I spend quite a bit of time on LibraryThing. It is very interesting to see what other people like to read. But occasionally it seems that I have wandered into the wrong side of town.

I've noticed the popularity of books about vampires, urban fantasy, dark fantasy, and so on. Vampires. So many books about vampires. Vampires of all kinds in all times and places. Why vampires?

What am I to make of all this dabbling in the occult? To be generous, I might say this is mere escapism. Which all reading is to some degree. But when I read reviews, here and at Amazon, about books of nihilistic worlds where there are no redeeming qualities or characters, I'm left a little troubled. Why escape into worlds like this? Does it signify anything about the reader, the writer, the times we live in? Some of these books apparently need to come with warnings, though they are marketed alongside run of the mill fantasy and science fiction. Am I witnessing some kind of celebration of the demonic? Are there, as Russell Kirk believed, demonic uses of the imagination?

I wonder, for example, about a kid reading Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Convenant novels. From what I have read, here is an author preoccupied with rape. Nevertheless (or is it because?) the books are very popular.

There does seem to be a creeping nihilism in other popular authors like George R.R. Martin, Neil Gaiman, China Mievile, and Jeff VanderMeer. They are a long way from Tolkien and Bradbury.

What to make of all this dark fantasy? Why escape into worlds where weirdness, violence, and despair are considered normal and even profound?

Message edited by its author, Jan 13, 2007, 8:39pm.

Well, the flip answer is that, from Bram Stoker on down, vampire stories are thinly disguised (and sometimes, not at all disguised) allegories for Dangerous Sex.

I don't see that as ever declining as a popular subject.

(Of course, the other interpretation for vampirism - "an aristocrat who survives by sucking the life's blood from others" - is a bit Marxist.... I could happily spin a theory to explain why more and more popular fiction is about this.)

More seriously, I'll certainly agree that the boom of the Horror genre in the '80s was a bit disconcerting. But I'd distinguish between Dark Fantasy and straight Horror.

I cant speak for others, but I find well written vampire horror - Bram Stoker, Brian Aldiss, Kim Newman, Stephen King compelling because they are about the horror and the paralysis of facing determined, charismatic and powerful evil. They are about overcoming horror and paralysis and making a stand for whatever its worth.

Its so easy to attempt to preserve your life by doing nothing and pretending that all is well. If they get you - well - how bad can immortality or preternatural strength and beauty be? Easier not to stand in the way of forces far more powerful than a handful of weak humans who dont fully understand what they are dealing with.

And yet, people do stand up, and often pay dearly. The 'good guys', humanity, dont always win, or dont live 'happily ever after'.

Dystopias are often more useful as warnings than utopias are as inspirations.

Message edited by its author, Jan 14, 2007, 9:13pm.

I have heard the Marxist interpretation of the vampire novel, that the aristocrat is the rich man sucking the life out of the poor. I have also heard the anti-Catholic interpretation, that Catholics are like vampires in the mass when they drink the blood of Christ in the promise of eternal life.

On a more mundane level, there is a kind of person who we refer to as vampires because they suck the energy, the good, the life force or whatnot, right out of us. Our interactions with them are combative and negative. They are predators. They are tiresome and draining to be around. Perhaps there is a perception that such people have increased in number. That is very likely, though why there are more vampires around now than ever, it would be difficult to unravel.

I like the idea of good versus evil. Who doesn’t? The problem is that some of these vampire novels, if I’m not mistaken, seem to propose vampirism as an alternative mythology the way one might propose S&M as an “alternative lifestyle.” In the new vampire mythos, good and evil get mixed up in all kinds of ways. The vampire is presented as an admirable, sympathetic character.

These new mythologies are very different from the mythologies of Tolkien and Lewis, which strike me as being more grounded in the moral and real, despite being fantastical stories.

Sure, I'm inclined more toward dystopia toward utopia. Or at least I was in the past, when I read books such as Brave New World and 1984. Those books had a moral backbone.

In attempting to come back into the field of fantasy, however, and find something worth reading, it is troubling to find some of this very dark stuff on bookstore shelves frequented by children. The web site inchoatus.com does a decent job of warning about the content of recent books in the genre they call "speculative fiction." Still, I don't think Brave New World or 1984 would depress me the way the very popular Perdido Street Station by China Mieville probably would. The reviews at Inchaotus warn me that the book is ugly. And they call VanderMeer's City of Saints and Madmen weird, disturbing, deeply unsettling.

I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I'm a fan of the mythic, an interest which began in childhood with Tolkien, Bradbury, Watership Down, Dune, through The Odyssey and into the mythic romances of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the movie The Illusionist a great deal. But even that, for all its interest in the occult, did provide us with redeemable qualities and likable characters within a tightly managed plot. Unlike much of the so-called dark fantasy of today.

The fantasy field today, anyway, seems remarkably profitable and diverse. I can't be the only person who also finds it even more bizarre than usual. Even nihilistic.

I dunno, deniro. There are different uses for different literatures.

Fantasy is not really my field, so once we wander past the classics, I don't have a lot to offer here about the "dark fantasy of today" that you're deploring. (Part of the reason that fantasy isn't my field is that I don't care for old-school fantasy: I find that most of it tends toward a worldview that we'd be well rid of. Cf.: the Tolkien and Lewis you cite.) Me, I'm a science-fiction kinda guy.

I'll agree that today's fantasy field IS remarkably diverse. It needn't all provide comfort, or even provide reassurance that The Old Ways Are The Best Ways. There's plenty for every taste.

I'll pick up on just one point from your #4 "I like the idea of good versus evil. Who doesn’t? The problem is that some of these vampire novels, if I’m not mistaken, seem to propose vampirism as an alternative mythology the way one might propose S&M as an “alternative lifestyle.” In the new vampire mythos, good and evil get mixed up in all kinds of ways. The vampire is presented as an admirable, sympathetic character. "

I don't really see the issue here. Fantasy of all kinds is a mirror to the "real" world. And very few if anybody is a one dimentional character. Heros have weaknesses, and so by default villains have redeeming features. It is completely unexceptional that in a well written book it becomes hard at times to differentiate between the "bad" and the "good".

Just because you are born with a condition like vampirism should you automatically become a villain? Can you not be hero too? Now substitute vampire for catholic or aristocrat or disabled. it can provide an inspiration for many.

I agree there are some books I wouldn't want young children to read as if they were Harry Potter. But then they are very unlikely to, its hard enough to get them to read in the first place, without foisting tombs of heavy prose at them.

Donaldson's work very clearly emphasises that rape is a bad thing. in fact more than that, that giving in to a spur of the minute impulse without regard for the consequences is a very bad thing. The following books detail the hardship endured, all of which could easily have been avoided - and the situation never does get restored to how it was before, lives ruined for ever more. So you can hardly say that Chronicles of Thomas covenant carries the wrong message. Its not alwys plesant reading - but that's life too.

One popular vampire sub-genre is the reformed vampire, or the Oskar Schindler of vampires.

A chap who driven by his conscience has got on the wagon (and who quaffs non-human blood as in some meth-for-heroin rehab programme)and seeks to atone for his murderous past. Yet limited by the fact that he has centuries of friendships with other vamps, so he bring himself to go around staking them.

