Quote from: KingCheops on February 26, 2021, 10:41:01 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on February 26, 2021, 01:24:16 AM
Queerness: I agree with Bedrock's long post that queerness has always been part of the vampire thing.

Yeah but queerness back then was a lot different than queerness now.  You don't have to go too far back to find "weird fetish" means hetero oral sex, masturbation, or even just a lady riding a horse non-side saddle.  Everything has gotten so coarse now.  If you don't support Bisexual Roadside Gas Station Meth Orgies you're a fucking bigot.  "It's a normal part of human sexuality!"

I don't think Stoker ever envisaged Dracula packing fudge.

Victorian people were more prudish in public life, and homosexuality was illegal at that time -- but that doesn't mean they were unaware of fetishes and homosexuality. Victorian pornography is full of all sorts of fetishes. For example, Teleny was a homosexual pornographic novel published four years before Dracula. I think there's a tendency to read Victorian classic literature and imagine that the past was full of polite, modest people who were all straight and vanilla -- but that's largely because of censorship at the time as well as suppression during the intervening century. The actual private lives of Victorian people are not well reflected in the surviving classical literature that people read today in libraries.

And yes, I think there is bisexual subtext in Dracula. Notably, this is from where Jonathan Harker is being preyed on by the wives,

QuoteAs my eyes opened involuntarily I saw his strong hand grasp the slender neck of the fair woman and with giant's power draw it back, the blue eyes transformed with fury, the white teeth champing with rage, and the fair cheeks blazing red with passion. But the Count! Never did I imagine such wrath and fury, even to the demons of the pit. His eyes were positively blazing. The red light in them was lurid, as if the flames of hell fire blazed behind them. His face was deathly pale, and the lines of it were hard like drawn wires. The thick eyebrows that met over the nose now seemed like a heaving bar of whitehot metal. With a fierce sweep of his arm, he hurled the woman from him, and then motioned to the others, as though he were beating them back. It was the same imperious gesture that I had seen used to the wolves. In a voice which, though low and almost in a whisper seemed to cut through the air and then ring in the room he said,

"How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him, or you'll have to deal with me."

I think it's well established that vampiric feeding is a metaphor for sex, and it's clear that Dracula passionately feeds on Harker.

Nuts on both sides of the loony fence have been trying to "prove" dracula or vampires in general = sex or now = rape has been going on since probably the 90s and the last iteration of this stupid. The Moral Guardians want to "prove" it because they see porn in everything and everything must be burned. On the flip side you have both the extreme end homosexuals and fetishists trying to "prove" it because they see gay in everything and everything must be pink.

We've seen this over and over and over. No. Vampires do not represent gays or sex or anything else these loons hallucinate. It is no different from storygamers trying to "prove" that OD&D or reading a book is a really real storygame! And its started up in the OSR too.

Quote from: Omega on February 26, 2021, 12:00:59 PM
Nuts on both sides of the loony fence have been trying to "prove" dracula or vampires in general = sex or now = rape has been going on since probably the 90s and the last iteration of this stupid. The Moral Guardians want to "prove" it because they see porn in everything and everything must be burned. On the flip side you have both the extreme end homosexuals and fetishists trying to "prove" it because they see gay in everything and everything must be pink.

We've seen this over and over and over. No. Vampires do not represent gays or sex or anything else these loons hallucinate. It is no different from storygamers trying to "prove" that OD&D or reading a book is a really real storygame! And its started up in the OSR too.

Even if you think it's stupid, thinking that vampires are explicitly sensual is from a lot earlier than the 1990s. When he played Dracula in 1931, Bela Lugosi instantly went to being a Hollywood sex symbol. In the 1800s, Lord Ruthven and Varney the Vampire were romantic figures before Dracula. Bringing this back to RPGs, the main plot of the original Ravenloft was Strahd looking for his lost love Tatiana. The second Ravenloft module had a good Strahd and bad Strahd struggling over their love, and this was the cover:

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 11:24:24 AM
I think it's well established that vampiric feeding is a metaphor for sex, and it's clear that Dracula passionately feeds on Harker.

