this ain’t livin’ The only paradise is a paradise lost.

I’d been resisting it. The ad campaigns kind of turned me off, and I thought that the last thing we needed was yet another vampire show. I realize that vampires are pretty trendy right now, and I do like the novels by Charlaine Harris, although I haven’t read them in ages, but I didn’t really see the point of True Blood. And then, the price of the first season on Amazon became irresistibly low, and I decided to order it on an impulse to see what all of the fuss was about.

As it turns out, True Blood is actually pretty darn good. Being HBO, it veers into the realm of the porny on occasion (as do the novels, as I recall), but that doesn’t detract from the general excellence. In fact, my only real complaint about the show is the distribution method. As someone who doesn’t own a television, let alone subscribe to television services, getting HBO is really just not that feasible for me. I get that HBO is not like the networks, and therefore not interested in making content available online for free. I’m cool with that. But I would pay to watch season two as the episodes roll out, and I actually went to iTunes to do just that, only to find that only season one episodes are available; evidently, HBO doesn’t release episodes for download until they release the DVDs, which kind of defeats the point, if you ask me. I really don’t want to wait a year for the next season to get released on DVD, because I like the show and want to watch more of it, and because I fear I’m going to get spoiled on the events (the show deviates enough from the books that this is a valid fear).

I mean, here’s this show that’s a big hit, that people are really into, and HBO is basically forcing fans to pirate it. They could be making bank releasing episodes online for download, but they aren’t. Hell, almost a million units of the first season on DVD sold within a month of release, so clearly, people are ready to pay for this. What gives, HBO?

Anyway, on to True Blood. For those of you not familiar with the show or the Southern Vampire Novels, on which it is based, the plot is that the Japanese have developed synthetic blood, which allows vampires to go public, thereby creating an opening for all kinds of shenanigans. The protagonist of the series, Sookie Stackhouse, is a telepathic waitress in the employ of Sam Merlotte, a shape-shifting bar owner. Sookie, of course, (wait for it) falls in love with a vampire, Bill Compton. As the series progresses, we learn that vampires aren’t the only supernatural creatures that really exist; we meet shape-shifters, and werewolves, and fairies. The books are framed as supernatural mysteries, but are thoroughly steeped in the real world, and the same appears to be true for the television series, at least so far.

One of the interesting things about True Blood is that it plays with the stereotypes of the genre. In the first episode, we see Sookie saving Bill, in a reversal of the usual “vampire with a conscience saves cute blonde girl” narrative. The first episode also exposes us to the fact that humans exploit vampires, draining their blood for sale as a mind-altering drug. In fact, a lot of the first season of True Blood surrounds the prejudice endured by vampires, and the ways in which humans exploit them, right down to when Sookie’s brother Jason and his crazed girlfriend Amy kidnap a vampire to have a steady supply of V, as vampire blood is known, and Amy ends up killing the vamp after Jason has established a friendship with him, viewing him as more human than vampire.

You almost feel sorry for vampires, until you start to learn more about them and see that they do their share of exploiting as well. Vampires, for example, view themselves as superior to humans, and in several situations, Bill is forced to protect Sookie by stating that she is “his,” which means that she is his property and she cannot be touched by another vampire. (Which could come across as a bit antifeminist and all, except that men are also owned by vampires, and Bill obviously feels deeply uncomfortable with the concept of owning a human being.) Sookie is also used as a tool by the vampires, with Bill’s superior, Eric, using her telepathic abilities to find out who is stealing from him in one episode.

One of the interesting things about modern fantasy which involves vampires is that it features vampires who are the exceptions to the rule, who go against the grain of vampire culture. These “good” vampires become humanized in the eyes of viewers and readers, and we often find ourselves excusing them for shocking behavior; I find it interesting to contrast this with more classical works, in which vampires are evil monsters, straight up, and we do not view them as sympathetic characters. I think that this has to do with the shifting narrative of the other; as society has become more and more accepting of the “other,” we are forced to make the other more and more exotic to explore it.

I also find it very intriguing to note that in the modern reimagination of the vampire narrative, in which there are good and bad vampires, it is always a woman who falls in love with a male vampire. (Unless someone can name a man who falls in love with a female vampire?) The male vampire is the tragic hero, the woman is the innocent (Buffy, Bella, and Sookie are all virgins when they meet their vampire lovemates), and their love is forbidden, exotic, and oh so exciting for viewers/readers. Are we not seeing a reversal of this because female sexuality is scary, and therefore an experienced female vampire would be too frightening for viewers? Hrm, I think I feel a post coming on.

