The Awkward Love Triangle

The Awkward Love Triangle

- Makayla Dunlap

In almost every novel or movie, there is a love triangle. One person must love another, but another individual must then be inserted to complicate the situation. But- has the classic love triangle evolved at all? Although they are from significantly different time periods, the love triangle in Dracula (the film), Dead Until Dark, and Twilight does not change.

While the novel Dracula does not present a love triangle, the film makes it one. Jonathan loves Mina. Mina also loves Jonathan, but then Dracula inserts himself into the situation while Jonathan is away. Mina then slowly falls for Dracula, and in the end commits her life to him. This is again seen in Dead Until Dark between Sookie, Bill, and Sam. It is then AGAIN seen in Twilight. Only this time it is been Bella, Jacob, and Edward. You can also assume that the love triangle can be seen again and again. However, THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME.

Nothing is new. Each time it will always be three characters, and traditionally it will be two guys fighting over one girl. This classic set-up presents the girl as a prize to win. And, frankly, I am tired of this notion. In our society, we are constantly making strives to advance, but often times women are left behind. We are fighting, but are we evolving? It normally feels like we are taking one step forward and three steps back. The notion of the love triangle, I believe, is a huge loss for women. We aren’t allowed to make our own decisions and the choice to be alone is nonexistent. Generally, we have a lot of choice in who to love as humans, but how often does the woman in the triangle choose a member out of the triangle? Hint- she doesn’t.

So the next question is- what are we teaching the young members of our society? I believe we are telling them that they should wait for a knight in shining or maybe even two through the constant use of the love triangle. We are allowing them to play a passive role in their life, with the assumption that someone will someday come along and fix all of their problems. While this is primarily the case for females, I think the love triangle also teaches negative information to males as well. In all reality, they do not have to fight over women if they do not want. They also aren’t required to provide everything for their partner, because it should be an actual partnership.

So what do we now when so many pieces of literature and film already incorporate  the concept of the love triangle? I think the answer is to educate. Educate our females that they aren’t a trophy to be won, but a human being who has the ability to choose between countless options. Educate our men that they do not have to automatically find a wife or girlfriend. In addition to this, we need to educate men that they are also allowed to be human beings and can choose to love or be with whoever they want as well. While the idea of the love triangle has evolved very little over the decades, it is time that we evolve past it.

Comparison between Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight and Charlaine Harris's Dead Until Dark

Comparison between Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight and Charlaine Harris's

                                                        Dead Until Dark 

                                                           By, Reshma Varughese 

Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight and Charlaine Harris’ Dead Until Dark are about vampires and the human women who love them. There are several interesting similarities and differences between Twilight and Dead Until Dark. Earlier movies and novels portrayed vampires as scary, unattractive, evil creatures and as the representation of death. In contrast, both True Blood’s  Bill Compton and Twilight’s Edward Cullen, are attractive, chooses to make thoughtful decisions, becomes good citizen and dreams to be a husband to mortal women. They are both displayed as mainstreaming vampires that are trying to assimilate into society. The vampire Bill in Dead Until Dark depends on the synthetic blood and doesn’t feed off of humans other than volunteers. Similarly, Edward is referred to as a “vegetarian” in the movie Twilight. Another obvious similarity is that Sookie in Dead Until Dark and Edward in Twilight can read minds. Also, Bill and Bella have minds that are unreadable. Moreover, there are shape-shifting in both Twilight and Dead Until Dark. In True Blood, Sam is portrayed as a shapeshifter. In parallel, Twilight portrays werewolves as shapeshifters. The female characters in both the Twilight and True Blood are described as virgins and unlike other humans, both Sookie and Bella are above the influences of vampires. Similarly, in both the movie and the novel the head group of vampires is interested in the main female characters. In the movie, Volturi wants Bella to change and in the novel, Eric is interested in Sookie. In both the series the protagonist is a woman who finds love and comfort with a vampire.   Furthermore, in Twilight there are both good and bad vampires however; the most important vampires are the Cullens and they chose to live with humans and not feed off them. Similarly, in Dead Until Dark, there are both good and bad vampires, however; two important vampire characters are Bill Compton and Eric Northman.

