Sookie's Real Disability

Sookie's Real Disability

Sookie Stackhouse calling her superpower a disability is universally annoying and self-pitying, but what deeper meaning could be found if we look past that? Sookie’s “disability” is only known to a few people and, in the context of the book, only makes her life easier. But if we put aside the obvious benefits of her disability, and pretend it was something that disables her, what other issues could Charlaine Harris be representing? Sookie’s relationship with Bill could be interpreted as a representation of a (real) disabled person’s struggle to find a partner who treats them as if they did not have a disability. 

Sookie makes it clear from the beginning of the text that she would prefer to not have telepathy at all because it can get in the way of her everyday life. Besides the obvious advantages that Sookie’s disability affords her, the way Sookie feels about her telepathy perfectly mirrors the feelings of many disabled people about their condition. The desire for people to see past what makes you different is not uncommon, but it is amplified by an obvious physical or mental abnormality. Sookie’s disability is not obvious from looking at or talking to her because it only exists in her head, but it does affect her relationships a great deal. It is only reasonable for her to feel special when she meets someone who makes her like a normal person.

After Sookie meets Bill she forms special attachment to him because he’s a vampire and she can’t hear what he is thinking. Since the reason Sookie’s involuntary telepathy is so burdensome is because she must focus on it to control it, Bill’s presence makes it feel like her disability was never there to begin with. Sookie can finally experience what it’s like to wonder what someone else is thinking, making her feel “normal” while she’s with him. A very similar thing can happen to a person with a disability in the real world. Finding someone who doesn’t treat you differently because of something that is not in your control can be liberating for a person who has experienced prejudice their whole life. 

A darker interpretation of Bill and Sookie’s relationship is that Bill isn’t attracted to Sookie, but the intense feelings she has for him. Bill is the first and only person in Sookie’s life whose mind she can’t read, so it could be that Bill fetishizes the power he has over Sookie. The parallel to this would be a very predatory person entering an intimate relationship with a disabled person because they fetishize their power over that person. It was established early that Bill is “mainstreaming”, so his relationship with Sookie does have some element of his desire to appear more human. This behavior could symbolize Bill isn’t attracted to Sookie; he’s attracted to how the relationship makes him appear.

Bill and Sookie’s relationship can be interpreted in many ways. Although everyone in the world cringes when Sookie calls her telepathy a disability, it isn’t the only aspect of her life that can be interpreted in that way. Her relationship with Bill, whether Bill represents the perfect person or a predatory creep, can certainly be read to represent to a real struggle in the lives of many people living with disabilities.

Society's monsters by Haley Aguilar

    Charlene Harris’ novel Dead Until Dark features very strong misogynistic undertones alongside obvious displays of toxic masculinity. The female protagonist spends most of the novel passing judgment on other women and the antagonist of the novel kills women because he perceives them to be dirty, lowlife urchins undeserving of life. Due to Sookie’s ability to read minds, the audience is able to understand the viewpoints of multiple characters. Most of the male characters thoughts resonate in a singular idea, women are there for their own personal enjoyment until the moment that they deem the woman not good enough. Even at Merlotte's, Sookie finds herself judged for being a simple waitress. The balance of power in the novel sways obviously toward the men, with them representing nearly every authority figure in the novel. The only authoritative females in the novel are Portia Bellefleur and Kenya the policewoman; however, they are still seen as objects. Kenya is most commonly mentioned by her partner and not in a professional context, he is often thinking about what she’s doing with her free time. Portia is also belittled, but in this instance, it is by Sookie who “heard” that she was a competent lawyer.

    The misogyny in this novel is not just practiced by men, but by the women as well. Women judge other women as a result of being judged by men. The men set their standards for women and that becomes the measuring stick for women to judge each other. Sookie is very guilty of this, her perception of Arlene is tainted by the thoughts of her multiple sexual partners and escapades. Arlene is her friend but Sookie can’t help but judge her on the basis of her looks and actions while maintaining that she herself is virtuous even when she becomes sexually active with Bill, she continues to think that she is better because she has only had the one partner. Because of her mind reading capabilities, Sookie knows what’s going on in the minds of other people and with their thoughts comes her judgment. She thinks she knows people based off of a passing thought, but everyone has wayward thoughts that don’t embody their true personalities.

