Total Pageviews

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Rewritting culture.

Merlin, on TV, once again made me aware of something insidious in the arts. This insidious something I call rewriting culture.

Now obviously the Arthurian Cycle, "the Matter of Britain", evolved over centuries, and came to be part of the common literary inheritance of the western European Cultural Group. But to evolve isn't the same thing as to be reinvented. And when reinvention eliminates a key feature or two of the myth cycle, its meaning for our culture is stolen from us, and the cultural property devolves into mere story telling.

The two most important elements of the Arthurian cycle are the flaws in the nature of it's major players--which lead to the failure of Arthur's Kingdom--and the religious element--the search for the Holy Grail, the cup with which Christ celebrated the Last supper.

With the fatal flaws of it's protagonists, the Grail, it's repeated episodes of prayer and repentance, the matter of Britain as we have received it are a profoundly Christian cautionary tale, and the modern rewritings and revisions eliminate the christian elements.

This trend is evident in other parts of our Pop Culture. In one area especially: Vampire Stories.

In both Twilight and Buffy the Vampire Slayer something is missing , the lack of which redefines the vampire from an object of horror to something almost or blatantly attractive. that something is the anthropological dimension. (Here I'm using "anthropology in it's theological sense--the study and nature of man vis a vis spiritual and religious truth.)

Man is unique in creation because of his nature as a being created in the image and likeness of God. God is a spirit, he is pure spirit. And, he breathed spirit into us when we were created. yet, being "formed of clay" we are of matter as well. animals and plants are alive too, but they do not have the same spiritual likeness of god at the core of their being. Our nature unites--or perhaps bridges is a better term--the spheres of matter and spirit. Uniquely in all the creation, we are of both.

Vampires have something missing: that breath of spirit. they are traditionally abhorrent because they mimic humanity but are in their nature they are utterly inhuman. Despite the erotic overtones of the modern vampire (overtones that originated in troubled mind of Bram Stoker, and which were first popularized by his book Dracula, influence as it is by the occult teachings of both the Golden Dawn and Thelema) the core of the vampire narrative is the horror of a human form rendered inhuman by being both animate, yet devoid of the Breath of Spirit infused into our being by god.

The same applies to the growing body of Lycanthropy stories and films, which gloss over, once again, the core of our cultural expression of the myth; a human being, separated from his spiritual nature becomes bestial--no better than the animals.

the presentation of these things has gone from objects of fear and pure horror, to objects with a destructive and hypnotic attraction, to states that people can see as desirable and longed for. (See the movie Wolf, with Jack Nicholson.)

The rewritings of these myths are like an acid rain that dissolves the stone foundations of our common, christian Heritage, east and west. That bedrock is the understanding of man, the anthropology of faith. That understanding is what renders a variant--a singularity if I may borrow a term from physics--frightening.

By eliminating from the Arthurian matter the flaws and consequences of those flaws, and from the Vampire and werewolf stories the horror of the loss of human nature, and the action of grace, however symbolized and expressed (think of vampires being driven away by crucifixes or the Eucharist) in correcting these singularities we make the loss of human nature--complete, and unique, into something desirable.

And by eroding our cultural value that humans are, in fact, unique and special on the Earth, we slowly make room for a devaluing of humans themselves.

It is, in it's own way, an example of the culture of death.

9 comments:

Elizabeth said...

Actually, you're wrong about Buffy - the premise of that universe is precisely that vamps are no longer human, that they are instead possessed by demons that take over the body of the deceased once the soul of the original inhabitant leaves. With on exception, and that was explicitly a punishment.

TheSeeker said...

Very interesting...
I never really sat down and thought about the implications of our attraction to vampires and whatnot in our culture. I'll admit to owning the Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice. I enjoy Lestat's interior struggle between not having a soul/being damned and being a beautiful immortal. It's interesting. The mere fact of what he is should definitely horrify me more.

ignorant redneck said...

Elizabeth--

The premise of the Universe is as you describe. However, the charecters of Angel and Spike were presented as attractive and intregueing.