The biggest difference between the Twilight and Dead Until Dark is that the Twilight is aimed at a teenage audience and the characters in Twilight are high schoolers. Whereas, Dead Until Dark is aimed at adults and therefore, there are more sex and actions displayed. In the novel Dead Until Dark sex is something that the reader is introduced since the beginning when Sookie’s brother Jason enters the bar Merlotte’s: “Even Arlene tucked in her T-shirt when 26 Jason came in, and after four husbands she should have known a little about evaluating men” (Dead Until Dark, 6). Another difference is that the female character, Bella in Twilight is very dependent on the male vampire. In contrast, in True Blood, the male vampire is less dominating in his relationship with Sookie and Sookie is more independent and is employed. Furthermore, both the novels have female narrators; but the difference is that Sookie is a telepath and can read minds. Similarly, The age of the female narrators in both the novels is different where Bella is a student in high school and Sookie is a barmaid. Also, the world that Twilight’s Bella and True Blood’s Sookie live in are different. In Sookie’s world mainstreaming vampires are common whereas, in Bella’s world is not aware of vampires. As seen at the beginning of Twilight when Bella first met Edward she thinks “Was it because the day was finally coming to a close, or because I was waiting for his tight fist to loosen? It never did; he continued to sit so still it looked like he wasn’t breathing. What was wrong with him? Was this his normal behavior?” (Twilight, 21).  Another difference is that Sookie doesn’t want to be a vampire whereas, Bella dreams for eternal life. Moreover, the fact that Bella and Edward have a child together makes Twilight different from all the other vampire series. 

In conclusion, although there are several differences one thing that is common in both Twilight and Dead Until Dark is that the vampires are desired by the protagonists. The vampires in these series do not follow the traditional look and act of vampires which makes them interesting. 

Is It Possible to Sympathize with Monsters?

Bruno Celis

Is It Possible to Sympathize with Monsters?

            When we think of monsters, we tend to think of negative characteristics such as cruel, ruthless, frightening, etc. However, Charlaine Harris humanizes vampires in her novel Dead Until Dark. As a result, the reader sympathizes with Bill and his struggles to maintain his intimate relationship with Sookie. Bill, although imperfect, is in a position many of us can relate to and thus makes us connect with him despite our knowledge that he is a murderous vampire.

            To reiterate, Bill is desperate to keep himself and Sookie safe from the head vampire Eric, who is trying to disrupt their relationship by courting Sookie. For instance, Bill travels to New Orleans to win an election, giving him a more prominent status and thus making it harder for Eric to attack him. Despite knowing the Bon Temps murderer is still on the loose, Bill risks leaving Sookie from his protection because he hopes his actions will be beneficial for the long-term. Bill does recognize Sookie’s vulnerability, so he directs Bubba to keep watch for intruders at Sookie’s house. Bill’s entire plan stems from his love for Sookie, which is nearly unthinkable he is capable of caring that much for a human considering he is not even human himself. Harris clarifies that not all vampires are like Bill and are instead like what we would think a vampire would be – evil, bloodthirsty monsters. Humans warn Sookie about how vampires are unpredictable and can cause trouble. Bill’s trio of friends – Malcolm, Diane, Liam – only increase the human’s concern and hatred for vampires by harassing people in Bon Temps. Hence, Bill is significantly acting differently than how a natural vampire would behave. Specifically, Bill is displaying more compassion than expected. Because of this, I personally sympathize with Bill since I view it unfair to see a relationship crumble due to a more powerful figure taking advantage to reap the benefits for himself – I’m looking at you Eric!

