After beginning to investigate media ecology theory, I want you to try and put some of your understanding into practice. Halberstam says that "monsters are meaning machines" and that "we need monsters and we need to recognize and celebrate our own monstrosities." So, we might argue that the vampire is the medium, but what then would the "content" of vampire be (given that McLuhan argues it's another medium)? Attempt to answer this question by using The New York Times piece as evidence--what is the content of "the vampire" according to this piece? How then might you begin to question if the vampire is an assemblage of media, sensation, etc, etc? Respond to these questions and conclude by offering your own list of vampire vs. zombie teams that, in a sense, respond to your own musings above.
Engage with one another. Shoot for 250-500 words.
Due: Thursday, April 5, 2012.
When Halberstam says that “monsters are meaning machines,” he implies that monsters are not only the content, but also the medium in any horror story or film. A vampire can be a medium because he delivers a message in a different way than another monster would. The New York Times piece further illustrates this idea when it talks of the differences between vampires and zombies. It puts a comical, real-life twist on the two monsters that helps to contrast the two differing personalities. It defines the content of a vampire as being individualistic and immersed in solitude. A vampire is a person who thinks originally and does not adhere to the beliefs of the group.
ReplyDeleteBecause monsters can be mediums as well as content, we must ask ourselves what sort of messages the media is sending through vampires. Vampires have become more and more popular over the past few years, but I don’t believe that the media is portraying them simply because vampires are “fashionable” right now. I think it is much more than that: the media knows that vampires can get across messages of individualism and sexuality that other humans or monsters couldn’t, and vampires do it in an inconspicuous way. While watching vampire movies or TV shows or while reading vampire books, we are so caught up in the drama, the romance, and the killing that we don’t take time to stop and think about what sensationalist message the work is trying to convey. To really appreciate this, you must step back from the piece and look at it in a purely objective way.
Vampire-Zombie Teams:
Yahoo (vampire) Google (zombie)
Harry Potter (vampire) Draco Malfoy (zombie)
Ellen DeGeneres (vampire) Dr. Phil (zombie)
Pepsi (vampire) Coke (zombie)
Selena Gomez (vampire) Miley Cyrus (zombie)
One of the main ideas that McLuhan puts forth has to to do with the idea that mediums can take on many forms, and therefore that mediums are then able to simultaneously change content and connect all social acts. Medium are not only limited to obvious media forms, which would include TV and newspapers, but instead can take on the form of almost anything, including the content itself. Thus, the content of a vampire is naturally just another medium. The thought initially appears to be extremely abstract. Does this mean that the medium, which is vampire, and the content are one in the same? Or is the content that forms the matter of the vampire another medium, completely separate from the vampire itself? It's hard to say for sure what McLuhan would think, because I'm not even sure if McLuhan knows what he would think, and that's assuming that McLuhan has the capacity to think without randomly spewing noxious abstractions. That being said, I think that the content of the vampire and its medium are indeed two wholly separate entities.
ReplyDeleteIt has already been stated that the medium is the vampire, but content seems to be the characteristics that make up the vampire. These characteristics can then act as an entirely different medium which acts to influence the viewer who, in this case, is the human population. There are characteristics of vampires that are ever-changing, but there are also characteristics that have remained at least somewhat constant. For example, the characteristics laid out by Heather Havrilesky, the author of the New York Times article, seem to be fairly accurate. She says that vampires are essentially sexy, introverted, and intellectual narcissists, while zombies are extroverted and obsessive leaders. Of course, although these characteristics are generally accepted by those who are aware of vampires and zombies, the characteristics are still almost completely dependent on media. Our view of the vampire is not what philosophy would label as a natural kind. In other words, we didn't simply happen to stumble upon a sexy and introverted blood sucking monster. No, we created this image. The strange being that is the modern vampire, is merely a reflection of today's ever strange, but powerful youth.
Teams:
Vampire: Chess Zombie: Candy Land
Vampire: Katherine McPhee Zombie: Nanny McPhee
Vampire: James Bond Zombie: Austin Powers
Vampire: Dr. Don't Little Zombie: Dr. Do Little
Vampire: open-minded Zombie: close-minded
ReplyDeleteVampire: Free thinker Zombie: Academia
Vampire: Gentlemen Zombie: Asshole boyfriends
Vampire: Smart women Zombie: Hot chicks
Vampire: Read the book Zombie: Watch the movie
Vampire: Learn Zombie: Get an “A”
Vampire: REAL professors Zombie: BAD professors
Vampire: Lisbeth Salander Zombie: N.O.W.
