My friend made a similar post to this awhile ago but I think my problem with "cannibalism as obsessive love" or "blood drinking as shared eroticism" isn't the simple existence of the tropes so much as the fact that due to popular western culture, this ONE interpretation of vampirism and cannibalism has become the word of God interpretation.
Cannibalism is now allowed to mean nothing else except obsessive love, if one so much as dares to provide a different interpretation, it becomes far too bleak and disgusting to comprehend for a subsection of Western readers. Thinking of books primarily like Tender is the Flesh, Moon of the Crusted Snow, Walking Practice, even certain aspects of Hannibal NBC dare I say.
A slight digression into the NBC show; Hannibal cannibalizes humans not necessarily out of a twisted psychosexual need of intimacy, not always, not like Garrett Jacob Hobbs. More often than not, it's because he thinks they are "worse than pigs", his conversation with Dr. Gideon in the s3 flashbacks making it abundantly clear that to him, taking someone's bodily autonomy from them is okay if you're a "higher species/being". He cannibalizes people who irritate him, who instigate him, who happened to have been there. It's funny, it's petty, it's really darkly humorous, except when it's not, which is to say, when he takes the w***ig* form. I am not the biggest fan of Bryan Fuller's symbolism and his cherry picking from Indigenous cultures, but I am intrigued by how Hannibal is depicted in Will's semiconscious.
His mindset about his dehumanized victims too, is an interesting factor, when you consider how cannibalism has often been equated with the oppressor as a symbol of unsatiated greed in Indigenous horror; on a similar vein, one should see The Vegetarian by Han Kang for a gender aspect in Asian patriarchal society, where the heroine is brutalized for not allowing her body to consume flesh, or be consumed symbolically. Also, refer to the above linked article on Tender is the Flesh, which says, "You can’t call what’s going on here “cannibalism"....(it's) a literal Transition, from Taboo to Permitted", via the couching of it in livestock rearing terminology (or in Lecter's case, "ethical" hunting and fishing). Just as Bazterrica dehumanizes the "bred humans" as "head", Hannibal thinks little of the humans he eats, to him they are low hanging fruit or easy game; they deserved it, and because they could not resist the violence done unto them, unlike Will, who resisted, retaliated and became the perfect victim, they became breakfast. I would say he cannibalized Will without ever eating him. (I will also go into the psychological and erotic grooming aspect of Hannibal with ref to Will and Randall Tier in my essay...that too, is cannibalism).
Besides, as mentioned already, that show appropriates the image of Indigenous w***i** for its artsy aesthetic, when the creature is a monster specific to Indigenous, particularly, Algonquin mythos. Of course Indigenous horror looks at cannibalism in a different light: cannibal appetites and the monster itself is heavily connected to settler colonialism and greed. Not everything is about queer eroticism, Hannigram or Yellowjackets-style.
Note: Eat Your Young by Hozier, for example, definitely isn't about sexy times covered in blood, it's about capitalism and the military-industrial complex. You'll be surprised to know in what context that song is used online though.
Coming back to the topic of vampirism, which interests me much less in its current conceptualization, many readers slam dunked on House of Hunger by Alexis Henderson because the vampiric entity is a) not named, and b) tied to an almost blatant allegory of slavery and indentureship (see also: The Wicked and The Willing by Lianyu Tan). Idk what's more concerning, the fact that some did not "realise" that the vampires were a colonialism motif, or the fact that people regarded the queer relationships in these books to be merely primal, sexy, slightly "toxic" erotic devotion fantasies, rather than the sinister imbalanced powerplay of sexual coercion between racialized servant and white master–in a Victorian Gothic novel, that is one step away from styling itself as a historical antebellum allegory!
I have also seen people calling more nuanced understandings of these books "puritanical". Everybody is horny and nothing should ever be divorced from Freud, ever again. It reminds me of the complete forgoing of understandings of racial dynamics when it comes to watching Interview with The Vampire (particularly the Louis x Armand dynamic of s2, and the antiblackness of *many* IWTV fans) or reading a literary fiction novel about biracial identity and heritage like Woman, Eating by Claire Kohda, which I talked about here.
It's fascinating, if not particularly surprising how people pick and choose for dominant group narratives which taboo topic is sexy now, and which one is altogether too discomforting to be interpreted in a different light. Anyway, I will talk more about this in my essay about the oversimplification of taboo. My point is, these stories are all good, interesting (if flawed) "taboo" or dark fictional narratives. But isn't it boring to apply a single, overdone yet simultaneously undercooked interpretation to all discomforting stories, when sometimes, the canon itself is lending to other readings? Why can't there be more avenues of interpretation and discussion beyond the endless train of "cannibalism blood incest judas iscariot dog motif obsessive love"?
annaxmalina
blakekathryn
izzy806
janainaart
origamiaround
tangentwithtanner
theartofmadeline
