Also, this RFID/Barcode box thing has been going on for a while now. Golf Digest has had it, and I doubt it's doing wonders for their renewal rates. #esquire
I know people love to lament how Esquire has worsened considerably since the "good old days" or whatever, but since I wasn't around for those and therefore have no basis for comparison (kind of like early SNL) I must say that month after month, I continue to find Esquire fanfreakintastic. Love the fiction, the "funny joke from a beautiful woman," the one-page celebrity interviews, pretty much any article by Tom Chiarella...all in all, I find it to be one of the most quality publications out there.
I realize none of that addresses the real subject of the post, but the reliance on technology to enhance a hard-copy publication makes me unspeakably sad. Especially since I don't own a webcam. #esquire
@DahlELama: I love Esquire as well. Why is it that "mens" magazines are so much more interesting than "womens" magazines? Oh yeah, because they recognize a world beyond romance and weight loss. #esquire
@DahlELama: I have to agree with you, for the most part. It's still my favorite magazine to read, but I think it has fallen off a bit from 2001-2003, when I could read it cover-to-cover as soon as it came.
As for the "glory days", get any book by George Lois, and you'll have your fill. It was good stuff, but you can only read so much old news. #esquire
@kepster: Discovering men's magazines in college was an utter revelation. Funny how none of them ever devote more than 2 pages to "How to Please Your Woman," "How to Lose 10 Pounds," or "437 Grooming Products You Need to Buy Right Now or You Will Become a Hideous Beast That No One Will Marry." Kind of makes you wonder what the content of women's magazines could be... #esquire
I don't really buy this argument, precisely because part of what is so offensive about Twilight in general is the way it appropriates queer literary iconography and uses it for a Christian heterosexual virginity fantasy.
The modern vampire (as opposed to the medieval revenant or the ancient lamia, et al) has always been a queer figure: compare Le Fanu's "Carmilla", portions of Stoker's "Dracula", and countless other works of fiction, particularly in the 19th century when vampire fiction became popularized. The vampire is a stand-in for a generalized outsider. He or she is almost invariably foreign (often coded non-white, off-white [Irish, Italian, any kind of Catholic] and/or non-Christian), overtly sexual, and of some kind of non-normative sexuality (be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or just sadomasochistic).
Anne Rice and other 20th century writers have only served to underline this principle of the genre. Even Angel and Spike from Buffy/Angel were bisexual sadists, and that was on network TV! Being a vampire is all about being an Other so marginalized and demonized that the very touch of the sun -- of day, of polite society -- sets you on fire.
It's not supposed to make you sparkle before you head for the chapel to marry a heterosexual white girl.
@eleusiswalks: There is no "not supposed to be" with vampires. They are fictional characters. They can be whatever the writer wants them to be. There are also plenty of examples of the vampire myth that pre-date anything to do with the "queer iconography" of vampires.
@Atilla the Bun: Well sure, you are also welcome to write a revenge tragedy where nobody gets killed. I just don't think it's very smart! Literary archetypes have history and have baggage, and while you can reinvent them to a certain degree I'm not sure what is gained from whitewashing or straightening up a traditionally othered character.
@eleusiswalks: But I don't think Twilight and the Vampire Diaries have reinvented the archetype into oblivion. The same characteristics are there--the vampires in Twilight are very much outsiders. And thought they don't go around boinking eachother at first, they are "hypersexual" in the sense that the male protagonist in Twilight can't hardly kiss the human Bella because it makes him want to, um, eat her so bad. And when they do finally have sex, its so over the top passionate its kind of comical. Not to mention those characteristics were not exactly invented by Anne Rice & Co. that you mention.
I can see people not liking the teen vampire genre. But I don't see how its "offensive" because it misappropriates anything, much less gay iconography.
@Atilla the Bun: It's Twilight, specifically, that I take issue with. The Vampire Diaries I'm entirely unfamiliar with.
There are a lot of people more articulate than me with PhDs and stuff who have written about Stoker, Le Fanu and Polidori and the genre they created, and how it is very very queer. I wish I had some essays on hand for you, but it's been ages since I investigated this topic in a class setting.
Where this kind of thing becomes 'offensive' (I probably should have used the word 'problematic' instead, as it's less charged) is when archetypal characters generally used to represent marginalized persons are appropriated by non-marginalized persons.
For a rather extreme example, it's sort of like casting a white guy as Othello; sure, a "Moor" isn't necessarily a black person (more likely an Arab or Berber), but the literary tradition around the Moor means that the archetype is used to represent black people otherwise marginalized in predominantly white literature.
@eleusiswalks: I don't buy that example. Moors ARE non-white, inherently. No issue there. Vampires are not necessarily gay/queer. Moors aren't fictional. Vampires are fictional. So there's a lot more artistic license with the latter than the former.
And even if Twilight is some kind of appropriation of queer iconography, so what? No one is going to lose a Ph.D. over it. There's nothing new under the sun. The queer iconography you speak of was appropriated from historical myth. I guess I just don't really what's offensive or problematic about it. It's just another genre rising up out of centuries' old myths.