I think Anne Rice pioneered the more sympathetic vampirism from the point of view of the vampire genre. In particular the ideas that some vampires are creatures with whom coexistance might be possible, while others are truly psychotic and need to be put down, as much of a threat to other vampires as humans.

Although there is a certain amount of glamour, I dont think she really posits a vampires (non?) life to be better than that of humans. It actually comes off as rather ghastly, a wretchedness that matches the glamour.

I spent some time reading this thread as I was working, so please forgive me if I'm slightly off topic.

I, for one, do not like vampire books. I do like dark fiction though and sometimes dabble into well-written vampiric novels. There are two series that I read in high school - one by Michael Romkey and the other by Christopher Pike that can best be described as "ain't never gonna happen."

However, I think many folks are looking for something to escape from the tedium of life when looking for horror or dark fantasy. Maybe they feel safe by reading the "ain't never gonna happen" books? I know that for me, sometimes I just get really stressed out and need a fantasy novel, a bath, and a glass of wine. For me the draw is in the "whoa - my life does not suck that badly." Then, the next day when the suck settles back into life, I can escape back into my head with the details that are hopefully nothing like my current day. I want to think about how Richard is going to war against Jagang in the SoT series or how Phaedre is going to act the next time she meets Melisande in the Kushiel's series.

If it weren't for dark fantasy (not necessarily vampire stuff) I know I'd take a lot more xanax than I do. ;)

All good points.

I think in this world of today, many people don't have a base of truth or even believe there is a truth that is real for all people at all times, hence our willingness to take something which was always evil (Stoker's vampires) and look at it from a different view, perhaps even empathy. If we are talking about vampirism as a genetic anomaly which one cannot avoid, then that makes it something we should look at empathetically. If it is a way of life which a person chooses in order to prey on others for greed, hate or power, then we need have no empathy. I think both orders of stories are acceptable if written well. That being said, I have to tell you the only modern vampire story I've read has been Carpe Jugulum, and I love it and the way vampires were portrayed in it. Stoker's vampire remains my favorite thus far.

We also seem to have a fascination with pirates, the mafia and Hell's Angels (I couldn't really come up with a third option, but three in a list sounds better). So maybe it is the vicarious being bad the way our inner selves sometimes wish we could be, but our real selves know is not an option for us. Or, in other words, fantasy.

I can't say about "demonic" uses of the imagination, but I do know that I personally had to stop reading Stephen King when I was a teenager. The nightmares I had were too horrific to relate and had a very real physical quality to them. When I stopped reading those books and seeing horror movies, most of those nightmares stopped as well. Whatever the cause, I'm just glad they've stopped.

I read the stuff because I've always had a fascination with the fantastic ever since I could read. Ghost stories, tales of the supernatural, vampires, werewolves, mummies, local legends, mythology, haunted houses, etc. I'm sure there is some reason that a shrink could dig out of my head why but I never gave it much thought, just like it is all.

"Creeping nihilism" is the fate of every society that gave up its faith in the value of the individual, objective truth, and our responsibility to that truth. What is the future but Vampirism? Suck blood or get the blood sucked out of you. Will to power. Survival of the fittest. "Gloom, despair, and agony on me. Deep, dark, depression, excessive misery". Art is revelation and prophecy. Dress it up and make a movie, make a few bucks. Medicate yourselves against the creeping nihilism of the times. "I wish it were the 60's, I wish we could be happy, I wish that something would happen".

Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily objecting to books about vampires. Certainly not objecting to books which revivify our culture via the mythopoeic. My question was: Why vampires?

Possibly I was looking for a cultural significance that was not there.

On the other hand, if there were something significant about the popularity of vampire books, I feared something like what Mark has in mind in #13.

A girl I knew in college once told me, rather cynically I thought at the time, "You can either be a master or a slave," referring of course to the workplace. I said, "Where did you grow up? On a pirate ship?" I didn't really want to be either. But I have certainly seen my share of "vampires" in the workplace.

Thus I have taken to wearing a garlic necklace every day in the hope of keeping them away.

Message edited by its author, Feb 20, 2007, 7:03pm.

I've read only one thing by Stephen King. A short story when I was in junior high.

At one point in the story, the deranged kid (a mainstay of King's work) takes two forks and shoves them into the opposite sides of his dog's head. King describes the dog jumping around and yelping in agony.

That was it for me. No more Stephen King. It's an image I would like to erase from my memory.

So, yes, I am interested in the uses of the imagination, and what sort of images we choose to put in our heads.

Garlic, Italian, yeah, I can see that.

Pirate ship. Did you really come up with such a wonderfully witty line on the spot? If so, I think I would like to be your friend. Quite an active imagination there yourself.

I hate to admit it, but King is an exceptional writer. I have the same issues with the images (Pet Sematary did me in), but there is an underlying theme to most of his stuff that I have read that reveals human nature or casts hope for the future. Tough to get through the package sometimes though.

I have trouble reconciling the fact that King also wrote The Shawshank Redemption, a fine movie, as was The Green Mile.

It's always tough criticizing someone like King, because he's so popular and has done so much. In all that work, it is no surprise he has hit highs and lows.

The pirate ship line comes from Woody Allen's movie Love and Death, my favorite of his, a satire on Russian novels. That movie is just one joke after another.

Interesting. You are a Woody Allen fan? I can't seem to get through the neuroses.

Blood (sacrificial and as the source of life) is extremely significant, not just for Christianity, but around the world. But to focus just on Christianity:

In "Blood: The Miracle of Life," in Christianity Today (1983), Paul Brand wrote:

Christianity too is inescapably blood based. Old Testament writers describe blood sacrifices in painstaking detail and their New Testament counterparts layer those symbols with theological meanings. The word "blood" occurs three times as often as the "cross" of Christ, five times as frequently as "death." And daily, weekly, or at least monthly (depending on denomination), we commemorate Christ's death with a ceremony based on his blood.

Consider these two Old Testament biblical injunctions:

1. Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings (Leviticus 7:26)

2. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people (Leviticus 7:27)

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, wine should be understood as a substitute for blood during celebrations:

1. "He washes his garment in wine, and his robes in the blood of grapes." (Genesis 49:11)

2. "of the blood of grapes you drank wine" (Deuteronomy 32:14)

And, in the New Testament, the role of blood is very strongly stated for Christianity:

I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me (John 6, NIV).

Stephen Peele in The Blood of the Covenant (2003) continues:

Blood to the believer is like oil to an engine, neither can survive without it."

Blood is understood as an appeasement to God, first seen in the garden of Eden by the slaughter of two animals to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. Peele continues, with scriptural evidence, that the significance and power of the blood of Jesus is seen in the Bible from eight views:
1. redemption
2. propitiating
3. cleansing
4. forgiveness
5. access to God
6. justification
7. sanctification
8. commemorative celebration

For example, in the New Testament, during the Last Supper, Jesus said:

"This is the new covenant in My blood" (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, I Corinthians 11:25)

This indicates that the wine represented His blood which would be shed in sacrificial death.

That's a lot of blood.

There is a rape in a Thomas Covenant book. A leper that can't function properly physically suddenly finds himself completely well and is overwhelmed by the sensation of suddenly being well and whole again, and basically on a completely different planet. He regrets it a lot for many books afterwards. So, no preoccupation with rape in his fantasy, unlike a lot of people who may have commented I have read them all.