  The metaphorical nature of vampiric feeding can vary; Dracula, for example, is less seductive than some of his predecessors like Lord Ruthven or Carmilla. But I know the text of Dracula well enough to say that it is not at all 'clear' that Dracula feeds on Harker--indeed, unless there's been some major new discovery recently, the general assumption is that the Count didn't, but simply pumped Harker for information and then left him for the 'Brides.'

Might there be sexual subtext in Dracula? Quite possibly; maybe even probably. Homosexual subtext? Considerably less likely. Affirmation and celebration of 'queer' sexuality? Most certainly not if you're going to apply it to the vampires; Dracula is a physically and morally horrific monster who is driven out and destroyed, and the novel ends with a breaking of his power and an affirmation of upper-class family life.

Vampires as sexual goes back well before the 90s. Just watch the first hammer horror dracula and its pretty obvious there in 1957 that feeding is connected a kind of sexual energy (the actress was literally told to act as if she had just had the best sex in her life in the scene following the feeding). You can even see it universal dracula to a degree. People do project too much sexual reading onto things sometimes (and sometimes something that can be seen as a sexual metaphor isn't necessarily so, and can carry other meanings). Vampires and sex though kind of have been going together for a while. I would say even Dracula gets into it. And Carmilla (which was written before dracula) definitely had that subtext

Quote from: Omega on February 26, 2021, 12:00:59 PM


We've seen this over and over and over. No. Vampires do not represent gays or sex or anything else these loons hallucinate. It is no different from storygamers trying to "prove" that OD&D or reading a book is a really real storygame! And its started up in the OSR too.

To be clear here, I don't think the original Ravenloft Module was intended to be about those things.

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 11:24:24 AMI think it's well established that vampiric feeding is a metaphor for sex, and it's clear that Dracula passionately feeds on Harker.

I also think it is something read into and assumed depending on the reader, like the many contemporary readers that assume that two male characters that are close are necessarily gay (Sherlock Holmes & Watson, Frodo & Sam, etc), no matter the context or point of view.  In the quote you mention, I believe we see Dracula from Harker's point of view, and not Dracula's.

One thing that makes vampires interesting is that metaphors can be turned on or against themselves, or have multiple references, and you end up with many types of vampires.

Quote from: Lynn on February 26, 2021, 01:01:46 PM


One thing that makes vampires interesting is that metaphors can be turned on or against themselves, or have multiple references, and you end up with many types of vampires.

I agree, vampires and feeding are metaphors for lots of things. And most horror metaphors work well if they have a timeless quality that allows for flexibility in reading. But I do think if you look at Bram Stoker and read the book, it is particularly hard to ignore some of the arguments around sex and queerness in it. But these things need to be reimagined each generation. In the 80s and 90s, I think we were mostly seeing vampires through the lens of things like AIDs (and to be fair, syphilis was a similar concern in stokers time).

But my only point that I was really trying to make here is don't re-write what ravenloft was about in reaction to the present changes. I am not saying old ravenloft is what Jessica Price wants new ravenloft to be. But I also played that setting more than any other, read just about every book and it definitely had a lot of room for those kinds of readings, and it definitely resonated with a lot of people for that treason. Obviously the original design team and the writers who worked on it were pretty diverse in terms of world view, so it often depended on the module, supplement, etc. One of the things I liked about the old line was sensing these writers all had different schools of thought around what Ravenloft ought to be. 

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 26, 2021, 12:30:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 11:24:24 AM
I think it's well established that vampiric feeding is a metaphor for sex, and it's clear that Dracula passionately feeds on Harker.

  The metaphorical nature of vampiric feeding can vary; Dracula, for example, is less seductive than some of his predecessors like Lord Ruthven or Carmilla. But I know the text of Dracula well enough to say that it is not at all 'clear' that Dracula feeds on Harker--indeed, unless there's been some major new discovery recently, the general assumption is that the Count didn't, but simply pumped Harker for information and then left him for the 'Brides.'

Might there be sexual subtext in Dracula? Quite possibly; maybe even probably. Homosexual subtext? Considerably less likely. Affirmation and celebration of 'queer' sexuality? Most certainly not if you're going to apply it to the vampires; Dracula is a physically and morally horrific monster who is driven out and destroyed, and the novel ends with a breaking of his power and an affirmation of upper-class family life.