Another source of Bill and Sookie’s hardships comes from vampire discrimination. It is revealed that Rene murdered women who had intimate relationships with vampires. Poor Bill just can’t get a break. He had to fight in the Civil War and instead of dying peacefully, he became an undead monster. Yet he puts in the effort to mainstream by being in a relationship with Sookie and tries to treat her well, but people like Rene despise the idea that vampires can live as equally as humans. Rene’s viewpoints reflect modern racism, although most racism does not as extreme as Rene does. Nevertheless, I feel sorry for Bill since he has to constantly worry for Sookie’s safety just because she likes him. Rene knows he can’t take on a vampire, so he targets the human side of the relationship to express his anger. Either way, Bill can’t enjoy being with Sookie as calmly if he were simply human. Personally, I don’t recall being excluded from doing or wanting things due to my ethnicity, but I can imagine how difficult and frustrating it is to be victims of racism – or vampire discrimination in Bill’s case. Thus, I believe monsters can be sympathized with if they are given predicaments that readers can personally relate to – no matter if the monster they relate to is a terrifying, remorseless creature, as popular culture would characterize it.

Homosexuality and Heteronormativity in Vampire Fiction

Homosexuality and Heteronormativity in Vampire Fiction

By Syeda S. Raza

With the predisposition of seducing, biting, penetrating and sucking vampirism is perhaps the highest symbolic representation of eroticism. Vampires in literature are often not fixed in their sexuality but prefer both men and women. They are often polygamous and driven by a thirst of blood combined with sex. While vampires represent eroticism broadly, a recent trend has materialized in vampire fiction, particularly Dead until Dark, that focuses on the association between vampirism and homosexuality. Contrastingly, a frightening tendency toward the normalization of bloodsuckers within Twilight is also seen.

In Dead until Dark where vampirism is presented as an illness, homosexuality is also presented as an illness. Like homosexual couples, the novel portrays that vampires are also not able to conceive biological children. In the novel, the bill explains Sookie “We can have sex, but we can't make children or have them” (78). Also, vampirism and homosexuality both are presented as an illness specifically when Charlene portrays the homosexual vampire infected with the “Sino-virus1”. Where Sino-virus makes vampires sick, weak and could even kill them, it also provides evidence that Charlene Harris is comparing Sino-virus with AIDS and HIV among homosexual men. Moreover, the fictional term “fan-banger” seems to be adapted from the word fag hag. A “fag hag” is a heterosexual woman who associates mostly with homosexual or bisexual men. While fan bangers are not respectable women in the novel, so are fag hags in contemporary society. Sookie describes fan-bangers in the novel as “…extraordinary, and extraordinarily pathetic”. (110). Thus, it is evident that Charlene Harris has stigmatized homosexual men as vampiric. Not only do homosexual men and vampires share the same stigmatizing traits but the vampirism itself is shown as a metaphor for homosexuality.

However, Stephanie Meyer’s chaste and conservative Twilight demonstrates this tendency toward the “so-called” normalization of the vampire figure. Despite the obvious ambiguity of Edward’s sexual appeal, there are no homosexual couples in the novel nor even a nod to the fact that not everyone on the planet is hetero! As for the widespread heteronormativity the book upholds, all characters are represented as heterosexual in a hetero-monogamous marriage and thus represent the ideal. Twilight mostly centers around a morally righteous family of vampires referred to as ‘The Cullen’s’ who construct an image of vampirism that is white moneyed, educated, patriarchal and domestic; contrary to what is shown in Dead until Dark. It seems as if in the light of Cullen’s, Stephanie Meyers was representing the American dream family. The question arises as to why Meyer’s chose to make every single character heteronormative and have monogamous relationships?

As simple as it seems, Stephanie Meyer and Charlene Harris are a representation of so-called ideal writers who show no compliance in their own writing. Meyer’s representation of an ideal vampire or non-vampire shows that it is extremely likely that she herself believes homosexuality is wrong or because she didn’t have confidence in writing of a homosexual character. Similarly, Charlene Harris’s presentation of vampirism and homosexuality as an illness, and also the representation of homosexuality in minorities shows how limited she is in her writing. I believe, the writing of both authors depicts their conservative thinking and their in-acceptance of the fact that we live in a society where there are freedom and liberty in the choice of one’s sexuality. Thus, writers should focus on portraying that diversity in their writing without stigmatizing the beliefs of people that are distinct in their practices.