The point I was making was that the Vampire/Lycanthrop myths are being rewriten to make the status of these creatures both attractive and desirable. It's also quite evident in the "Underworld" movies, and is also present in the changing depictions of dragons in the west.

Not to mention eliminating the religious content from many of our cultural stories.

Elizabeth said...

Yes, they're appealing, but only insofar as they're both walking the redemption path, earning ultimate forgiveness through suffering and labor.

ignorant redneck said...

I'm not entirely sure about that.

I mean, take Spikes first girl friend--half the guys watching the show thought she was totally hot, and she wasn't anywhere neqar redemption!

Actually, that's kinda my point though--the idea of a vampire--a revenant--was abhorrent because it represented a perverion of human nature. By making these various charecters interesting and attractive, we end up minimizing the imortance of our own humanity. By extending that to these "others", that stand as a direct perversion of man, a created by God, we are lessening our own respect for humanity.

Something similar is goig on with the "Orc" books--from being beings twisted and degraded from elves, to oppressed poor victims.

It's something to think about.

Elizabeth said...

Hey, it's not the show's fault that half the guys we know are sick twists who think that CRAZY = hawt.

But i never got a round to my real point, which was that I actually disagree with your central thesis re: vampires. At least, modern vampires. The original mythological vampires have very little in common with the modern incarnation (IE, post Stoker.) The original, eastern European creatures were frequently non-corporeal and didn't always drink blood. They had much more in common with the modern zombie, if the modern zombie spread Tuberculosis.

That changes with Stoker, and ever since the vampire myth is about the intersection of blood and sex. It is, I think, absolutely no coincidence that the modern vampire was invented by someone dying of a blood-born STD (Stoker had syphillis), revived in the seventies by a woman who had just lost her daughter to a blood disease (Anne Rice's daughter, Claudia (!) had just died of Leukemia when she wrote Interview with the Vampire in a long, drunken haze) and sprung to full popularity in an era in which the most terrifying disease out there was, again, a blood-carried STD with no known treatment. Vampires are so popular with teenagers because they quite ltierally embody teenage ambivalence about sexuality, especially for young girls. In fact the only startling thing about the "Twilight" series is the fact that the author *honestly didn't know what she was writing*. I mean, seriously, the woman is a regressed 14 year old. The hero is a "vegetarian" vamp, who *could* devour the heroine. He wants to. She wants him to. But he won't... because he's a really good guy. The story is outrageously popular with young teen girls not because "Vamps are sexy" or because the vampire myth has been altered to change something about how we view humanity. It has, in fact, become *THE* symbol of a very important part of that humanity - the struggle young teen girls experience with their sexuality. The fact that this equation has become all the more fraught with the sexualization of the media is precisely why vamps like Edward are so popular right now. The Twilight books are a profound message about abstinence and purity, not a corruption of humanitas.

They're also really, really badly written Mary Sue potboilers, but that's a whole nother post.

ignorant redneck said...

Elizabeth:

Well, the thing is, you kind of make my point for me in your counter argument: With the arrival of the first mass market vampire in the west, the meaning of the myth was changed.

Elizabeth said...

True, but can you name one myth that hasn't changed over time? They're fluid, flexible things. And you can't exactly argue that it *changed* with the advent of Stoker - it's just that one particular variant become the dominant one (the incubus / succubus).

ignorant redneck said...

Mythsdo evolve, but with the rapidity of the change, and the near uniformity of the changes in the vampire/Lycanthrope materials in the direction of eroticism, and the skipping of the essential "horror" of a revenant, or of a person who periodicly looses their base of humanity, the effect adds up.

I have to acknowlege though, that it can become a question of the Chicken-or-the-Egg.

But our cultural assumptions are changing. I will mention here Ringo and Kratmans essay on "Transnational Progessivism", where they stipulate that there is no "conspiracy" to do this, rather a consensus among a given social strata and occupational niche that thinks this is wonderful.

I think it's a disaster--based on my personal experience of it.

Of course, that makes it my subjective judgement, but I'll stand by it.