Vampire: Nelson Mandela Zombie: Occupy Wall Street
Vampire: Annie Liebovitz Zombie: iPhone Camera
Vampire: Anne Heche Zombie: Ellen Degeneres
Vampire: James Baldwin Zombie: Elton John
Vampire: Don Draper Zombie: Roger Sterling
Vampire: Peggy Olson Zombie: Joan Holloway
Vampire: Book Zombie: E-reader
Vampire: Go to class Zombie: Sleep in
Vampire: Fair Trade Zombie: Free Trade
Vampire: Voters Zombie: Non Voters
Vampire: Nuff said Zombie: Keep rambling and rambling and rambling and rambling and rambling...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHalberstan suggests that monsters are social constructions that are meant to convey some kind of meaning. This suggests that vampires are not only the content of mediums like film and literature but also a unique medium that conveys content. The article in the New York Times suggests that the vampire is a construct that embodies self-indulgence, narcissism and intentional solitude. While these characteristics generally have a negative connotation attached to them there are also obviously attractive characteristics of the vampire that make up the content that the vampire communicates. These characteristics include allure, self-confidence and in a fictional sense immortality and physical prowess. Subsequently, the message communicated by the vampire might be that all desirable characteristics come at a cost. For example, while the vampire is good at attracting people, he likes his solitude and even if he didn’t he is forced into solitude by the fact that he can only go out at night, when others are asleep. In this sense one of the most desirable characteristics of the vampire, his allure, is cancelled out by the fact that he doesn’t really like to be, and kind of can’t be, a part of large groups. What this does is make the outcast – a construct that used to be looked down upon – desirable and the good and bad characteristics associated with the individualism of the vampire (content) are also the mediums by which the attractiveness of individualism are communicated (content).
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the Vampire is an assemblage of the media in that it pushes the attractiveness of individualism in a society that is becoming increasingly alienated from one another. I agree with Katherine that the vampire pushes a message of individualism that I believe is a product of our society. Community values are becoming increasingly less significant in society as the individual becomes more and more prevalent. Ironically though in everyone’s attempt to distinguish themselves they actually manage to become more homogenous. For example, I feel like the hipster is a really good example of a zombie that fiercely believes they are a vampire.
Vampires vs. Zombies
Public Access Television vs. CNN
Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney
Stephen Colbert vs. Bill O’reily
Batman vs. Superman
Writers vs. Orators
The Oscars vs. The Golden Globes
Dwight vs. Michael (the office)
In describing what “monsters are meaning machines” means, Halberstam says that a monster can represent many different things “in one body” (22). They do not simply represent race or sexuality, they can (and do) embody many different themes. After reading McLuhan, we, as a class, decided that the vampire was the medium, meaning that they are the message. The vampire as a medium brings about a message that another monster, such as a zombie, cannot bring about. The vampire that plays the character of monster can be the monster while being graceful and beautiful, even though he brings about death and disruption.
ReplyDeleteThe vampire, the zombie, Frankenstein, etc, are all different mediums. However, each can be part of a different content. The medium is not necessarily the content. Havrilesky, in the NY Times article, sums it up nicely. She describes many different types of vampires, saying that they are “the narcissists, the artists, the experts, the loners: moody bartenders, surgeons, songwriters . . .”. Eric summed it up quite nicely by saying “These characteristics can then act as an entirely different medium which acts to influence the viewer who, in this case, is the human population. There are characteristics of vampires that are ever-changing, but there are also characteristics that have remained at least somewhat constant”. The ever-changing aspects of the vampire come about in the different types of media that encompass vampires – books, shows, movies, historical documents, etc. The content of the vampire can change; the vampire can represent a surgeon (Carlisle Cullen) or a Count on an old, secluded estate (Dracula).
I really liked Havrilesky’s article. I thought it was very interesting to see how she described the constant and ever-changing aspects of both monsters. She sums it up in one statement: “Vampires prance. Zombies plod”.
Vampire: Edward Cullen. Zombie: Jacob Black (haha).
Vampire: MSNBC. Zombie: Fox News.
Vampire: Jennifer Aniston. Zombie: Britney Spears.
Vampire: Football. Zombie: Rugby.
Vampire: Target. Zombie: Wal-Mart.
Vampire: Cirque-du-Soleil. Zombie: Circus.