Ummm this theory might work if she didn't spend 3/4 of the books either thinking about banging edward/trying to seduce edward into banging her/trying to bribe edward into banging her. All of these people with theories have never even read the books, I'm a total book snob and even read them so i would know what the hell all my friends were talking about, they're not exactly literature but they're entertaining and a bit different at least.
I say this, and by the love of Jason Patric, let someone hear me. Vampires are supposed to be about sex. Whether hetero or gay sex (look at Ann Rice's subtext. Or various other novels where vamps are bisexual/bi-curious/ or just straight homosexual.) but sex nonetheless. I don't understand this virgin-vamp business. It's one of the reason's I hate Twilight. It's like vamps-for-babies. Which is soooo not what the lore is about. If you are a true vamp fan...this chaste, twinkle-dust, Disney essence of a vampire ode is complete farce. Women, even girls, love vampires because they are seductive, romantic, full of sex and dark magic, intrigue and lust. The bite, yes just the bite, is akin to sex and climax. I'm not sure how this Marche has widdled it down to some sort of teen hag fantasy, ( I think she needs to not watch Clueless for reference points on life, love, role modes etc.)
It’s all lies. Parents are buying into this little fantasy like it’s Harry Potter with daywalkers. She’s cashing in on the complete bastardization of the genre. Pffftttt!
Also, the sequel thingie with the werewolf Pekinese looks just silly. More blasphemey!
@Spirit Fingers: I don't think the vamps in the Twilight books are really "desexualized" There is a lot of sexual subtext in those books. Trust. The only reason it's not overt-text is because the books were written by a devout Mormon. I dated a Mormon for four years in high school and know how that thinking works.
As for the Vampire Diaries...never read the books, but I've watched the TV show and those vampires don't seem very chaste to me.
This whole Esquire article is over thinking things big time. People wanting/being attracted to what they can't have is just a part of human nature, and vampires are an extreme example of that. Not because vamps represent repressed sexuality or gay men, but because they represent something that you are drawn to but also might kill you. What is so hard to understand about that?
@Atilla the Bun: Okay, yeah, the Mormon thing explains a lot. *sigh* Can they please stay away from my chicken (Chick-Fil-A) and vampire lore? Seriously though. That's extremely incongruous...vampires and Mormonism. Vampires are all about death, sin, non-virtuous things...so to infuse this into a Mormon viewpoint I suppose would create a tomb-of-eyeroll like Twilight. All angsty and the wanting what you can't have business. It doesn't work for me in this context. Couldn't she have just written a menagerie of suck about that Duggar family?
Oh, and there will be sex on the Vampire Diaries very soon. I'm actually finding this show to be a cute vamp rendition, not great, but it has its moments, and the WB has just upped that Twilight ante if you ask me. It's darker and sexier.
@Spirit Fingers: Since the main Vampire family in the Twilight books vows to not kill humans anymore, I guess you could make some kind of religious allegory out of it...resisting sin and all that business. But I think it's just better to take them at face value--a teen fantasy about the most beautiful boy in the world falling in love with the awkward, shy, not overtly pretty girl while outside obstacles try to keep them apart. It's just a more extreme example of a Taylor Swift video.
I personally thought the books sucked (ahem) but I admit the movie is a guilty pleasure of mine.
I can't speak for the teen girls, but I want a vampire boyfriend because he would at least leave me the hell alone during the daylight hours so I could get some work done and have lunch with my friends.
I have to say that I can see both sides to the story. While SOME young gay men (and women) may be more comfortable coming out at high school age, this is certainly not universal. And who says that heterosexual women aren't turned on by male gay sex or sexuality? As far as I can tell, that's the hot new commercial porn audience.
@RollsRoyceRevenge: I agree that straight ladeez can be very turned on by gay male sexuality--not only slash fiction, but also the manga subgenre of "yaoi" or a show like Queer as Folk.
However, usually they want to watch two hot guys get it on (much like straight guys want to watch girl-on-girl action), not imagine a gay guy who wants to have sex with them.
I have to dispute your inclusion of the vampires in The Vampire Diaries in the "desexualized" category, because, first of all, they both get plenty of ass, and second of all, Ian Somerhalder couldn't play sexless if he tried, and I love him for it. Otherwise, carry on!
she is attracted to him because he is strange, beautiful, and seemingly repulsed by her
That sounds like multiple crushes I had on straight guys in high school and college. The gay guys actually didn't seem repulsed, they were great at feigning interest.
Okay, so I read the Twilight books when I was stuck in the airport for 3 days, and I don't get the seemingly common theory that the vampires are popular with teens because they are asexual. Sexual tension and delayed gratification are a common plot device, and the story harps on how Bella really, really wants to have sex, and when they finally do, it is not romantic sex, but headboard-shattering sex. It's a romance novel for teens.