I think a lot of the queer reading of Dracula centers more on what we know and speculate about Stoker. I think it is also fair to say these things are debatable. There should be room for subjective opinion on analysis of a book like this, and I am not saying you have to agree with this reading (personally I find the arguments persuasive, but I've only read Dracula once every 5-10 years, it would be very easy for me to misremember a detail or overemphasize something).

I do think though the stuff with the brides, the stuff with lucy and the transfusions, it can be hard to not see sexuality at play there (maybe that is me taking modern eyes to the book). I also don't think these things need clear answers. Clearly there is a lot of stuff at work making these things provoke strong reactions. It probably can't be reduced to just 1 or 2 things (and why the material resonates is going to change over time too).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 26, 2021, 12:30:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 11:24:24 AM
I think it's well established that vampiric feeding is a metaphor for sex, and it's clear that Dracula passionately feeds on Harker.

The metaphorical nature of vampiric feeding can vary; Dracula, for example, is less seductive than some of his predecessors like Lord Ruthven or Carmilla. But I know the text of Dracula well enough to say that it is not at all 'clear' that Dracula feeds on Harker--indeed, unless there's been some major new discovery recently, the general assumption is that the Count didn't, but simply pumped Harker for information and then left him for the 'Brides.'

Might there be sexual subtext in Dracula? Quite possibly; maybe even probably. Homosexual subtext? Considerably less likely. Affirmation and celebration of 'queer' sexuality? Most certainly not if you're going to apply it to the vampires; Dracula is a physically and morally horrific monster who is driven out and destroyed, and the novel ends with a breaking of his power and an affirmation of upper-class family life.

I am absolutely not claiming any sort of affirmation and celebration of queer sexuality. Dracula is a monster who is not intended to be sympathetic.

Still, he is a seductive monster. Contrary to your claim, I don't think there's any doubt that there is sexual subtext in general. Dracula might be less blatantly seductive than Lord Ruthven or Carmilla, but he's still definitely darkly seductive. And this isn't disagreeing with you, but I want to emphasize that Carmilla and Lord Ruthven predate Dracula -- so the sexual component of vampires is definitely not something that just shows up in the 1990s.

Likewise, the original Strahd is definitely evil -- but he is still an evil figure portrayed as being motivated by his tragic romantic love for Tatiana.

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 01:51:30 PM
I am absolutely not claiming any sort of affirmation and celebration of queer sexuality. Dracula is a monster who is not intended to be sympathetic.

  To clarify, I was pointing that out in light of the apparent goals of the folks working on the new Ravenloft, and how those are not something in the source material.

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 26, 2021, 12:30:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 11:24:24 AM
I think it's well established that vampiric feeding is a metaphor for sex, and it's clear that Dracula passionately feeds on Harker.

The metaphorical nature of vampiric feeding can vary; Dracula, for example, is less seductive than some of his predecessors like Lord Ruthven or Carmilla. But I know the text of Dracula well enough to say that it is not at all 'clear' that Dracula feeds on Harker--indeed, unless there's been some major new discovery recently, the general assumption is that the Count didn't, but simply pumped Harker for information and then left him for the 'Brides.'

Might there be sexual subtext in Dracula? Quite possibly; maybe even probably. Homosexual subtext? Considerably less likely. Affirmation and celebration of 'queer' sexuality? Most certainly not if you're going to apply it to the vampires; Dracula is a physically and morally horrific monster who is driven out and destroyed, and the novel ends with a breaking of his power and an affirmation of upper-class family life.

I am absolutely not claiming any sort of affirmation and celebration of queer sexuality. Dracula is a monster who is not intended to be sympathetic.

Still, he is a seductive monster. Contrary to your claim, I don't think there's any doubt that there is sexual subtext in general. Dracula might be less blatantly seductive than Lord Ruthven or Carmilla, but he's still definitely darkly seductive. And this isn't disagreeing with you, but I want to emphasize that Carmilla and Lord Ruthven predate Dracula -- so the sexual component of vampires is definitely not something that just shows up in the 1990s.

Likewise, the original Strahd is definitely evil -- but he is still an evil figure portrayed as being motivated by his tragic romantic love for Tatiana.