When Halberstam says that “monsters are meaning machines”, he is referencing McLuhan’s statement that all content is created by the medium it is put forth in, but said content also becomes a medium itself with which to create new content. The monster, created by our own imaginations, represents the fears and deep-seated prejudices in the human mind (even if we aren’t aware of those fears or prejudices) and, to give examples, mentions Candyman and Buffalo Bill who represent fears of other races and sexualities, respectively.
ReplyDeleteIf the vampire itself is the medium, then the content of the vampire would be its characteristics. Most commonly associated personality traits are the drinking of blood and the aversion to sunlight, but as the New York Times piece points out, the vampire is essentially a solitary being, one who thinks higher of themselves and their ability to persuade others to do their bidding. The New York Times piece writes this matter comedically, but I feel that the comedic aspect of this article helps drive the point home in our heads even more. Most people would much rather read something entertaining than something boring – in my opinion, a humor column is more likely to get read and retained better than a dry, dense, academic paper. The article mentions that Steve Jobs was a vampire and cites the notoriety of the Apple Company as proof based on the vampire personality traits put forth in the article.
As Katherine pointed out, movie and television producers know that vampires are a popular subject in our current age and are good vehicles for carrying messages when humans or other monsters (such as zombies). The first step to really question whether or not vampires are assemblages of media and sensations would be to step back. Oftentimes we become entranced by vampires – not unlike Dracula’s piercing gaze – and are unable to see the greater picture. By taking on an objective view, we can more clearly see the message the vampires carry. The second step would probably be to identify the medium in which the vampire is being put forth. Movies are different from radio while both are different from books. The chosen medium that the vampire is present in can change the way the vampire is presented and what it represents, whether it is sexuality, horror, immortality, or envy.
My vampire vs. zombie teams:
Robot Chicken (vampire) vs. Family Guy (zombie)
Jhonen Vasquez (vampire) vs. Wes Craven (zombie)
Nine Inch Nails (vampire) vs. Slipknot (zombie)
Psych (vampire) vs. The Mentalist (zombie)
Jim Gaffigan (vampire) vs. Dane Cook (zombie)
Stephen King (vampire) vs. James Patterson (zombie)
When the vampire is looked at as a medium in and of itself, as is put forth in Halberstam’s article, then it must stand for something on its own. A vampire is its own medium because as a beast, vampires fundamentally represent different ideas than any other horror. They have an essence to them that must be maintained or the vampire itself is lost.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Times article, vampires represent a high sense of superiority and ruthlessness that seduces before destroying the pray. Vampires are the evil that is not immediately recognized as evil. They are smooth and sickeningly sweet. But their selfishness can also be their downfall because they fall prey to pleasures and gifts that bring them down. I like Miles’ claim that all desirable characteristics come at a cost because at first glance a vampire and even the vampire portrayal in the times appears to have everything a mere mortal could desire. Upon further examination however it becomes apparent that many of these same traits lead to a fall from grace, such as in Clinton’s scandal or Troy’s horse.
The vampire today still holds many of the essential characteristics of the gothic vampire, the sexuality and reclusiveness, but has changed in other ways drastically. In this way it represents the media messages of today and the desires of the population. I like Eric’s claim that the modern vampire is a reflection of today’s youth. Today’s vampire has been stripped of much of the horror that it used to hold, and instead reflects what mostly teenage girls want to see: power, love, and beauty. The vampire reflects some of the most selfish aspects of society just as teenage years can be some of the most selfish years of life.
Vampire: Lady gaga Zombie: Katy Perry
Vampire: Trojans Zombie: Greeks
Vampire: Caesar Zombie: Brutus
Vampire: The Doctor Zombie: The Daleks
Vampire: The Evil Queen Zombie: the Seven Dwarves
According to media ecology theory, one might argue that the vampire is not only the medium to which one is writing, but is also the content. When viewing the vampire as a medium we can see that it’s content can tell us many things about what we as a society view as monstrous. By creating a creature like the vampire and the zombie, we are allowed to project things we view as monstrous onto a non-human entity and thus find ways to combat and banish these traits. In addition, we are also able to connect the traits of the vampire with traits that we as humans have, or would like to have. The article in the New York Times describes vampires as being charismatic, anti-social, narcissistic, and hedonistic.
ReplyDeleteOnce one knows that the vampire is not only a medium in itself, but is also content (and then that content is also a medium), one can begin to question if the vampire is an assemblage of media, sensations, or something else. I believe that the vampire is most definitely an assemblage of media mixed with societal fears and aspirations. The author says that vampires are invited in to your house because they are sexy and cunning and can manipulate you because of this. This is an admirable trait because people generally want to be able to get things their way through the use of their words and looks alone. The vampire is extremely individualistic and this also highly reflects our culture today. We are moving away from communities and are slowly becoming more individualistic. I think this is one of the main reasons vampires have gained so much popularity recently.