@Porcelina: Well, men are coated with this protective miasma, which we'll call DemWo, short for "the demurity of women." When men strip down in public, they rely on the power of DemWo to make all the women magically look away, keeping them safe from any truly filthy thoughts that might harm them. Because if men were objectified to the degree that women are, the whole world might come crashing down, and then where would we all be?
10/29/09
10/29/09
[gawker.com] #esquire
10/29/09
10/29/09
I realize none of that addresses the real subject of the post, but the reliance on technology to enhance a hard-copy publication makes me unspeakably sad. Especially since I don't own a webcam. #esquire
10/29/09
10/29/09
As for the "glory days", get any book by George Lois, and you'll have your fill. It was good stuff, but you can only read so much old news. #esquire
10/29/09
10/14/09
I can live with that.
10/13/09
The modern vampire (as opposed to the medieval revenant or the ancient lamia, et al) has always been a queer figure: compare Le Fanu's "Carmilla", portions of Stoker's "Dracula", and countless other works of fiction, particularly in the 19th century when vampire fiction became popularized. The vampire is a stand-in for a generalized outsider. He or she is almost invariably foreign (often coded non-white, off-white [Irish, Italian, any kind of Catholic] and/or non-Christian), overtly sexual, and of some kind of non-normative sexuality (be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or just sadomasochistic).
Anne Rice and other 20th century writers have only served to underline this principle of the genre. Even Angel and Spike from Buffy/Angel were bisexual sadists, and that was on network TV! Being a vampire is all about being an Other so marginalized and demonized that the very touch of the sun -- of day, of polite society -- sets you on fire.
It's not supposed to make you sparkle before you head for the chapel to marry a heterosexual white girl.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
I can see people not liking the teen vampire genre. But I don't see how its "offensive" because it misappropriates anything, much less gay iconography.
10/13/09
There are a lot of people more articulate than me with PhDs and stuff who have written about Stoker, Le Fanu and Polidori and the genre they created, and how it is very very queer. I wish I had some essays on hand for you, but it's been ages since I investigated this topic in a class setting.
Where this kind of thing becomes 'offensive' (I probably should have used the word 'problematic' instead, as it's less charged) is when archetypal characters generally used to represent marginalized persons are appropriated by non-marginalized persons.
For a rather extreme example, it's sort of like casting a white guy as Othello; sure, a "Moor" isn't necessarily a black person (more likely an Arab or Berber), but the literary tradition around the Moor means that the archetype is used to represent black people otherwise marginalized in predominantly white literature.
10/13/09
And even if Twilight is some kind of appropriation of queer iconography, so what? No one is going to lose a Ph.D. over it. There's nothing new under the sun. The queer iconography you speak of was appropriated from historical myth. I guess I just don't really what's offensive or problematic about it. It's just another genre rising up out of centuries' old myths.
10/13/09
10/13/09
I say this, and by the love of Jason Patric, let someone hear me. Vampires are supposed to be about sex. Whether hetero or gay sex (look at Ann Rice's subtext. Or various other novels where vamps are bisexual/bi-curious/ or just straight homosexual.) but sex nonetheless. I don't understand this virgin-vamp business. It's one of the reason's I hate Twilight. It's like vamps-for-babies. Which is soooo not what the lore is about. If you are a true vamp fan...this chaste, twinkle-dust, Disney essence of a vampire ode is complete farce. Women, even girls, love vampires because they are seductive, romantic, full of sex and dark magic, intrigue and lust. The bite, yes just the bite, is akin to sex and climax. I'm not sure how this Marche has widdled it down to some sort of teen hag fantasy, ( I think she needs to not watch Clueless for reference points on life, love, role modes etc.)
It’s all lies. Parents are buying into this little fantasy like it’s Harry Potter with daywalkers. She’s cashing in on the complete bastardization of the genre. Pffftttt!
Also, the sequel thingie with the werewolf Pekinese looks just silly. More blasphemey!
10/13/09
As for the Vampire Diaries...never read the books, but I've watched the TV show and those vampires don't seem very chaste to me.
This whole Esquire article is over thinking things big time. People wanting/being attracted to what they can't have is just a part of human nature, and vampires are an extreme example of that. Not because vamps represent repressed sexuality or gay men, but because they represent something that you are drawn to but also might kill you. What is so hard to understand about that?
10/13/09
Oh, and there will be sex on the Vampire Diaries very soon. I'm actually finding this show to be a cute vamp rendition, not great, but it has its moments, and the WB has just upped that Twilight ante if you ask me. It's darker and sexier.
10/13/09
I personally thought the books sucked (ahem) but I admit the movie is a guilty pleasure of mine.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
I said "vampire" darling, not "drug dealer" -- though I admit the similarities are obvious.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
However, usually they want to watch two hot guys get it on (much like straight guys want to watch girl-on-girl action), not imagine a gay guy who wants to have sex with them.
10/13/09
10/13/09
That sounds like multiple crushes I had on straight guys in high school and college. The gay guys actually didn't seem repulsed, they were great at feigning interest.
10/13/09
07/08/09
On another note, holy juiced-up jeebus, he has got some big-ass feet
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09