If that is so odd to have as a fiction, people reading a lot of run of the mill mystery books or watching Law and Order SVU would be strange, as well? Serial rapists and murderers galore, there, on prime time tv even. Kind of bizarre to pick out just one if you look at it like that. This stuff is way more popular than fantasy books.

Haven't read Martin-fantasy, only SF (or only most of one book, anyway, and from what I remember rather than standard epic fantasy he seemed to be emphasising your standard ruthless political action, a lot more like a thriller type of novel.) I didn't pick up on any nihilism as a theme in anything I read by Gaiman. Mieville appears to be writing about the individual and saying yes, those in power are greedy, manipulative, politically opportunistic, deceptive and ruthless bastards, in general. Which, according to most news sources, is pretty much true. :)

Tolkien, of course, is incredibly racist, sexist, classist, and happy to advocate a bit of the old genocide. Not much moral there, if you look at it like that, unless you are on the side of/agreeing with those doing the slaughtering, of course. Lewis is very patronisingly dogmatic in a similar vein, if a fair bit more understated due to the kid thing. Sexually repressed, too.

If Stephen King has stories about tortured animals, so does the local newspaper, not to mention Jack London. A bit hard to avoid. Don't let that put you off some good work.

As Bob says though, a lot of the vampire thing is about sex, and the old fashioned bad boy fantasy, particularly the new dark fantasy/paranormal romance urban craze. Reading about shagging the guy that in real life at night you'd cross to the other side of the street to avoid. Immortality and super powers are also intriguing facets.

If you don't like any of this, you always have David Eddings' next however many book opus, though. There are plenty of others similar, still, as well, just on passing glances at the trilogies littering the bookshops. Something for everyone, including people that only like subsets.

I don't know, maybe it's just the capes. Everyone looks better in a cape.

I've only read one George R. R. Martin novel, and that was his vampire story "Fevre Dream." It was not at all nihilistic, though bloody. It was a life-affirming tale about overcoming the evil inclinations in one's own nature.

Jack Dann wrote one amazing story called "Down Among the Dead Men," about a vampire at Auschwitz. An amazingly harrowing and effective story.

The use of vampire legend to tell stories about human nature and human fears, and to explore the nature of good and evil, etc., is an obvious moral use of fantasy as a genre. The thrill of reading about evil, of course, is old, old, old. Many, many artists have hard a harder time writing effective heroes than they have had writing effective villains. The classic case is Milton's "Paradise Lost." Lucifer is far and away the most interesting character.

Tolkien is something of an exception to this rule. His heroes are much more well developed than his bad guys. Sauron is a classic "black box," an unexplained feature of the circuit (in this case, story), upon which the reader must impute much of the character. Saruman and Denethor are better examples of interesting bad guys, but neither are developed in as much length as Samwise, Frodo, Gandalf, Gimli and others. From this I'll draw the tentative conclusion is that vampire stories are probably much easier to write well than heroic fantasy. The heroic fantasy would require exploration of the character of the hero; the vampire fantasy can succeed simply by having a well-written bad guy.

Note: The TV series (not the dreadful movie) "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" managed to tell complex, interesting tales filled with well-developed heroes and villains. I have not read any of the graphic and written fiction branching off the series. And probably never will.

#21 Tolkien, of course, is incredibly racist, sexist, classist, and happy to advocate a bit of the old genocide

Ahem. There's a hand grenade I won't throw back.

Months ago, deniro wrote: I wonder, for example, about a kid reading Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Convenant novels. From what I have read, here is an author preoccupied with rape. Nevertheless (or is it because?) the books are very popular.

In fact, Stephen R. Donaldson (especially concerning his Thomas Covenant books) is the Dostoyevsky or Cormac McCarthy of fantasy literature. He wrestles very honestly with evil and the problem of human nature. His vision is a very dark one, but it is neither escapist nor nihilistic. I first read Donaldson's work when I was 12 or 13. . . and going back to the Covenant books 20 years later, I still found them to be substantive, challenging, and beautiful work.

Message edited by its author, Mar 29, 2007, 3:15am.

I disagree...

I don't look good in a cape. ;)

#23 - Neat observation on portraying good and evil characters and the use of fantasy as a moral tale.

#25 - One thing I've found in my reading, is that some of the best authors, Steinbeck, Hemmingway, Faulkner, London, are masters at portraying human depravity, but because they lacked a belief in God, they were able to give no hope. This was also the case in a book I just read, Wicked, the author left his audience without a parcel of hope. I can only read so much of that genre. I know perfectly well how awful humans can be, I want to see them overcome their morbid tendencies and rise up to the heights. I want to have hope.

MrsLee wrote: One thing I've found in my reading, is that some of the best authors, Steinbeck, Hemmingway, Faulkner, London, are masters at portraying human depravity, but because they lacked a belief in God, they were able to give no hope.

I don't think it's impossible for an atheist to live with a sense of hope. You'll find that most atheists believe that theists have manufactured God as a comfort in a cold and harsh universe. However, I find that many atheists or secular humanists are, themselves, able to manufacture many comforts, many hopes, to keep them marching on with their head up and their eyes trained on the "progressive" vision. In fact, I'm surprised at how many of them have unrealistic, Utopian views. For this reason, I'm not at all surprised when someone like Stephen R. Donaldson (apparently an atheist) also has a strong sense of what is good and worth pursuing in life (honor, sacrifice, beauty, etc).

Also, you're probably more familiar with Hemingway's religious background than I. Can you tell me more about the stages he went through? I do know that he was a devout Catholic at some point in his 20s. (See Morley Callaghan's wonderful lost generation memoir That Summer in Paris.)

Maybe I should take a second look at Donaldson. When I was in college, a friend of mine told me about the Thomas Covenant books, but at the time I was reading other things. The only thing I recall is that he was disturbed by the rape scenes and how he thought Donaldson was losing his mind as the series progressed. Didn't Donaldson stop writing for a while?

I am disinclined to read books by enthusiastic atheists, particularly those who feel it is noble and wise to make me (the reader) feel miserable. I'm not sure it is possible to have no religion at all. People must believe in something, otherwise they would imitate Hemingway and shoot themselves in the mouth. Many writers make fiction (or art) their religion. I have read and enjoyed many books by people whose politics and religion and so on I would disagree with. It becomes a question of to what degree their worldview shapes or intrudes upon their work. A fine mind is more likely to produce fine work.

I don't know that I'd place vampire novels in the same league as McCarthy or Faulkner or the rest, regardless of whether those authors were theists or atheists, hopeful or hopeless. I see McCarthy and Faulkner both wrestling, in particular, with the ideas of justice, retribution, and how a good man can make his way in a sinful world populated by sinful people -- though both writers' work can be quite grim. But I doubt vampire novels have that degree of subtlety or seriousness. Perhaps they are not meant to.

I guess I still haven't gotten the point of the vampire craze. It is difficult for me to take seriously a book called Bitten and Smitten. Here's Amazon's description and you can decide whether it is worth your time.

"After a blind date bites Sarah Dearly on the neck and is killed by vampire hunters, she discovers she's not only a vampire but also has been left to learn the ropes of the night by herself. Thank goodness for wise "master" vampire Thierry de Bennicoeur, who saves her life, shows her to the nearest vampire hangout and wins her heart in the process. Next comes a mix of misplaced trust, stakings and bad double dates, all with the goal of outwitting the vampire hunters and getting Thierry to see that Sarah's the one for him."