Vampire Vs. Zombie Teams
Johnny Depp (Vampire) vs. Nic Cage (Zombie)
Saturday Night Live (Vampire) vs. Whose Line is it Anyways? (Zombie)
Golf (Vampire) vs. Volleyball (Zombie)
Bon Iver (Vampire) vs. Justin Beiber (Zombie)
Dracula (Vampire) vs. Edward Cullen (Zombie)
Panthers (Vampire) vs. Lemmings (Zombie)
Steph – I really liked your classification of Cirque-de-Soleil as a vampire and a circus as zombie. Also, I liked in your first paragraph how you distinguished that another monster could not convey the same message as the vampire does because of the medium that the vampire is.
Miles – I like your point about individualism in society and the way it has affected the vampire media. I think this is extremely accurate and definitely explains why vampires have become popular recently.
Monsters are not creations of pure imagination, but models of the most negative traits in humans. When Halberstam says that “monsters are meaning machines” and that “ we need to recognize and celebrate our own monstrosities,” he is defining monsters themselves as a medium. As McLuhan believed, the message is the meaning and hence different monsters can have very different messages. The modern vampire as a result of changing media has become a beautiful nearly perfect creation. However in almost every modern example they loath themselves for their lust for human life. Mile's point that the message of the vampire is that good things come at a cost is very valid. The medium changes with the monster. For example the original vampire Dracula is arguably a creation of anti-semitic beliefs. This would mean that the message is of racial inequality and the content is another medium, in this case propaganda. This is a narrow example, but in theory, the content of a vampire is merely the medium or theory on which it is based.
ReplyDeleteA vampire is a medium with almost unlimited messages. It is the result of changing media. The vampire has evolved from an unattractive Dracula to a sparkling Edward Cullen because of the increasingly visual media with which it is expressed. The vampire could also be an assemblage of sensation for it is the result of the monstrosities we hide within ourselves. The monster in theory is a medium to express the message of our own frustrations.
Vampire vs Zombie Teams:
Tampa Bay Rays vs Yankees
Baseball vs Football
Hipsters vs Jocks
Project Cure vs Invisible Children
Tinker Tailor Sailor Spy vs Mission Impossible 3
Science Majors vs Business Majors
Gentleman's Club (horrible idea) vs Fraternities
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Halberstam states, “monsters are meaning machines,” he is alluding to the three-dimensional and multifaceted role of monsters as both content and medium throughout the horror genre. The vampire can be the vehicle in portraying a message due to its individualistic and alternate means of conveying a point. As compared to a monster on an opposing spectrum point, such as the zombie, a monster of this classification would be the medium for delivering a message in a distinctive and contrasting mannerism. The identity of each of these monsters is singular and each demeanor leads to alternate expressions.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times expounds upon the diverse traits of the vampire and zombie, compartmentalizing these two distinctive monsters into far separate classes, which in turn, indicates the reasoning behind why each of these monsters present separate mediums. As Heather Havrilesky states, “Vampires are smooth and charismatic. They drink blood as if it were the finest pinot noir. Zombies, on the other hand, are awkward and clumsy, yet un-self-conscious about the fact that their eyeballs are falling out.” Therefore, a message both a vampire and zombie are the medium in depicting, would result in differing approaches. Due to the fact vampires have an entrancing persona, a gravitational pull that results in a wooing tactic, their role as a medium is affected by the content it presents, just as the stance of content is affected by the medium is poses. The New York Times showcases the idiosyncratic nature of the vampire as more than just a matchless way to rule the world, but also a designated way to rule a medium.
Due to the dual role monstrosities can play, as both content and medium, vampires have become prominent entities in society. I believe the vampire is an assemblage of media, sensation, individualism, and the epitome of true euphoria. Utilizing vampires in current-day media is a technique, which demonstrates the benefits of being introverted and constructs an enthralling appeal to being an outcast. The typical negative connotation that is interlaced with being isolated is fine-tuned to reveal a glamorous and independent strength of being alone. The content of the vampire and the medium of the vampire are meshed together to ignite magnetism in being confident in one’s self.