In this narrative, the male vampire is also allowed to do pretty inexcusable things, which we somehow except because he is a vampire, even though he has been humanized in many ways. Some terrible things definitely happen in True Blood, like the scene in which Bill is forced to make a 17 year old girl into a vampire to satisfy the terms of a sentence handed down by a vampire court, and they force us to question just how far we will allow the characters to go before being repulsed by them. While one might initially view a vampire legal system as a good thing, the Magistrate of the court is elitist, viewing humans as little more than blood bags, and his callous disregard for human life clearly runs contrary to Bill’s own beliefs, and it seems strange to see Bill submitting to the court when it’s obviously a very questionable entity. (Again, Bill is presented to viewers as the good vampire, not like those other bad vampires, so that we can feel comfortable with liking him despite the fact that he violates a 17 year old girl, and support his sexual relationship with Sookie, much as we only accept a relationship between Buffy and Spike by seeing that Spike is unique.)

The overarching plot of the first season was pretty close to that of the first book, Dead Until Dark: a murderer tracks down women who have sexual relationships with vampires and kills them, putting Sookie at risk because she’s dating a vampire. I think there are some definite comparisons to be drawn between this plot and beliefs about the “pollution of Southern womanhood” in interracial relationships. Indeed, the criticism that Sookie endures for openly dating a vampire is probably quite similar to that experienced by interracial couples in the South (and elsewhere) not that long ago. I think that the show does a pretty good job of confronting people with prejudices and asking tough questions, even if it’s in the guise of fantasy.

The books also explore the infighting between minority groups, which is something I just started to see in the first season of True Blood. All supernaturals are not created equal in the eyes of the supernaturals themselves, and many actively dislike each other. Since Alan Ball is kind of known for pinning social issues right on the nose, I suspect that we will be seeing more of this as new supes are introduced in True Blood.

The show definitely has some problems. Sookie’s friend Tara is a bit of a magical negro, and I’m not entirely comfortable with Tara’s mother’s character either, because she is a walking (or staggering) stereotype. I can’t say I’m too thrilled about the fetishization of a paternalistic protector in the form of Bill, either; while I think that Sookie is a very strong female character, her relationship is definitely problematic. Bill stalks her, is ferociously protective of her, and treats her like property, and while she rebels against this, she also eats it up; and let’s not forget the good old boys club between Bill and Sam, which involves periodic meetings in which the two alternately vie for Sookie’s affections and commiserate over her independent nature. “Ah, women,” they say. (Does all of this not sound familiar? Does it not appear in pretty much every modern vampire story? Could we please, perhaps, deviate from the norm?)

But there are some good characters here, and some interesting stuff is happening. I’m looking forward to season two, and hoping that HBO will relent and start posting episodes on iTunes. Or somewhere. (Or, you know, HBO, you could send me DVD screeners. That would be pretty cool. Please?)

The class divide is alive and well in the world of social networking, a piece of information which should come as no surprise to most of us.

The creator of the now famous Buffy versus Edward mashup has written an interesting piece about the inspiration for the project, and the ideas behind it.

The state is issuing IOUs instead of checks, which raises concerns about what Californians with IOUs in hand are supposed to do with them, since an IOU is not money. Fortunately, several California banks and credit unions have agreed to accept IOUs from their customers.

The East Bay Express addresses something I’ve been talking about for a long time: liberal environmentalists with a “not in my backyard” attitude, and the fact that if you are a NIMBY, you are not an environmentalist.

Queen Emily, a guest poster on Feministe, talks about why she hates filling out forms. I would highly recommended that cisgendered readers check out her post, because it highlights a very serious issue in the transgendered community.

Medical education in the United States is falling woefully short on providing information about how to treat geriatric patients.

(Earlier entries in the Joss Whedon and Feminism series are: “Is Joss Whedon a Feminist? The Women of Firefly/Serenity,” “Is Joss Whedon a Feminist? Buffy and Female Empowerment,” “Feminism and Joss Whedon: The Demon Women & Slayers of Buffy,” “Feminism and Joss Whedon: Misogynist Villains in the Whedonverse,” “Joss Whedon and Feminism: Angel (Part One),” and “Feminism and Joss Whedon: Angel (Part Two).”)

