Joy (cithra) wrote,
Joy
cithra

  • Mood:

stolen from codex griffonage

A vampiric screed, courtesy of Garyq:


Thus spake GC:

> Living or undead, I would say that feeding on another person's blood, without
> first getting permission, is evil.

If a vampires only drank from the willing, would they not be evil?
(Assuming, of course, that they also didn't commit genocide, send spam, have
the last name Scalia, or bear other indicia of evil.) Lucy Westerna _let_
Dracula bite her, and I believe Mina did too. I don't recall Dracula
drinking anyone's blood who explicitly didn't want him too (but it has been
a while since I read it.) However, consent did not spare him from Van
Helsing's bullet.

In "Nosferatu," the only person Count Orlok is shown drinking from offers
her self to him. She did this specifically to trap and destroy him. Now
who is the real monster here? Granted, his presence brought a plague with
it, but it was never even implied that he wanted this to happen.

Furthermore, what we think we know of vampires comes from works created by
the living. With the possible exceptions of Max Schreck in "Nosferatu" and
Orrin Hatch in "Traffic", the undead are conspicuously absent from film.
Hollywood likes to say things like "Vampires can't be photographed," or
"There aren't any vampires who are right for the role," but they also said
Louise Brooks didn't have a voice for talkies. That was a lie told solely
to ruin her career, just as these are lies told solely to provide work for
living actors.

There was a time when Bing Crosby was filmed in blackface and films like
"Birth of A Nation" and television shows like "Amos and Andy" portrayed
people of color as either beastial or buffoonish. Today living actors are
used to portray the undead the same way. Consider "Love at First Bite" or
any of the Hammer Studio films. Would an undead screenwriter ever create
stories like these (unless he were some sort of Uncle Vlad)? There are some
of the living who are sympathetic to the plight of the undead. Writers like
Anne Rice and Michael Romkey try to portray some vampires as affable,
sympathetic characters. However, their works still contain characters that
serve little function other than to perpetuate the stereotype of the "Blood
Sucking Monster."

There are things the undead (or vivially challenged) experience on a daily
basis that the living simply do not. Vampires need blood and can only go
get it at night. Zombies need fresh brains (or flesh, depending on the
variety). Ghosts are non-corporeal and can't touch or move anything. The
undead have to be constantly on their guard for people looking to stake
them, decapitate them or exorcise them. While the living can understand
these things in the abstract, they are all things that we never experience
directly and so we can never truly comprehend the forces that drive the
behaviors of the undead.

When looked at from the outside, some of their actions may not comport with
our current view of what is 'good'. Remember that they were once living
beings, like we are now, and that they may not be entirely or even partly
responsible for their current state. Before you reflexively reach for the
stake and holy water, imagine a pale Romanian nobleman saying "It's a dead
thing. You wouldn't understand."

GPq
Subscribe

  • blowing off dust

    More than once I have bought a "lifetime" membership in something, only to find the term weaseled into that-was-then-this-is-now. So this is a test…

  • the old dog learns a new trick

    My brother got an Xbox One as a premium for 15yrs at his job, and so I am slowly learning the arcane ways of the controller as an input device. I'm…

  • Not Interested

    Seriously, how rude and self-involved do you have to be to be so utterly convinced that you are right and I am wrong about something as to come and…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments