Blood Sucking Fiends

The inspiration for this blog came from my observation of the multitude of recurring vampire images that occur in the media today. The vampire myth has been around for millennia. Figures that compare to our modern understanding of vampires existed in Mesopotamia, Hebrew culture, Ancient Greece and Rome, Southeastern Europe, and many others. Vampires have been discussed in popular literature (Bram Stoker anyone?), psychopathology, myths, and there is even talk of political overtones. There are many different myths and roots of the vampire, but it is interesting that there is such a large wave of new vampire media.

In the movie industry, there is of course the Twilight craze, based on a novel by Stephanie Meyer, this interpretation is based on a love story, and is typically associated with romance and morality. Also, I recently saw Let The Right One In, a Norwegian film that won 42 awards in the indie circuit about a young vampire who befriends a young boy. This film was more concerned with an exploration of the more classical vampire myths themselves. Television has True Blood, an HBO series with the premise that vampires exist in modern society and have “come out” after synthetic blood allows them to coexist peacefully with humans. This series seems to explore the political side of the vampire myth. There is a lot of references to minority legislation, as well as the coexistence of human law with a higher law—in this case the vampires have their own governing body--. Literature has Twilight, and I believe Anne Rice still makes vampire books. Newcomer Christopher Moore wrote two books, You Suck, and Bloodsucking Fiends. His novels are satirical comedy. The vampire functions only to carry out an absurd plot where the idea that someone is a vampire is more of a nuisance and something to be mocked than an otherworldly concept to be revered or feared. Little kids have been dressing up as vampires for Halloween for years. There are sexual fetishes and pornography that adopt this myth. It seems you can find vampires anywhere you look. I’m actually interested in looking at these trends for a thesis topic, but for the purpose of this post, I would like to interpret this according to Deleuze’s and Guattari’s excerpted work, “A Thousand Plateaus.”

“A Thousand Plateau’s” as we discussed in class, has many different subjects and specific concepts that it explores, but I believe the discussion is centered on their metaphor of the rhizome and especially the relation of the rhizome to books and literature. The rhizome, according to Deleuze and Guattari is defined by its relation to other parts. “A rhizome as subterranean stem is absolutely different from roots and radicles” ( RR 380). Beyond this simple definition of a subterranean stem, they define its existence by several properties including its connections and heterogeneities, multiplicities, and asignifying ruptures. When applying these principles to books, the idea is that the book is an “assemblage” of all these different rhizomes and the roots and stems that grow from them. “To attribute the book to a subject is to overlook this working of matters and the exteriority of their relations” (RR 378). They are debunking the structures, even chapter structures, that we typically assume mean beginnings and ends. Deleuze and Guattari argue that even chapters exist as plateaus that must be understood in multiple and in converging circular structures. I believe that this concept can be used to understand myths and recurring metaphors, analogies, and archetypes in a similar manner, especially with vampires.

As previously stated, there is no one singular story that is understood as the original vampire. The myths and characteristics have so many variables, it’s impossible to pinpoint almost any characteristic other than the drinking of blood as a unifying theme. Some vampires are mortal, some immortal. Some must kill their victims to survive, some can drink to sate their thirst only. Some vampires can’t be seen in mirrors, and some vampires can only be killed by a wooden stake through their hearts. I think the point is clear that there are many different vampires in the world, and they take many shapes and forms. Vampires are like rhizomes, “all we know are assemblages” (RR 385). These assemblages establish “connections between certain multiplicities drawn from each of these orders, so that a book has no sequel nor the world as its object nor one or several authors as its subject” (RR 385).

Deleuze and Guattari’s argument seems to say that most things are rhizomatic if you will. So why is it important that one particular myth fits their formula for being (in a simplistic sense) indefinable? Without making profound post-modern statements about the nature of thought, I think it’s important to establish that even the least educated; most “average” of citizens has accepted and internalized this argument. There aren’t thousands of screaming girls heckling Robert Pattinson because Stephanie Meyer didn’t adhere to Stoker’s notion of a vampire. They’re there because he’s objectively quite attractive and his character is quite the fantasy. People indulge in these fantasies and stories for so many reasons and their significance is so difficult to pin down to one thing. That is why there are so many explorations. If there was just one story why would anyone care. If there was only one story then there would be no such thing as human individuality, variances of style, or even different plotlines for us to indulge in. I think as literature lovers in this class we can all appreciate the variety that Deluze and Guattari defend.