In one of the episode commentaries on Buffy (”Innocence,” Season Two) Joss Whedon talks about the fact that one of the most troubling tropes in the horror genre is the routine punishment of characters who are sexual. The blonde girl in the alley who dies is selected to die because she is sexual, and viewers of the horror genre are routinely subjected to the idea that sexuality can and will be punished, that happy relationships never persist because their participants must be punished for their sexuality, and that women in particular are not allowed to be sexual without facing serious consequences.

This in the commentary for a television episode in which a girl loses her virginity, and her sexual partner loses his soul and turns into a sadistic stalker who terrorizes her, kills her friends, and explores the depths of evil. (And manages to punish Jenny Calendar and Rupert Giles for their sexuality in the process.) Whedon recognizes the irony in the commentary, but I don’t think that this necessarily excuses his routine punishment of sexuality, and the particularly egregious use of rape as a plot device (”Seeing Red,” Season Six) in Buffy and later in Dollhouse.

Whedon is absolutely right. The oldest rule of the horror genre is that a woman who is sexual will be punished for it, whether she’s beautiful and highly sexual Lucy Westenra in Dracula or any number of blonde scream queens on the big screen. As someone who explicitly identifies as feminist and tries to turn a lot of antifeminist narrative devices and beliefs on their heads, Whedon fails miserably in this respect, only underscoring the penalties for sexuality, rather than refuting them.

Nowhere is this more obvious than with Buffy herself, who endures a series of tormented relationships. Whether she’s ashamed about sleeping with Spike, humiliated by a one night stand with Parker, or betrayed by Riley, she is consistently punished for being sexual. And the punishments on Buffy don’t stop with her. Cordelia, ashamed of sleeping with Xander, is punished by falling on a piece of rebar (oh, the penetration metaphors) when she discovers him cheating on her with Willow. Willow may enjoy a relatively sweet relationship with Oz, but she is also betrayed, and when she finds love with Tara, she is punished by Warren, who shoots Tara in the heart. On Dawn’s first foray into sexuality, her date turns out to be a vampire.

In Firefly, we see Inara struggling with her sexuality and being punished for it by being routinely called a whore and treated like someone’s property. Mal is punished for his brief liaison with Nandy by her murder, which is part of a larger plot which involves the punishment of a sex worker in Nandy’s establishment who had a child and decided to keep it. Angel is rife with punishments for sexual activity, including death for Cordelia and Fred, and Dollhouse features rape-as-plot-device along with mockery of clients who seek sexual affection, and (again) the explicit punishment of a sex worker who tries to exercise autonomy over her own body.

There are very few examples of functional, balanced relationships in Whedon’s shows. In part, this is because balanced relationships do not make for interesting stories and television, which requires a consistent push to keep relationships unbalanced. Yet, I find it interesting to see how many of Whedon’s characters are punished for sexuality and the exercise of personal autonomy and choice in the name of plot advancement.

One could argue that he is playing with the idea of punishment for sexuality, except that it’s too serious within the context of his shows. He’s not exploring it, or suggesting that people should not be punished for being sexual, but rather routinely punishing characters who are sexual, reinforcing the idea that sexuality is bad, and that people who participate in sexual activities should be punished for it. Sex in the Whedonverse means that punishment will not be far behind, and viewers know and to some extent expect this.

Blind spot, or the willingness to sacrifice supposedly feminist values to the interest of plot? I would argue that tropes surrounding sexuality are definitely not a blind spot for Whedon, since he recognizes them and discusses them, which evidently means that he feels it is acceptable to use antifeminist devices to advance plot. Especially when these devices include rape, I find it rather repugnant. Surely there are more interesting ways to explore characters and push the plot forward than to fall back on one of the oldest patriarchal plot devices ever.

What’s up with female journalists feeling the need to denigrate and humiliate themselves in their columns? Surely, women could write general interest columns without insulting themselves?

Someone once told me that even if I wasn’t a lady, I could act like one. An organization trying to break the cycle of poverty for black teens apparently subscribes to the same idea.

Identity theft is a growing problem, but identity thieves often get off scot-free. What gives?

At a recent Town Hall in Virginia, a woman stepped forward to ask a question, and informed the President that she had cancer, and no way to treat it, due to the totally messed up health insurance system in America. The President assured her that his staff would “look into” her situation. So, evidently, if you want health care, you should just contact the President directly. (He did something similar with someone about to lose her house during the 1008 campaign, as I recall, and it’s true, politicians have tremendous clout to push through assistance, but, uhm, I would rather have a system where people do not need to go to Town Hall meetings to get basic services.)