One thing that keeps occurring to me is something a religion professor told me years ago. A good man, a Baptist, a millenarian, who taught me more about Catholicism than anyone I know. I recall him telling me that an interest in the occult was a sign of the end times. Just as I am about to dismiss this as fundamentalist nonsense, some other trend or interest or movie or TV show pops up to remind me of the public's preoccupation with the occult, magic, spells, witchcraft, and so on. And I say this as a devoted X-files fan. When you take stock, there's quite a bit of it out there.

But my point in the thread (I think) was to question whether all of those interests were harmless. An interest in the occult really can take the place of a substitute religion. Buffy is a poor replacement for Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, Lewis, etc.

Politics is the religion of the left. It is from politics that they derive meaning, hope or hopelessness. That is why they are so rabid in debates. No one likes to have their sacred cows gored. For them to change their minds means changing their whole being and the very source of meaning for their lives. This is why it is often difficult for liberals to make friends with those they disagree with politically. Liberals elevate politics to religious status and therefore defend it and believe in it more fanatically.

#28 - You are correct of course that an atheist can have a sense of hope, everyone who is alive has some hope, or they wouldn't be alive for long. They can even have the same sense of truth that I have, only we wouldn't agree on the source. The authors I mentioned, in most of the stories I have read of theirs, and I have by no means read them all, just a smattering, simply don't convey that hope to the reader. I will keep reading their stories, they are great, but not very often. I need a healthy dose of happy in between.

I also misspoke in talking of their religious beliefs, as I have only judged them through their writings and the bits of their lives I have read or heard about and that my be misleading. I shouldn't post when I'm in a hurry to go somewhere.

deniro - That book you described sounds like a steamy bodice ripping romance novel to me. They just added fangs to try to get another audience for it.

#30 "liberals to make friends with those they disagree with politically" I find that to be more true of conservatives, and not particularly true of anybody.

Thomas Covenant Is very much a story about hope. It has a realistically happy outcome - but you do have to read to the end of each book to find it! yes they are dark in the middle, but so are most books. You cannot be happy without periods of darkness to contrast it against!

It seems to me that for a person who denies the existence of a God who meddles in the interior regions of humans, the only possible substitute is an evolutionary historicism, a belief that mankind is evolving upward and that our consciousness allows us to aid the process through psychology, pharmacology, genetic engineering, politics, and education.

Of course, it takes quite a bit of faith to overlook the lack of evidence for this upward trend. It is almost like this strange belief in an invisible God that people insist on.

There is no sense of direction in evolution - at least no evidence for an "upward" - onward is possably a better word. There is lots of evidence for change, and no requirement that current human is the final finished form.

I'm also uninterested in many of the top "tier" new fantasy writers, Gaiman is a talented writer who feels compelled to insert (no pun intended) meaningless and disturbing sex scenes in his books. King always seems to put children at risk, a cheap and disturbing way to create tension. I found the Covenant books derivitive and uninteresting, I learned more about leporsy, oops, I mean Hanson's disease, than I really cared to know about. I couldn't get into Martin, and Maquires Wicked, which had the best opening I can remember in recent times (up there with Elric), became so dark and empty in a matter of pages I put it away.

To me the nilhilism that ruined sci fi, has entered fantasy. I was shocked to read Tehanu and see how depressing Earthsea had become. I remember when Lin Carter did the Years Best Fantay collection, they were better by far than the crap put out now. Soul draining materialism has no place in fantasy, let it fester in sci fi.

MarkMobley wrote: It seems to me that for a person who denies the existence of a God who meddles in the interior regions of humans, the only possible substitute is an evolutionary historicism, a belief that mankind is evolving upward and that our consciousness allows us to aid the process through psychology, pharmacology, genetic engineering, politics, and education.

Of course, it takes quite a bit of faith to overlook the lack of evidence for this upward trend. It is almost like this strange belief in an invisible God that people insist on.

I don't know about other atheists reading this thread, if any, but Mark Mobley's comments above made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. He describes me to a "T". It's unusual, in my experience, to see such insight into the psychology of a belief (or rather, non-belief) that one finds distasteful.

I would only want to quarrel with the assertion that there is a loack of evidence for an upward trend in human affairs.

At this very momnent, I'm writing this little missive from the Langedoc region in France, once home of the Cathars. When genuine Christians ruled this area, heretics were burnt alive. Now it's run by post-Enlightenment folks, "Catholic but not religious", and who could deny that progress has not been made?

Of course, if fervent believers in The One True God succeed in outbreeding the tolerant post-Christians who are now the majority, as Mark Steyn fears they will, we may see a regress.

Doug1943 said, "... I'm writing this little missive from the Langedoc region in France, once home of the Cathars. When genuine Christians ruled this area, heretics were burnt alive. Now it's run by post-Enlightenment folks, "Catholic but not religious", and who could deny that progress has not been made?"

Those smarmy self satisfied Cathars had it coming! Thank God they got smacked down, if their heresy spread the "post Enlighenment" world you praise would never have been. Cathars denied the world, saw it (materialism) as bad, science would be impossible under such a regime.

Regarding "who can deny progress has been made", I'll deny it. The hero's of the Enlighenment killed untold tens of thousands, maybe into the millions. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao are all children of the "Enlightenment" Lenis even said, "We're all Jacobins," I'm not impressed.

I thought about this a lot when I read Nisbet's History of the Idea of Progress some years ago.

I concluded, with Nisbet I think, that many different ideas of progress have driven people for all kinds of reasons, but that few people dispensed with the idea of progress altogether. We would all be in favor of medical progress, for example. And I think most of us appreciate air conditioning, and so on.

I can nevertheless see how the idea of progress, like any other idea, can be turned into a transcedent doctrine, a motive force in one's life.

Ironic that Rush Limbaugh wrote a book called not "The Way Things Are" but "The Way Things Ought to Be."

It's the old conservative question. Not to halt change. But to ask what it is that can be changed, what it is that we want to change and what to leave alone.

Deniro, Good points, I find it ironic though people lament the fate of the Cathars (who were not a bunch of navel gazing, introspective flower children cut down by Nazi Strormtroopers), who, if their vision of the world (world bad, flesh bad) came to dominate would of aborted the development of the West.

Progress, like all things, must take place within a set of constraints or it's a meaningless term, change for the sake of change becomes progress. Regarding Rush, and "conservatives" in general, not too many are what I would call classic conservatives (liberal), Rush is much closer than many self professed "conservatives" (Gingrich) I guess, but I haven't listen to him in years.

Message edited by its author, Apr 3, 2007, 7:12pm.

Ocianain: I am not sure whether or not you are entirely serious in your previous posts, but you seem to say, "The Cathars had to be destroyed in order that progress occur" and "Progress has not occurred".

Have I understood you correctly?

No.

I argue the premise there was an "Enlightenment" that freed us from the yoke of religion. That's Whig history and it's in error.

And no, I was not entirely serious.

This could be an interesting discussion, perhaps worth a thread of its own.

I agree that it is an error to try to construe history as the triumphal progress of some political theory, or other set of ideas and ideals, which just happens to have reached its culmination in our own time.

