Vampires are Gay
Or at least the vast majority of influential fiction written about them is steeped in homosexual undertones. The tension between Polidori and Byron writhes throughout's Polidori's novella, The Vampyre and LeFanu does not even attempt to be subtle about the lesbian qualities of his title character in Carmilla. And now that I've finally read through the entire book, Reminiscences of Henry Irving, penned by Bram Stoker in 1906 after the actor's death, I can heartily say that there's some tension between those two in their fictional alter-egos as well: Dracula for Irving and both Van Helsing and Renfield for Stoker.



A lot of folks who write literary criticism claim that Stoker idolized Irving, citing Reminiscences as the proof of this idolization. But consider the cultural milieu in which Stoker existed: steeped in the theater culture of Victorian London, he was friends with Oscar Wilde. So close was their relationship that they romanced the same woman, with Stoker eventually marrying her once Wilde got tired of the gal.

Of course, Stoker's involvement in the gay underground active in England during his time is just as much a point of conjecture as his involvement in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, also active in England during his day. The same arguments work on both ends: He had tons of friends involved in the Order and he spent a lot of time with those people. The social circles he moved in almost demanded that he interact with these people and encounter many of the same influences that influenced their practices and beliefs. And yet whether or not he himself was a member of the Golden Dawn is still hotly debated (despite the fact that James and Alex Baker, in their contribution on Crowley's vampirism in Vampires: In Their Own Words seems to lay the matter to rest, IMO). There's no decisive proof that he was actively involved in either the occult underground of Victorian England or the homosexual underground of the same, and yet the circumstantial evidence mounts up.

But I'll let Stoker speak for himself, as he does so eloquently and effusively throughout Reminiscences:

"so great was the magnetism of his genius, so profound was the sense of his dominance... recreated by a force of passion which was like a new power." (p. 29)

"Soul had looked into soul! From that hour began a friendship as profound, as close, as lasting as can be between two men." (p. 33)

"And the sight of his picture before me, with those loving words, the record of a time of deep emotion and full understanding of us both, each for the other, unmans me once again as I write." (p. 33)

Idolization. That word -- I do not think it means what you think it means!

So ... Stoker may have been in love with Irving quite literally -- and expressed this love through his writing. But what does that really mean for vampire literature?

It's interesting that Stoker, who envisioned Irving playing Dracula on the stage, redirects all of the character's sexuality to his mouth (as well as his eyes, which Stoker repeatedly has lit-gasms over in Irving's case). Polidori does the same thing with his character, Ruthven. In a word, vampires suck, yet not in a receptive female way. The expression of their sexuality through biting is dominant/phallic. I don't need to go all Freudian on everyone to complete that thought, do I?

What it means for vampire literature is about the real appeal vampires hold for us, over and over again. In literature, the vampire is a wish-fulfillment figure and, more than that, it is an expression of darker sexual desires. Vampires, since they are not properly human and therefore exist beyond the bounds of human rules, can engage in forbidden sexuality with impunity. And, so long as humans are seen as their "victims" -- individuals upon whom this forbidden sexuality is forced, whether through physical or metaphysical dominance, then the protagonists of these tales can engage in this forbidden sexuality without the stain of guilt or remorse. After all, it's not their fault the vampire came stalking along, hungry for their blood.

This raises some interesting things for the appeal of Twilight. In Polidori's and Stoker's times (even in Rice's decade) homosexuality was certainly a forbidden expression of sexuality. With even IOWA getting in on the gay marriage thing, I think we can safely say that, although still a controversial topic, homosexual behavior is hardly the taboo that it once was.

So what are our current sexual taboos?

Consider the age difference between Edward and Bella, add in the stalking behavior he exhibits throughout the books, and I think you'll have your answer...

--M