing--buying into everything Auerbach says or writing her off as wrongheaded--this book gives you plenty to chew on. If you disagree, ask yourself why you disagree; you may end up embracing the viewpoint of the third mind.