I am rushing to get some work done so this post may sound curt, but is not meant to be. I think one thing that often gets missed by a lot of people today, is things don't have to be super black and white. like it doesn't have to be a celebration or condemnation, or a moral lesson. Sometimes it just needs to resonate and impact you, and people are going to react to things in different ways. When it comes to tragic and sympathetic villains (which is definitely what Ravenloft was going for), I think that line gets even more blurry. A villain can be monstrous and commit horrendous deeds, but there might be something sympathetic about them that the viewer can identify with or understand, that helps the situation feel more tragic. A good example would be Phantom of the Opera. You are not meant to come away from that thinking that it is a good idea to stalk women from the shadows or to think that having bad luck in life and love justifies anything he does, but the tragedy of a person who has a serious facial deformity and have been rejected their entire lives because of it, and driven to commit terrible deeds because of their lonliness, that is something will resonate with people for different reasons (you don't need a literal facial deformity or to be rejected by society to understand his feelings because you've probably at least tasted some of). I think with Strahd it is the same way, you can understand his feelings of vanity and pining for his lost youth (that is why the backstory is structured so that he basically gives up youth, which his brother still possesses, to be a great military leader). His love for Tatyana comes from that, fear of death, etc. It is all very relatable even if his actions are horrible. And that is what makes it a compelling character. Most good villains are both compelling and repugnant at the same time.

Also when it comes to queerness, it doesn't necessarily have to be about sex. Bride of Frankenstein gets read through the subtext of Pretorius and Frankenstein making a creature together. But the queer reading is also about the characterization of Pretorius (how he completely rejects conventional morality), the aesthetics, the campiness (particularly around the humonculi). To me a lot of that stuff fits in right with Ravenloft which was why I made the comment initially.

Quote from: Omega on February 26, 2021, 12:00:59 PMVampires do not represent gays or sex or anything else these loons hallucinate.

They don't necessarily represent those things to the exclusion of anything else, but they've certainly been used to do so often enough that that association is now established in the Western pop culture zeitgeist.  Whether one agrees with that association or not, recognizing that a product meant for popular consumption is going to be seen that way by large parts of the audience is only basic acknowledgement of reality at that point.

Now that said, if one wants vampirism ultimately to be something that is itself the source of the story's horror, or of part of it at least, then the trope's original negative associations of disease, predation, and an unnatural disruption of the normal life-death cycle have to be present as well, and whatever sympathetic associations the writer wants to bring in as well can't trump those negative associations completely. The sympathetic associations have to point up the horror by contrast, not to negate it: the point of tragedy is that it's all about the clashing reactions -- we can all sympathize with Strahd in that we have all loved someone we cannot have, but the horror that desire becomes in Strahd, a force that turns him into a monster, his land into a hellhole and regularly kills his love herself over and over again, should rightly repel us.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan on February 26, 2021, 01:08:03 PM
I agree, vampires and feeding are metaphors for lots of things. And most horror metaphors work well if they have a timeless quality that allows for flexibility in reading. But I do think if you look at Bram Stoker and read the book, it is particularly hard to ignore some of the arguments around sex and queerness in it. But these things need to be reimagined each generation. In the 80s and 90s, I think we were mostly seeing vampires through the lens of things like AIDs (and to be fair, syphilis was a similar concern in stokers time).

I have read Dracula. I am not arguing that there isn't imagery there (esp in Harker's recall of small details) that is suggestive, but that there is a strong tendency to read more in. The general public knows multiple iterations of Dracula in media, and that can color interpretation further.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 26, 2021, 02:29:56 PM
The sympathetic associations have to point up the horror by contrast, not to negate it: the point of tragedy is that it's all about the clashing reactions -- we can all sympathize with Strahd in that we have all loved someone we cannot have, but the horror that desire becomes in Strahd, a force that turns him into a monster, his land into a hellhole and regularly kills his love herself over and over again, should rightly repel us.

Definitely think ravenloft was about the tragedy and leaned into having more sympathetic villains. That can go too far, to the point that they become not scary (which happened in a lot of 90s horror). But it is also a don't throw the baby out with the bath water thing because a good villain, at least in my opinion, should be both compelling and repugnant (you should feel drawn to them while also wanting to recoil). I always liked Strahd's backstory in that respect. He was still quite scary and evil, but you could understand his motives, you could sympathize with some of his suffering to a degree, but you knew his cruelty could easily be directed at you and backed up by considerable power