The sex trade appears to be feeling the recession at last. A smart entrepreneur might devise new services to attract customers who are cutting down on their, ah, entertainment budgets.

Abstinence is often pushed on teens, but the way in which it is pushed is often extremely misogynistic. Is it really about abstinence, or is it about indoctrinating people, including girls, with misogynistic ideas?

When I moved in to the hobbit hole two years ago, the fence which separates my yard from that of the front house was covered with a very large and very dead clematis. I tore it down when the fence was repaired, and have been spending the last 24 months staring balefully into my neighbor’s yard. I kept meaning to buy some sort of creeping plant to cover the fence, and not following through, and finally, a couple of weeks ago, I bit the bullet and bought some jasmine on the advice of the lady at Fiddler’s Green Nursery (who was very helpful), who informed me that jasmine grows quickly and is very tough, which makes it suitable for my yard.

I had to balance my need to be a cheapskate with my desire to have big plants, and thereby save time, and ended up compromising on some moderately sized jasmine plants. For general entertainment value, I’ve decided to chronicle their growth. The goal is to totally cover the rather ugly trellising I set up with rich green foliage, which will hide my neighbor’s yard from view (and the interior of my house from the neighbors). Hopefully this will occur sooner rather than later.

The jasmine plants are as-yet unnamed. Perhaps y’all can think of names for them. They are also looking a little wilty in these photos, I think because of the shock from transplanting, and because it was kind of warm. Anyone with jasmine growing experience who has tips and admonishments for me is welcome to chime in; I am determined that these plants must thrive.

The northernmost jasmine plant

Jasmine number two (and yes, that is an old school bus mirror)

Jasmine number three, and part of my neighbor's house

Southernmost jasmine (and ugly trellising)

Here’s hoping the jasmine gang thrives. And grows supernaturally quickly, because, by Pete, I am tired of looking at my neighbor’s house/yard/dogs/children. And I imagine they are probably tired of the view of my living room and bedroom.

How about, instead of spending 1.1 billion to “study” the “health care system” in America, we spend 1.1 billion to actually provide health care to Americans?

You’ve heard about the Mexican drug wars. Now, it’s time to talk Canada.

Air New Zealand has developed a novel way of getting people to pay attention during the safety speech.

China actually responded to criticisms and delayed the release of Internet censorship software? Astounding.

A fluff piece in the Guardian discusses True Blood and the collective media obsession with vampires, pointing out that there’s a reason people prefer vampires to witches, werewolves, and other supernatural figures.

I’ve been thinking about this question a lot, over the course of my Joss Whedon and Feminism series and in conversations with people about the fat hatred which seems to be so common to many Bryan Fuller shows. I think that the things people make most definitely reflect the natures of their creators, because art is such a personal expression, and I can’t really see how you can make art without integrating a part of yourself into it.

With television it’s particularly challenging, though, because while a single person’s name may be attached to a production, he or she is not the sole creator. Making television is a group effort which involves the input of numerous people, including writers, producers, studios, and even actors. Yet, we expect people to bear responsibility for the things that are produced and sold under their names; troubling antifeminism in the works of Joss Whedon, for example, is attributed to Whedon himself even if he doesn’t actually bear responsibility for it, because he is assumed to be the dominating creative influence, and more importantly, people assume that he has veto power over content, when in fact the situation is more complex.

Can we read things about people from the things they make? Whedon argues that we shouldn’t, and has expressed irritation with people who judge him or make inferences about him on the basis of his shows. But I think this expectation is a little bit unrealistic. We look at “The Sunflowers” or “The Scream” and we cannot help but make judgments about the artist and the subject, because the piece demands our attention and intrigues us. Because the piece is so compelling, we want to learn more about the person behind it, and we use the piece to facilitate that learning.

Is Bryan Fuller antifeminist and antifat? You might think so from the content of some of his series. But maybe he’s not. Is Joss Whedon antifeminist? Again, you might think so from his work, even though he identifies as a feminist. Maybe the troubling content in television shows is the result of network influences, or other writers, or even short sightedness, and a failure to understand that some of this content could be read in a negative way. Is ignorance an excuse? I want to say no, but the fact is that sometimes I am shockingly ignorant, and when I am corrected, I am genuinely contrite, and it’s a valuable lesson.