At the same time, surely if you have a set of moral beliefs, you cannot suspend them when you study the past.

I don't like the idea of burning people alive for their religious views today, and I cannot pretend to a purely scientific, observer's view when I read about this practice in the past, even if I understand that the people who did these things in the past did not have the same moral responsibility for their actions as those who would do the same today.

And, it seems obvious to me that there is a "direction" in history.

Historical change is not random. You don't even have to think that the direction of this change is good, to observe that it exists.

The idea the pope declared jihad against the Cathars is not exactly correct:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.h...

It is also disingenuous to "read history backwards" that is, project 21st century mores backwards a thousand years. For example, not too long ago child molesters were regarded as evil in our society, now we know they're victims of overcrowed public schools!

I think we talked about progress in another thread.

Today I heard credit-card companies referred to as bloodsuckers.

Aha!

Don't you think that, in the spirit of celebrating diversity, and overcoming mean-spirited prejudice, we should re-think our old-fashioned intolerant attitudes towards the haemophile community?

I say smack them down too!

First the Cathars's, next the haemophile community!

Surely those whose sympathies lie with the Roman Church should be able to find some common ground with another cult who also make a Sacrament from the drinking of blood?

Transylvaniansubstantiation!

A cheap shot!

Yes. I couldn't resist. I was probably possessed by the spirit of a burnt Cathar while travelling in southwest France. I shall apply for exorcism.

Doug1943,

Sorry about the delay in reply. I have been vacating (sort of...) Thank you for your kind words.

In reply, I do not think that I am wrong in asserting that the attempts to change humans by the methods of the Enlightenment and Scientific Age are producing a more "humane" human. In fact, I would say that it fails to measure up to true Christianity by leaps and bounds.

In saying that I must reply to your argument that "true Christians burned heretics alive". They may have taken the name Christian, acted in the name of the Church, but it is patently obvious that they were acting in direct opposition to the teachings of their Founder. So, I must question the appellation "true Christians".

Terrible acts in the name of God must be stipulated as a fact of history, but as ocianain pointed out, that behavior is not reserved to "Christians". Mankind has shown a marked propensity for violence in the name of their cause, no matter what that cause is. (I can add that both evolutionists and Islamicists are acting in line with their sacred texts when they commit atrocities against infidels. For evolutionists, the key phrase is "survival of the fittest".)

And while scientific progress in terms of creature comforts is obvious, the results of that progress is easily debateable. For each scientific achievement, another section of Pandora's Box unexpectedly flies open and releases unforeseen consequences. (Cars are wonderful, but mangle bodies, release toxic fumes, and tempt us to war over oil.) I am no Luddite, judging by the laptop I am currently using, but we have not yet reached nirvana. (And I am still not at peace with the grunge movement.) As deniro has pointed out, we have discussed this elsewhere.

But my reference was to the human soul. For all of our Enlightenment values, humans are not better people through the aforementioned disciplines. Only a strong government with a ready sword keeps evil at bay in our societies. And America continues to make the miscalculation that when given freedom, other countries will create stable democracies based on the rule of law. We consistently underestimate the power of the Judeo-Christian ethic in our base motivations from the founding of this country to the present.

I believe that history would bear me out. What kept England from a Jacobin style revolution? I would argue that it was the influence of the Wesleyan revival on the English soul. In fact, I would say that the only restraining factor in humanity is the recognition that there is truth, Truth, outside and above themselves that they owe allegiance to and will be measured by. Isn't that the fundamental driving thought behind the Ten Commandments? That what we do, how we behave matters, not only to us but to the society that we live in? That a people who acknowledge and humble themselves before the truth (Truth) will create a better world and a better life for us individually?

I would argue that the greatest civilizing force in all history was the Christian missionary movement. It has liberated women and children, slaves and the sick. I know that non-Christians have taken up these causes, but they literally did not exist in the ancient world.

I know that I have generalized horribly. For the sake of brevity, I will leave the door open for counter-charges.

Message edited by its author, Apr 6, 2007, 11:48am.

Mark: as usual, a thoughtful well-supported response, which forces your oppnent(s) to question their assumptions.

How I wish that certain liberals I know, who think all Christians are either ignorant Bible-bashers, or National Council of Churches social gospellers, could be forced to argue with you.

I don't believe, and hope that I have not seemed to assert, that Christians, or, to accept your distinction, those who called themselves Christians, were any worse than their contemporaries, with regard to dealing with their enemies.

Nor do I believe that, today, non-Christians, or even non-believers, behave better than self-professed Christians do.

In fact, I would accept Macaulay's observation that the existence of the Church in the Middle Ages probably tended to curb the worst excesses of the age.

Nor do I believe that human nature, which stems from millions of years of pitiless evolutionary selection, has changed.

But the ways in which that nature can express itself have been changed, in some countries. And it is the expression of human nature that we actually have to deal with.

So, I know that today's Danes have the same biological imperatives as their ferocious Viking ancestors. But these are expressed in ways which makes the approach today of a boatload of Danes a different matter for sunbathers on a beach than it was for our ancestors twelve hundred years ago.

I believe that these changed social conditions, which result in a more acceptable expression of human nature, can be extended beyond the places where they currently hold sway, and that in fact the overall momentum of history is to do just that.

However, I will confess to you that I have some nagging fears that the progressive secularization of society may be undermining some useful, maybe even essential, props of decent behavior among the general population. We will see.

I agree that "progress" is not without alloy. But that there is overall progress, all things considered, does not seem "debateable" to me.

To put it in your terms: if the heretic-burners of the 13th Century were not "true Christians" then today's society permits the existence of true Christians and strongly discourages the existence of false ones, or at least false ones who delight in inflicting prolonged painful death on those who disagree with their theology.

If we agree, for the sake of argument, that social progress -- such as the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, the very concept of individual rights, the idea of limited government controlled by a free citizenry -- was a result of the Judeo-Christian ethic carried out by Christian missionaries or men inspired by Christianity, then we still need to acknowledge that this spirit only found widespread expression fairly recently, in historical terms. Which I call progress.

As for England's avoidance of Jacobin-style revolution, you may be right.

I always put it down to the fact that the English had their revolution in the previous century, but I will admit I don't know enough about English history to defend my point of view.

Message edited by its author, Apr 6, 2007, 2:36pm.

Of course, one could also say people that must believe in something, or they kill themselves, are weak of mind, unable to cope with the fact that they are just one insignificant human being.

An interest in the occult signals the end times? How about all that spiritualism when Arthur Conan Doyle was around. It is one hell of a long time after that. Hasn't arrived yet. Witchhunting? Nope, didn't happen then, either. Delphic oracles? Nope. Ragnarok failed to get all those viking guys, too.

Seems we are all still here.

And Buffy beat back all the demons in hell. Twice.

:) :)

Lewis could have also learnt plenty about writing from Whedon, too.

Wirkman: Thanks for the recommendation of Jack Dann's "Down Among the Dead Men." i'll have to check it out. Is Strange days: fabulous journeys with Gardner Dozois the only place to find it?

Awalter1: Thank you for the Stephen Donaldson recommendation. i don't shy away from folks like Cormac McCarthy who grapple with the problem of evil in human nature. Are these the books you were referring to?