I found Mile’s insight into the disposition of a hipster to be relevant and perceptive. I agree entirely that a hipster is a prime example of a zombie that severely believes their identity is of a vampire origin. A hipster desires so desperately to be unique and step outside the boundaries of the mainstream expectations of society, to be an atypical individual, but along the course of being so obstinately concentrated on being incomparable, this incomparability is interwoven with a group of dependent variables, invigorating each other with the idea of individualism.
Teams:
Cindy Loo Who (Vampire) - The Grinch (Zombie-thinks he’s a vampire)
Milky Ways (Vampire) – Snickers (Zombie)
Mayonnaise (Vampire) – Miracle Whip (Zombie-think’s vampire-esque)
Tim Tebow (Vampire) – John Elway (Zombie)
Sandra Bullock (Vampire) – Jennifer Aniston (Zombie)
Emo (Vampire) – Prep (Zombie)
Adele (Vampire) – Nicki Minaj (Zombie)
Trail Mix (Vampire) – Chex Mix (Zombie)
McLuhan originally caused us all to question what is medium and what is content. He said that content can affect other content so then would it be the medium? According to Halberstam, “the monstrous body . . . is now represented as potentially meaning anything.” This applies to vampires, and by assuming that their body is what creates a meaning we are left to reason that the vampire is the medium. According to Havrilesky with the New York Times, the content of the vampire is a certain persona of society. To show her point she contrasts the vampire to zombies, who’s content is the polar opposite persona. Where vampires are isolated and aloof, zombies are pack-rats and social. If a vampire is self-indulgent and sexy, then a zombie is communal and rugged. In Steve Jobs: Vampire. Bill Gates: Zombie. she creates vampire vs zombie teams, such as New York vs Washington. By choosing examples such as this she furthers McLuhan’s point that anything can be a medium, even cities. I think that Miles’ example of hipsters being zombies that fiercely believe they are vampires does an excellent job of finding a modern demonstration of the content differences. Hipsters search so hard to be individualistic in a somewhat conformed society, yet since everyone now wants to be individualistic it is becoming the “cool” conformed thing to be. Hipsters look to others, to society, to tell them that they are unique; they are dependent upon the social group to define their identity. This is a strongly zombie characteristic.
ReplyDeleteI feel that vampires don’t only represent individualism and allure, but also a higher class. McLuhan touched on this point as well. The vampire is pure, drinks only blood, is neat and proper and often speak in British accents that we associate with a more elite society. Zombies on the other hand are messy and smell and never ever sparkle. They represent more of the working class. In addition to the content that vampires represent according to Halberstam, the vampire is also the draw of superiority, of betterment, of the top class in our hierarchical society. From this understanding you can then better understand just what assembles the vampire (sexuality, elitism, introvert, narcissists, power…). Then coming back to McLuhan, one may attempt to understand just what assembles the vampire and defines its body. I feel that vampires are defined by both the media and their own content, in a way causing the content to be the medium. Eric put it well when he said “content seems to be the characteristics that make up the vampire, “and I agree.
Vampire vs Zombie
Cars vs Busses
Apartment vs Dorms
Angelina Jolie vs Ellen Degeneris
Ghandi vs the Pope
Van Gogh vs Andy Warhol
“Monsters are the meaning”: Halberstein’s statement applies the idea of media as a message to the image of the vampire in books, movies, and television shows. Media communicates a set message through its content; however, it is often overlooked that the media itself can help communicate a message as well. In essence, this content is the form of medium presented. The monster, whether it is a vampire, zombie, or some other mythical creature, is a type of medium that brings fear and hatred in the hearts of the public. However, each specific monster associates with a different message; therefore, each monster serves as its own medium.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times article describes vampires as solitary creatures that are masters of deception and manipulation. They are narcissistic and pleasure-seeking beings. The article tells the reader to “Never tell a vampire to trust his or her instincts,” as these instincts are naturally corrupt. Vampires are sophisticated and high-class; they “drink blood as if it were the finest pinot noir.” These assumed characteristics of vampires are the supposed content that the idea of the vampire (medium) communicates. They are forms of media themselves, as each characteristic evokes a sense of fear or hatred. However, there are other aspects of a vampire that can act as forms of media that the article did not address. For example, vampires are very confident and powerful individuals. They possess the ability to unify a group of people through fear. Vampires can be seen as aesthetically pleasing creatures (compared to zombies). These characteristics of vampires communicate positive traits such as grace and tranquility within the vampire.