The question of whether or not people are what they make is closely yoked with the question of whether or not bad people can make good things, which is something I touched upon briefly a few weeks ago. I’m not sure I know the answer to that question, because I’m not sure that creators can be divorced from their work, or that creative work should be viewed in a vacuum. The intent and beliefs of the creator are entwined with it, intentionally or not.

In gender equality news, Venice just got its first female gondolier, and the PTA got its first male national president!

Is shipping electronic waste overseas for recycling socially responsible, or questionable? I think it’s pretty questionable, due to the fact that electronic waste is usually processed by people who are unqualified and it’s becoming a major pollutant in places in India and China, but other people think it can be done ethically and responsibly.

Woo hoo! Madoff got the maximum sentence for his crimes. Now, to put the rest of the financial criminals in this country in jail, rather than just using Madoff as a scapegoat to appease the angry masses.

Another legal challenge to Prop 8 hits the courts this Thursday.

Remember Iran? Yeah, everyone was all worked up about it for about thirty seconds last week before it was swept away by the next trendy news item? Well, hundreds of people are dead or missing, and the Guardian is collecting their stories.

Last year, the French banned the headscarf, arguing that it conflicted with French values. Now, the French are proposing a ban on the burqa. Both of these bans are ostensibly supposed to promote women’s freedoms while protecting French values, but I believe that they do just the opposite, and I find them troubling and disturbing.

Such bans carry a racial tinge, because the burqa and other forms of hijab are associated with communities in the Middle East. (It’s not just Muslimahs who veil.) France has a very shaky record on racial issues and continuing racial problems, so I’m not quite sure how racist legislation is going to help them fix that. I also feel very strongly that religious freedom should be a French value, although the French appear to disagree, and that choosing to veil or wearing the veil does not infringe of the liberty, equality, and brotherhood of others.

In fact, banning the veil will explicitly restrict women’s rights in France even more, because many women may be forced to stay at home if they can’t veil outside. And not just forced by family members, which is the conclusion many people seem to be jumping to, but forced by their own values and beliefs. For women who genuinely believe that wearing the veil reflects modesty and good Muslim values, walking outside the house unveiled is unthinkable, and these women will either flout the ban to stay true to their beliefs, or be stuck inside for life. How is that liberty?

The criticism of the veil is that women are forced into wearing it by male family members, but it’s more complicated than that. Veiling is also a cultural decision, and part of a complex religious and ethnic heritage. One of the commenters on Feministe pointed out that for some women who wear the veil, veiling is like putting on a shirt before leaving the house; they are accustomed to it, and they would feel deeply uncomfortable without one. For them, banning burqas is equivalent to banning shirts for women, which I think most of us would agree would be pretty problematic.

I think that the burqa is being attacked as a symbol. If the French actually cared about women’s rights, they would be addressing issues like domestic violence and honor killings. Yet, they choose to fixate on garments which are worn as outward expressions of inward religious beliefs. Are the French afraid for the rights of their women, or are they uncomfortable with expressions of religion? Many people have a visceral response to veiling, viewing it as icky and offensive, but one could also argue that nudists/naturists are offended by clothing, and no one is seriously proposing a ban on clothing for the comfort of people who find clothing unpleasant to look at. If the veil is banned, should we also ban the wearing of modest Christian garments? The cross? The Star of David? Or is this really about targeting people of Middle Eastern descent to force them to assimilate?

The French argue that the veil is alienating, that they are banning the burqa to help people fit in. But is fitting in necessarily a good thing? Not that long ago, Native Americans were forced to attend government schools and they were physically punished for speaking their own languages. As a result, huge swaths of Native American heritage were lost forever, and cannot be reconstructed. Should governments be allowed to dismantle cultural traditions and values just because they conflict with “normal people,” prevent people from “fitting in,” or are personally repugnant?

Any personal messages you’d like delivered to the President?

With all the fuss over the peccadilloes of male politicians, one might reasonably be inclined to ask: where are all the unfaithful female politicians? (And, more importantly, in my opinion: why do we care about the sex lives of politicians?)

Speaking of the sexual adventures of American politicians, here’s an exhaustive lowdown on the investigation into Mayor Sam Adams!

Why is it that men who kill their partners and women who kill their partners are treated differently under the law?

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which means, of course, that police in Texas felt obligated to get their own little piece of history by raiding a gay club. And the famous pink triangle which bedecks Twin Peaks was burned (probably) by a vandal. But there’s also a nice op-ed in the Times talking about gay rights. It’s nice to see the Grey Lady taking an interest in this issue.