    Toxic masculinity is another prevalent trait displayed in the novel. The most obvious instances that I noticed in the novel were instances between Sookie and Sam. Sam is Sookie’s boss but he breaks professional boundaries on multiple occasions. Everyone knows that he likes Sookie but the way he goes about showing it is not appropriate in the workplace. One example of this is when he follows Sookie into the fridge when she is upset. With her trapped in a confined space with him, he tells her that she can read his mind anytime she likes. This is not okay because she adamantly objected to the idea but he took it upon himself to change her mind on something she was uncomfortable with. Sam makes her uncomfortable in another instance when he is on the clock. Sookie stops to pick up her check from Sam and while they’re in his office he decided to walk up behind Sookie and sniff her then blow air on her neck. This could be his subtle way of trying to stake a claim on her but again, in a professional setting, it is completely wrong. Bill also displays some toxic traits. He is quick to claim Sookie, claiming that it is for her protection but even behind closed doors, he repeats the same thing. Bill’s overprotective nature is supposed to come off as caring and loyal but I believe it illuminates a deeper issue. He truly believes that Sookie belongs to him, it is reflected in his actions when he tells her that he has no intention of stopping the ongoing sexual activity, even if she didn’t want to continue. He treats her well but with overt dominance, using her fear of him to keep her in check. Both men exhibit toxic traits, especially when it comes to Sookie because the gender script for being a man in today’s is fueled largely by lust and power. They act in the way that they believe that a man should in whatever situation they find themselves in. Their actions are a result of social training, they might be from different time periods but society has always seen men as dominant so it makes sense that they should exert dominance over women and take them for their own. It is what society has been telling them to do for centuries.  

Vampires are not as bad as you think.

The first book in the Southern Vampire series, Dead Until Dark, it is most obvious that vampires are symbolic of the minority populations in contemporary society. As a result of being represented as minorities, vampires are discriminated in the novel. The US has come a long way since the civil rights movement, almost 40 years before the novel was even written, yet many descriptions of segregation are apparent between vampires and people.

              Vampires in this world stand for groups that the majority of the population fears and hates for no justifiable reason – not only from the standpoint of skin color or sexual orientation, but from being undead. The first page of the novel in fact describes Sookie’s excitement of meeting a vampire by saying “Ever since vampires had come out of the coffin two years ago, I’d hoped one would come to Bon Temps. We had all the other minorities in our little town—why not the newest, the legally recognized undead?”(pg. 1).

Many vampires in the novel try to eliminate the prejudices against them. Bill tries to “mainstream” by surviving off of synthetic blood and interact normally with humans. He speaks at Gran’s meeting called Descendants of the Glorious Dead to recall his experiences to the crowd and hopefully create an accepting image with the fellow townspeople. Another vampire, Eric, also mainstreams by opening a bar for fang-bangers, or “men and women that hang around with vampires and enjoy being bitten” (pg. 22). These are few of the examples of vampires who desire to fit in and live the same rights are humans do.

But what’s a story when there are no bad guys. Not every vampire in the novel is about mainstreaming and that’s where the main conflict of the novel comes from. Some vampires unwillingly take blood from their human victims since it is more fulfilling than synthetic blood. They possess powers such as intimidation, which makes their victim forget the incident entirely, and superhuman speed and strength. These vampires believe that they can be superior to humans by their immortality, similar to the vampires that Bill lives with. And just how group stereotyping happens, the negative actions of one vampire can speak for the entire population of vampires.

As a result, the novel mainly portrays actions that are done to discriminate or inflict harm against vampires. The Rattrays would have drained Bill’s blood to make money off it had it not been for Sookie. Some citizens of the Bon Temp area, where the novel setting is, torches a house ablaze, killing 4 vampires in it. Rene Lenier is a prime example of vampire hatred, as he kills women linked to vampires due to his bad history with them.

In fact, there were times when vampires showed altruistic behavior towards people. Bill’s actions save Sookie’s life when she was about to die from the Rattray’s attack but she drinks his blood to stay alive. There have been times when Bill committed violent attacks such as killing the Rattrays, but his acts are justifiable to protect Sookie or future vampires that would fall victim to them.

Dead Until Dark emphasizes that humans and vampires alike can be evil and do evil things. But in terms when it comes down to who feels superior to the other, each side has their own views. Although vampires are oppressed by the greater population of people, they do attempt to reconcile with them by setting aside their differences and assimilate to their culture.

Vampires as an Other

Vampires, in fiction, have long since represented something other than a blood-sucking monster. From Dracula to Vampire Diaries to Dead Until Dark and Twilight, they represent something other in society. In Dracula, the titular character and his vampire spawn represent many aspects of Victorian fear in societies. A part of it is xenophobia—Dracula is a foreigner invading England with the intent on preying on its citizens. He is a literal parasite, stealing life from the veins of “traditional English roses” like Lucy. There was a fear then, and even now, that foreigners would come in and “destroy” the society that already existed. There has been a lot of concern with this “problem” with the Muslim refugees who are entering the country. People are afraid that the immigrants want “Sharia law” enforced on everyone, even non-muslims. I’m not going to go into if their beliefs are correct or not, but the fact that this fear of an “other” is still so pervasive in England that even over a century after Dracula was written.