The First Chronicles:
Lord Foul's Bane
The Illearth War
The Power that Preserves

The Second Chronicles:
The Wounded Land
The One Tree
White Gold Wielder

The Last Chronicles:
The Runes of the Earth
Fatal Revenant - not out yet
Against All Things Ending - coming
The Last Dark - future

Thanks again! :-)

...Jack Dann's "Down Among the Dead Men." I'll have to check it out. Is Strange days: fabulous journeys with Gardner Dozois the only place to find it?

Pretty near. It's in a couple even-more obscure places,
See:

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?4...

This thread has really bothered people.

More than the poverty thread, I think.

Von Helsing, where's my cross?

#55 - Yep that's the Thomas Covenant Series in correct order. Donaldson has of course also written other stuff, as per his author page.

#54"Of course, one could also say people that must believe in something, or they kill themselves, are weak of mind, unable to cope with the fact that they are just one insignificant human being"

Isn't that an argument for religion rather than supernatural beings - many of course do not see the difference.

#58 - I can't answer for #54, but I took it to mean believe in "something" whether that was ones self, your government, science. Anything.

#57 Did I miss something? I thought everyone was having fun here.

I write vampire horror... from what I'm reading on this thread, that must make me a deviated sex crazed pervert? WOW! How do you people get off on such ridiculous name calling and un-Christian judgements (I noticed the "Christain" posts here seem to be the ones spewing out the most hatered.... hatred? Oh My GOODNESS! What Would Jesus Say if he read you spewing hatred in his name!)

Well, I can't speak for other writers of vampire fiction, but for me, when all is said and done, none of my vampires turn out to be vampires in the end at all, but rather people with mental illness. I grew up in a family plauged with mental illness from a bi-polar mother to a schizophranic grandmother, to a phycotic self-proclaimed prophet of god cult leader grandfather.... I write what I know. I know insanity. In my stories, the focus is not so much on vampirism, as it is the human mind and the insanity that drives such men to comit unspeakable crimes.

Like all writers, I write what I know. Who are you to judge?

~~EK

Message edited by its author, Apr 25, 2007, 3:44am.

EelKat,

I didn't re-read all the posts, but I am not sure that I can recall all of this Christian hatred. Do you mean disagreement? I disagree with my wife (when she lets me) but I don't hate her at those moments. I don't remember any hatred here (as in, "Oh these vampire writers are evil people who should be gassed for their profanity" or any such.)

By the way, Jesus took some definite morals stances about right and wrong. It got under people's skin so much they got rid of Him. You don't crucify Mr. Rogers...

I continue to be amazed that this is the thread that got under everyone's skin.

So to speak.

Now stop bothering me so I can get back to Bitten and Smitten.

Message edited by its author, Jul 10, 2007, 9:27pm.

I stopped by the bookstore yesterday only to see a book on Nympho-Vampires prominently displayed at the front. Perhaps it is all just an appeal to the least common denominator.

> #1 Inspired by this thread, I've been having fun the last few days asking various people the question of what type of person they would go to in order to find out why vampire fiction is so popular. Surprisingly, not a single person came up with "Political Conservatives." You might try asking people who read and enjoy vampire fiction, if you really want an answer to your question.

As both a fan of vampire fiction and a Christian, I assure you that my interest in vampires has nothing whatsoever to do with the occult. The vampire literature that I personally enjoy has main characters that are good people, even though not perfect. I don't like evil characters, vampire or not. The characteristics of vampirism make it possible to explore unique story lines, just as fantasy and science fiction do (which I also enjoy.) The story must be well written, the characters well-developed, and the plot interesting to appeal to me.

The romantic and/or sexual aspect mentioned by AsYouKnow_Bob in post #2 is also a valid point. Paranormal Romance is a rapidly growing sub-genre.

Is interest in vampire lit any more disturbing than a fascination with Hobbits, talking lions and sons of adam, Muggles, or secret agents with a penchant for martinis and bedding beautiful woman while killing evil men?

Yes. Yes it is.

Maybe I wouldn't say disturbing. Puzzling?

The reason I posted the topic in this group is because this is where I spend most of my time. Also, because it sounded somewhat critical and sarcastic, I would not have posted the topic in a group in which people are fond of vampire fiction, lest I seem like some kind of troll. Unfortunately, some vampire fans have bothered to respond in this group anyway to tell me to stick it. I have no control over that.

Why vampires? was my initial question, in the hope of finding some kind of cultural significance. Perhaps I was reaching. Just curious, you know, about why vampires seem more popular now than ever, and why there is so much variety in the genre. For whatever reason, it sells big.

To my surprise, this thread still rattles people, which wasn't my intention.

Why vampires? Because Barnabas Collins was such a sympathetic character?

>#67 "Just curious, you know, about why vampires seem more popular now than ever..."

It might be because many modern vampires are the "hero" instead of the villain. They are "good guys" with a twist that makes them more complex instead of being a simple two-dimensional character. Thus the image of vampires can appeal to a much broader audience than just horror fans.

If you would like to sample one of the truly great modern vampire novels, I highly recommend "The Vampire Lestat" by Anne Rice.

>#67 "Just curious, you know, about why vampires seem more popular now than ever..."

It might be because many modern vampires are the "hero" but they're also still the "villain". The best heroes and villains share their essential outsiderness (see J. Campbell) and the idea of the modern vampire speaks of those few souls in every generation who are either lucky enough or cursed enough to be born into our world not truly belonging. Vampires embody the soul, in a manner of speaking, of the outsider. They "live" semi-detached -- they may feel a sense of belonging with humans, but they are not human, and are dependent on their blood, and thus unable to ever be free of humanity. As they age, modern vamps gradually lose their affiliations for a place or a family or a country or even their own race (most become white or translucent with age).

In our society, some people who fear uncertainty and transience erect strong systems of taboos and stigmas against non-belongers. And vamps are the ultimate non-belongers. Predators to the core, while they may blend into human society, they never truly belong and only pretend to the solidarities and loyalties which many of us, in our secret hearts, also do not really feel. The vamps secret natures bleed out at night into our dreams in which we also soar, and fly, and fight, and ravish, and flee.

And so it is in our waking dreams also -- that time spent with fiction, and myths, and movies -- in which we celebrate the outsider, the predator, the traveller, the assassin, the sinner, the rebel, the devil, the gangster, the mutant, the mask, the outcast, the vampire.

Message edited by its author, Jul 16, 2007, 10:46pm.

NativeRoses---an excellent way of putting it---from a Christian libertarian leaning conservative and a vampire fan, though I'm choosy about my favorite vamps (ah, Barnabas Collins, how well I remember thee!) . I highly reccommend three vampire tales, not necessarily modern:

Michael Talbot's The Delicate Dependency: A Novel of the Vampire Life

Bram Stoker's Dracula

Dan Simmons' Carrion Comfort andSimmons' Children of the Night.

George R. R. Martin's Fevre Dream

These are the gems of the vampiric world, in my opinion.

I nominate this thread for the 2007 award of Most Improbable Political Conservatives Topic of the Year, and also would like to enter it into the "More Things Between Heaven and Earth" competition. (And a tip of my hat to the several Christian vampire-lovers, who have expanded my horizons. Here I was thinking that the Christian connection to this sort of thing was to want to ban Halloween.)