The image of a vampire serves a medium. Depending on the form of this image, the message can be interpreted in different ways. Edward Cullen is considered an attractive, chivalrous vampire due to the image that is created in both the Twilight books and movies. At the same time, the vampires in the movie Underworld: Evolution are tribal creatures bent on the quest to kill the werewolves. This is evidence that the medium, which is the image of the vampire, can serve as the content that the public receives. Similarly, the movie Zombieland shows zombies to be a source of humor rather than terrifying creatures. On the other hand, the game “Left 4 Dead,” which places a group of survivors against an infected human race, shows zombies to be mindless, horrific creatures. The form of media influences the characteristics of the monster. These characteristics serve as their own media that instill unique emotions and thoughts.
I disagree with Eric about the fact that we create the image of the vampire. I believe that the image itself is a form of medium; however, it is the way we interpret this image that creates a comprehensive message. Therefore, the actual image itself is created through the form of medium, not the public. I agree with Steph when she says that the image of the vampire can change. Once again, this is dependent on the way it is communicated, whether it is through a movie, book, television show, or video game.
Vampires vs. Zombies
Nutella vs. Peanut Butter
Raichu vs. Pikachu
Sony vs. Nintendo
Nike high tops vs. Sperries
Khakis vs. jeans
Taking a few honors classes vs. taking many regular classes
Mac vs. PC
Luigi vs. Mario
Vampires are both content and a medium. They are the medium because a vampire’s content set it apart from its fellow monsters, allowing the vampire to deliver a different message and evoke different emotions. These characteristics and personality traits make up the content of the vampire. Zach explained it perfectly by saying, “If the vampire itself is the medium, then the content of the vampire would be its characteristics.” As McLuhan emphasized, the content can be its own medium and the medium can create the content. For example the vampire is independent and a loner, setting the stage for a story to talk about themes of isolation. At the same time, the vampire’s loner status means society has a preconceived notion, which the filmmaker incorporates into a vampire movie. By being too pale or “sparkly” for example, the vampire is already separate and different than its human counterpart.
ReplyDeleteUsing a comical voice, the New Yorks Time article defines the vampire as independent. While this may have a negative connotation as Miles said, the United States’ culture encourages entrepreneurship and individualism. Any single person working for his or her own good can quickly become egoistic and selfish. Yet, at the same time a person going against the grain or vampire’s independent nature does make them more alluring and desirable. Halberstan emphasized that the Gothic monster “inspires fear and desire,” the nature of the vampire makes him both an outcast and that oblivious hot guy that everybody likes.
The vampire is an assemblage of the media because it highlights our views on the individual. The outcast in Gothic literature was feared because he was “different” but today, the individual is celebrated. Miles made a good comparison between community and individual values in the United States. The vampire epitomizes the message of “the American Dream” – the fact that only you can make yourself rich and successful. As society becomes more complex, we feel alienated because of our over-specialization and deconstructing of the face-to-face community.
Vampire: Sundance Festival Zombie: Hollywood
Vampire: Private Schools Zombie: Public Schools
Vampire: Big Business Zombie: Non-Profit
Vampire: Kaladi’s Zombie: Starbucks
Vampire: The Voice Zombie: American Idol
Vampire: The Thinker Zombie: The Dreamer
Vampire: The Hunger Games Zombie: Twilight
For the PLP group in this class =)
Vampire: Green and Blue Zombie: Yellow and Red
When Halberstam stated that “monsters are meaning machines,” I automatically thought back to the discussion of skin. Each type of monster has a different skin, which reflects the nature of the monster. Halberstam says, “Skin houses the body and it is figured in Gothic as the ultimate boundary, the material that divides the inside from the outside.” In particular, vampires break the boundary of the skin, blurring the inside from the outside. In doing this, the internal is no longer protected by the skin of self-preservation that humans have when found in a gothic-type situation in which terror and horror come naturally. The medium of skin allows us to combine the “inside” with the “outside,” which in turn allows us to “recognize and celebrate our own monstrosities” that once lay hidden in our inner selves, protected by the boundary of our skin and the manner in which we chose to portray ourselves. Vampires give the ability to combine the outer and inner by first puncturing the boundary of skin.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the New York Times piece, a vampire is one who is not only seductive, but also solitary and narcissistic. On the other hand, representing the polar opposite of vampires, are zombies. Zombies are extroverted, leaders, and collaborative.
With this in mind, Vampires would be the Apple company, while zombies would be represented by PC’s, or Fred Astaire the vampire, while Ginger Rogers the zombie.
I agree with Zach when he says we must first take an objective look at vampires in order to understand their meaning. As a society we are often so wrapped up in the lure of vampires and the supernatural seductiveness they offer that we cannot fully comprehend the meaning and message of vampires.