In the United States, we have our own love/hate relationship with immigrants. People love to boast about how they’re ¼ German, 1/8^th Italian, etc. Yet say you’re from Haiti, or Mexico, or Guatemala, and all of a sudden these same people have a problem. I have read people call the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States an “invasion”. So the fear of immigrants is just as much a problem in the United States, but in different ways from England. This is why Dracula was able to become incredibly popular in the United States, as well.

In more modern perceptions, however, ideas around monsters have shifted. They’re not always the bad guys, determined to feed on the “teething millions” of Victorian London. Sometimes they’re just ordinary people, who happen to have something that “others” them. With this more sympathetic view towards monsters comes a more nuanced view of the “others” that they are. In Victorian England, they were the “others” going against the grain of society—the new woman, the immigrant. They were portrayed in a negative light, with monsters attacking society. They were considered harmful, whether or not they actually were.

The “others” that modern vampires can be likened to are racial minorities and people who are LGBTQ+. This is referenced directly in Dead Until Dark, when the vampires are described as “coming out of their coffins” (a play on the oft-repeated “coming out of the closet”). In 2001, when the book was written, the Cincinnati Riots happened, which, according to Wikipedia “…were the largest urban disturbance in the United States since the 1992 Los Angeles riots.” Both riots were sparked by the brutal treatment of black men at the hands of police. The presence of racism in the United States was very much felt an known, even if people tried to deny it. In 1994, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the policy that forbid homosexual people from serving openly in the military was enacted. So the idea of these people as “others” in American society, something to perhaps look down upon, was prevalent. So the vampires, which were previously mapped with a different kind of outsider, were mapped with those.

Apotropaic Magic -- Crystalle Fry

Relics come in all shapes, sizes and appearances. From crucifixes to evil eyes, while others look like no more than pieces of scrap metal put together, wooden carvings or simply voodoo dolls. Relics can be as small as a needle or the size of a bulldozer. Regardless of appearance, components or size of a relic, though, all such artifacts operate on the same principles.

The continuing myth of vampires evolved from superstition around death and purification of the soul to a more sparkly (haha get it because in Twilight vampires sparkle? No? okay moving on) paranormal ideas. While ancient civilizations’ depictions of vampire-like beings such as Lilitu, a mystical being who lived off of the blood of babies, and Estries, who pillaged cities, eating unsuspecting men, both of Assyria; and the Greek and Roman Empousai, demigoddesses who also feed on men, have served as a vanguard for later incarnations, since leaving the cave, portrayals of vampirism from folklore to film share more characteristics—like an aversion to garlic—than not.

“Esteries”

In modern stories, the beginning is always the same. A road is dark (with an exception of a few that flicker on and off) It’s really late, and only the most committed to a good time remain to bear witness to the night’s secrets. As a dense fog erupts from the forestry of a small town and the drunks slowly stumble their way home—if they make it that far.

A woman screams—something or someone swallows one man, and then another, like low hanging fruit, leaving the others panicked. The woman screams again, we can now see her, still in dimmed lighting, as she flees some violent scene. In the aftermath, someone suggests vampirism, a condition dripping with superstition and misfortune, and repeats it, but none of them are reliable witnesses.

Although his wasn’t the first, Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula provided much of the basis of the modern vampire legend and popularized the garlic phenomenon. And, historically, this adds up. Vampirism was seen as a disease, and for time immemorial garlic has served many cultures with its curative properties.

After concluding some research on vampirism based on Dead Until Dark (True Blood), Twilight and Dracula, I thought I should write about fact versus fiction.These are my theories (based on research/evidence) as to why relics don't work.

-Vampirism can cure any human ailment

Source: The vampiric ability to ward off a multitude of diseases.

Fact: Although vampirism can effectively cure a diseased human, such individuals have a much harder time surviving the transformation process—especially with advanced age and most definitely with organ transplants.

-Vampires can choose to live on only animals and blood bags

Source: Hollywood idealization of vampirism as something that can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into human society.

Fact: Although animals and blood bags can get them by for a while, vampires ultimately have to feed on live humans to get all the nutrients they require.

-Crosses repel vampires and can burn their flesh

Source: Christian beliefs that vampires are demons and therefore enemies of God. During the Dark Ages, vampires were known to have been tortured by the church using super heated iron crosses to "burn the Holy Spirit into them" before execution.

Fact: Unless heated by fire or used as a bashing or throwing weapon, crosses have absolutely no effect on vampires. They have no trouble entering churches, either (in True Blood we see Bill remove the American flag, revealing the cross underneath it, but did not burn).