Doug,

Kim Paffenroth wrote a great book, from a Christian perspective, on the George Romero zombie movies--Gospel of the Living Dead.

BTW Romero is at it again. This time it is a meta-movie. A group of people go out to make a Romero like zombie movie, only to have it all come to life in front of them.

I just finished Interview with a Vampire and a lot of my pondering while reading was about Anne Rice's recent conversion.

I still maintain that interest in the occult and gothic is a symptom of arrested development. An awkward phase, the less said about the better.

When I worked downtown, I'd encounter the occasional split tongue who had difficulty pronouncing "Alistair Crowley" - my own sadistic nature would prevail and I would ask him/her to repeat it several times...

Vampires. Now, I'm scared...

(edit: I can't spell very well - perhaps someone has placed a curse on me: enevadicus dyslexius!)

Message edited by its author, Jan 18, 2008, 2:48pm.

It can be, but I think my interests lie otherwise.

One topic that has not come to light in this thread is death.

I deal with death on a regular basis. It is a natural part of my life. This week, only one death, and only one dying (not counting the two fetal demises). It is something I know, and I am interested in literature that deal with death both realistically, and unrealistically. (And frankly, I enjoy the unrealistic part more.)

For me, both vampires and zombies are an alternative take on death. I think there are sociological statements surrounding the fascination, and I think Romero is one of those minor greats of the film world. If he did the movies as period pieces, with the same themes, people would praise his insight.

Vampires are the old black. Zombies are the new Black.

ref #4
If you haven't seen it before, I can recommend "The Pooh Perplex"
Its a collection of mock interpretations of the Winnie the Pooh stories from from a variety of perspectives "Markxist", "Catholic", and so on. Its hilarious

What does it all mean? I'll tell you in a word. I dont know.

But I have a guess. My guess is that its the same as the meaning of dreams.

Are dreams deeply significant signals from the unconscious, or are they essentially meaningless random neuronal events?

I'm guessing that anyone who claims to know is going further than the evidence will carry him.

Dreams, occult...all right, let's just lay it all out on the line: am I the only one who thinks that Myers-Briggs is today's phrenology?

I've found the Myers-Briggs tests to be only semi-accurate and not all that helpful or informative. For example, I was informed that I'm an introvert. I already knew that. Roll the bones.

This thread…like its subject…refuses to die.

And I started it!

You see, I have my finger on the cultural pulse of America. Next there will be a thread about tough women on TV who do karate in slow motion.

I am not sure that Myers-Briggs is in the same category. Sure, it is over used. Like most personality inventories, people say things like ENTP as if they know what that means. Just reading Please Understand Me (which is really Keirsey-Bates, NOT Myers-Briggs) does not make anyone qualified to use it in a business or counseling setting.

On the other hand, it makes some useful delineations in personality behavior. It is not as useful as, say DSM-IV for diagnostic purposes, but unlike DSM, it was designed for relatively healthy people. To the extent that any social science can be a science, I would say Myers-Briggs is.

BTW, I dont know if this is still true, but you had to be certified to give the Myers-Briggs test, just like the MMPI. Anyone can give the Keirsey-Bates.

Maybe I'm out of line here, but to reinsert the political nervousness that inspired this thread, this curiosity about vampires etc. (and, let's face it, attraction) is part of a general human equation.

To cite a few examples: the dialogue with the devil in The Brothers Karamazov. It's the necessary "minus sign" which helps a person to make sense. Or, in baby-boomer culture, the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil." Or, closer to home, why many conservatives enjoy Ann Coulter's books, because they get jollies out of reading about those "evil" adversaries.

>am I the only one who thinks that Myers-Briggs is today's phrenology?

My scores on that test vary so wildly day-to-day that I can't really place much stock in it.

#80: but no - Dostoevsky and Bulgakov, among others - get it - their devil(s) are real, informative and not Johnny Depp in pancake batter.

#81: Jesse, this means we agree on two things. You may want to reconsider.

This thread was not inspired by "political nervousness."

I'm not even sure what that means. I'm not sure it has a meaning.

I also don't see what Brothers Karamazov has to do with the crapola I'm talking about. You know there's a whole genre dedicated to vampire romance?

"Come darling, bite me on the neck."
"No, you first."
"Well, I'm kind of full from the pizza."
"Bite me!"
"Huh?"
"I mean…darling, bite me."
"Ok. But I haven't flossed yet."

What's with Johnny Depp and his gay Keith Richards imitation? Keith Richards isn't gay. And pirates are supposed to be the bad guys. Doesn't anyone know anything about pirates? They don't utter one-liners and wear man-liner.

Well, I don't think a movie based on a Disney ride can make any claims toward realism.

ref #77

Standard disclaimer:
I dont claim that things are certainly as I describe them, only that it is what seems apparent at the time

I'm not a specialist (I've been saying that a lot lately) and worse, I'm not even close to being a "natural" people person. I've been successfully imitating a normal human for lo these many decades with no major disasters so far, so I guess thats all right as far as it goes. At one point I thought that maybe if I read up on whats known about the psychology of personality, I could help compensate for my lack of natural gifts with a little "book larnin'"

Fat chance.

The first thing that makes one wary are reports of experiments such as the following:
Psychological profiles are drawn up for each student in the class, then distributed to the subjects who are asked for their assessment of how well the method hit the mark.
The method was to take horoscopes based on sun. sign. The reported hits are very good indeed. Only problem is that the experimental design calls for giving the horoscopes for sun sign X to people of sum sign Y (systematically get the wrong one).

I suppose true believers will say that only proves how powerful the method is, get the "right" answer even when there is a large error in the sun sign.

But it tells me that self assesment is not so wonderful. We tend to see ourselves in any positive description of our putative personality. Narcissus R us.

The next thing that makes we leary is that the Myers-Briggs seems to be based on the ideas of Jung. Jung has a great cachet among certain "new age" ,alternative/counter-culture types but his star does not run high in mainstream psychology. or so I understand the situation to be.

The third thing that makes me leary is that those I've met who "talk up" the system, dont know of any other systems. The MB is a four factor model.

There are other models such as using the following
four factors:
Thrill/adventure seeking
Edperience seeking
Disinhibition
Ease of being bored

There is a five factor model
neuroticism (Emotioinality)
extroversion
openness to experiience
disagreeableness
conscientiousness

The most recent N factor model I've bumped into
had two kinds of properties, one kind deemed inbuilt
and "stable", the other considered infulenced by social and cultural factors:

"Stable"
harm avoidance
novelty seeking
reward dependence
persistence

"Social/Cultural inflenced"
Self directedness
Cooperativeness
Self transcedence (not sure what that really means)

Bottom line:
I'm from Missouri on M-B

Message edited by its author, Jan 19, 2008, 10:48am.

The one time I was given the genuine Myers Briggs, just a few years ago, I could not anwer most of the questions honestly. I suspect it of being a case of the model's taking the lead from reality.

Robert

PS Cache does not equal cachet.

I am not sure what you are comparing the MB to, in terms of its reliability and validity. I stand by my statement that it is as valid as most other social sciences, and in fact, I would argue that at times it is as valid as a DSM evaluation, which has criteria, and no universal standard of application. (Have any of you ever undergone or sat through a psych eval? You would be surprised what they use to start prescribing psychotropic drugs to people.) for that matter, have any of you ever had to explain a new complaint to a medical doctor. "Describe the pain to me?" Sometimes even "Where does it hurt?" throws the patient for a loop. (The next time you get a headache, try telling someone where the pain is located.)

Like any evaluative instrument, it is imperfect. It will work for some people, but not others. Some people will be misdiagnosed. ?That is why people need training to use it. Half the training is figuring out what you don't know.

In the right hands, MB or even Kiersey Bates can be a positive tool for understanding.

>82 Well, actually, the devil in The Brothers Karamazov is dressed in a cheesy fashion and the question of taste is central to his characterization. He's depicted in part as a kind of embarrassing relative. Of course you're right that the metaphysics are different.

One thing that has clearly happened is that camp has gone from being a recondite taste of the few to a mass manufactured product for the many.

#1

I watched The Big Lebowski last night. The Jeff Bridges character is describing some German thugs to the John Goodman character:

JG: They're German, so they're Nazis, right?

JB: No, man they're Nihilists.

JG: Nihilists? That's bad, man. Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos

#89 "mass manufactured product" - exactly. Phony.

Whereas the Russian chortii are quite real (and, yes, tasteless as one might expect).

Our demons are dressed in costume in Disney World, where you can get a picture taken with them to show all the relatives back home. Metaphysics? Is that Ozzy Osbourne's band?

ref #87
Quite right. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Message edited by its author, Jan 19, 2008, 10:41am.

> Arctic's Have any of you ever undergone or sat through a psych eval? You would be surprised what they use to start prescribing psychotropic drugs to people.

Craig Clevenger has a take on that in The Contortionist's Handbook that's moving, brilliantly observed and funny in all the right places.

93 -- Are you still fantasizing about ripping open my shirt and running your fingers through my chest hair?

>Doesn't anyone know anything about pirates?

Keith Richards may or may not be gay, but you might try checking out Rum, Sodomy and Lash : Piracy, Sexuality and Masculine Identity, Deniro.

>One thing that has clearly happened is that camp has gone from being a recondite taste of the few to a mass manufactured product for the many.

Who the hell the polloi think they are, stealing our recondite tastes?

Message edited by its author, Jan 22, 2008, 6:38pm.

Wow. I drop by to see what's happening with conservatives and find this thread at the top. Vampires, Myers-Briggs, and Deniro's shirt getting ripped open.

I thought this was all simple: vampires are big these days because there is no other way to explain Cheney.

Don't you guys know there's an election on?

Message edited by its author, Jan 22, 2008, 6:41pm.

95 -- How sad to see the depths of depravity to which human beings will sink.

No thread is complete until piracy and sodomy are brought up.

Like Peanut Butter and Chocolate, I say.

I guess that's where the term "butt pirate" comes from.

>96 no problem with the polloi, as that's not the point--it depends on the example. The current "Pirates" stuff bores me, though maybe that's just a sign of my age.

Keith Richards was already cross-dressing in the 60s for a single's jacket. (And it was already boring then, too.)

Fortunately he did good stuff elsewhere.

Mark Twain pegged the whole pirate con a long time ago, in Huckleberry Finn, when the King gives his "camp sermon". Whatever this thing is, this BS has been around a long time.

I was wrong. There is a political angle to this thread.

Vampire-genre author Anne Rice endorsed Hillary Clinton, Queen of the Damned.

I had read somewhere that Anne Rice had recently reverted to Christianity. I suppose that if she hadn't she would be a supporter of Aleister Crowley's grandson.

>Keith Richards was already cross-dressing in the 60s for a single's jacket. (And it was already boring then, too.)

Yep. There's a long and storied tradition of buggery and gender fluidity throughout Western Civilisation.

#89

So was Liberace not camp, way back in the '50s? Or, if he was camp, was he not recognised as such?

The latest take on the camp, Keith Richards. eye-liner look is Julian Barratt of the very wonderful Mighty Boosh. No vampires thus far (I'm only part-way through series 2 on DVD), but already we've had yeti, demons in the shape of old women, the Spirit of Jazz and the jacuzzi of eternal youth.

After all the brouhahah, I finally decided to read something by Anne Rice, Interview with a Vampire. It was a decent book, and spoke of alienation, power, morality and death. I liked it enough to start on The Vampire Lestat, which takes on the enlightenment full force.

I think people like me heart vampires and all vampire stories because all the stories are SO moving. If you have ever read twilight or the vampire diaries, you know exactly what I'm talking about. (unless ur a hater) However, the love and romance and thrill is also a great aspect of it. Most vampire stories have something to do with a vampire falling in love with a human and the way their love breaks through everything else in the world. But, in those stories there is the way that the vampire has to hold himself from killing the human he is in love with. My personal favorite vampire story is The Vampire Diaries. I know u guys don't all understand why (hence the reason of this post lol), but it is because the brothers love the same girl which reignites their feud. This is a side story instead of just the lovey and gooey stuff in twlight. Also, they are in love which is so cute and so romantic and i am a sucker for that mushy stuff. But, the story also has the fights between katherine and Klaus which is suspenseful and thrilling. maybe u dont get it but these stories are the most moving and deep stories there are because they show the way love can overpower ANYTHING!!! Thats why we choose vampires and thats why we stick with it.

VAMPIRES...
Well now, we have the 'traditional' European version where the Vampire is an evil parasitic entity (possibly lost to the machinations of severe drug abuse like ancient Shamans?) and now the Namerican version of a more 'romanticised' Vampire (because people make money out of Vampires now - so they must be good).
Lycanthropes...I'm here in Australia, so I can culturally 'change' from the Namerican/European/Siberian 'Wolf', to the more desirable 'Platypus' (LOL).

I can hardly wait for a Dracula verses Batman (Batter up for the greatest Fish & chips story!) because in Namerica...Batman is getting badder and Dracula is now a victim.
or maybe Harry Potter verses Damien Omen?

All in all, 'dark' novels are just that. If you just read stuff that is 'light', you will never know the difference. The hard thing is to know the good from the bad ...dark stuff.

I guess that I will weigh in on this, since I read the first Twilight book recently(still haven't put it on my LT shelf yet, though) As Ihave probably mentioned before,a lot of people at my former workplace were nuts about it. Then when I went to the Olympic Penninsula in September, it was all Twilight All the Time in most of the bookstores(In Port Angeles--in Port Townsend they are more literary and also further from Forks, the Twilight Ground Zero.) So I needed to see what the fuss was about.

It seemed like a conventional romance sans sex, not really scary or gruesome. The first book( I haven't read New Moon yet) is a lot about typical high school situations, cars, dating woes, etc. until it becoems more of a thriller-action novel toward the end. But I have to say if I were a parent I could think of a lot of worse stuff for my teenaged daughter to be reading. There is no drinking, almost no cussing, kissing beyond sex or drugs( except Bella does take cold medicine to sleep once and seems very apologetic about it.) So Stephanie Meyer has really pulled something off--written a novel about teenagers that kids and teenagers like, girls, anyway, even though it's G-rated.

As my mother used to say,"At least they're reading." She was generally saying it about comic books, but as a teacher knew that trashy reading material was often a gateway to better things.

I haven't seen the movies yet--will probably wait until they come out on DVD.