The Vampire: An Evil Monster or a Troubled Beast?

            The vampire is a monster that serves as one of the earliest monsters to scare children and adults alike as they may possibly walk into the night. The earliest vampire stories show vampires as these mythical beings that do everything in their power to find victims in order to consume them and drink the blood of the living, but the modern-day vampire has changed very much from the vampires of the Victorian era.
            Vampires motive for why they do the things they do has been one of the things changed about vampires. The old Victorian era vampire had two simple goals, to feed and to take over the world be consuming all living humans into an army of vampires. The modern vampire never truly has any such goals of world domination or any malicious intent, rather simply feeding to survive in a world that doesn't want them. One reason for this change is because readers have grown to be accustomed to dynamic characters and villains in their story, although a villain with a simple motivation can still work, many readers wish to see their monsters with more human aspects, and writers wish to flex their ability on writing interesting monsters.
            Another major change in vampire stories is the human aspects added to them. Bill Compton is an example of this change, as he cares about Sookie and loves her. When compared to Dracula who in the novel has no interest in love or any other human emotion but to simply seek power and rule. Yet Dracula also received the modern take in the Coppola film as he is shown as previously having a wife in his human life, and he seeks Mina because she looks almost exactly like his dead wife, making the Dracula in the film and novel, seem very different even though they are the same in every other way.
            The biggest change in vampires is their sexual desires. In Victorian eras there was a clear pattern of only male vampires biting women, as at the time a male biting a male was considered something that should never be done, and women had the strange role of only consuming children to get the point across of the non-mother they would become. The Victorian vampire had a small selection of people they could bite in the stories, which reflected the social standards of the time. As we have grown more open as a society, so too has the vampire. Now in literature and other mediums vampires consume all people with no regard for gender, as males bite males and females bite females, such as with the fangbangers in Dead Until Dark, not care about the gender of the vampire just if they can get bit.
            Vampires are one of the most changed monsters through the course of literary history. Starting off as another mindless beast seeking world domination, to sympathetic figures that didn't ask for their state of undead. Vampires are now a cultural icon in the western world and will continue to change and evolve as long as societal views continue to change and evolve.

Hypocritical Society in Dead Until Dark

     Vampires have only recently become a topic that sparks lust and curiosity. Especially after the release of the Twilight series written by Stephenie Meyer, young girls lust after the idea of a vampire. Even just a hundred years ago, vampires were used to inflict fear, but they have recently been romanticized. Readers now are commonly conflicted between whether they should fear vampires or see them as endearing. Readers are increasing hypocritical of their views of vampires because most vampire novels are set in hypocritical societies. Sookie Stackhouse is a perfect representation of the hypocritical society that is shown in Charlaine Harris’s Dead Until Dark. One way that Sookie shows her hypocritical nature is with the supposed internal conflict that she faces when it comes to vampires. She takes this conflict to another level when she becomes a fangbanger. She shames fellow women for getting involved with vampires all while she is involved with Bill. Sookie is also a hypocrite when it comes to her “disability”. She has the ability to hear people’s thoughts, but she calls it a disability and tries to repress it. With all the turmoil in and surrounding her town, Sookie could very easily use her gift to read people’s thoughts to help the police in her town, but she does not. She instead spends her days complaining about how she has to hear everyone’s thoughts and how horrible it makes her life. She complains about how she cannot just live her life without hearing people’s thoughts, but at the same time, she listens to people thoughts that she wants to. Sookie claims that she hears people’s voices and cannot make it stop, but when Sam gives her permission to listen to his thoughts, she refuses. Sookie wants people to think that she is a victim for having this gift that she has classified as a disability.
     Sookie, however, is not the only character in the book that is caught being a hypocrite. Many people, especially men, are caught shaming women for getting involved with vampires. If women are caught hooking up with vampires, then they deserve what happens to them. For example, if a woman is involved with a vampire and she ends up dead, it was thought to be her fault. Women in the novel were depicted as sluts who require a male vampire to take interest in them so that they have someone to please. Men, however, are depicted dramatically different in this novel. For example, if a man was caught hooking up or involved with a vampire, then the vampire must have taken advantage of the man and coerced him into getting involved. When men were caught involving themselves with vampires, it was never their fault, and they were never seen as any different or any less than the men that were only involved with humans.

     Like many novels, Charlaine Harris’s Dead Until Dark simply takes aspects of the society that we live in today and amplifies them so that they are easier to recognize. In the society that we live in today, people are increasingly more hypocritical, but they refuse to see it. After reading the novel and critiquing Sookie and some of the other characters, my eyes have opened to the fact that the society that we live in is scarily similar to the society on the novel, and that we need to make a point to be less hypocritical.