Skip to main content

Is there any down side to being a vampire in modern fiction?



By "modern fiction", or "modern vampires", I am describing a depiction of vampires where their role as monsters has been changed to that of heroes. Apparently some people call them "vegetarian vampires", though I'm personally not keen on the term.


I'm not sure when they started, but the hallmark of this particular vampire depiction is that the vampires are essentially super heroes. They have immortality, super strength, the ability to influence others, and many other desirable traits.


In stories like True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Twilight, and similar, it seems like they no longer have any significant downsides. They aren't ugly and freaky like Nosferatu. They can pretty easily get invited into people's houses (just "glam" them at the door). Religious iconography barely itches.


Even the sun, traditionally the most surefire and absolute way to kill a vampire, has been worked around. In Vampire Diaries, it's solved in five minutes by getting a witch to wave her hand over your favourite jewelry. In Twilight you just need to stand where it's a bit shady. In True Blood you can stand on the other side of extra special glass windows.


And what of the all important blood drinking, and the murder that goes along with it? Aside from True Blood's synthetic blood, why not just glam people to donate blood and drink it safely out of blood bags? Done and done.


There are still vampire depictions where vampires are still straight-up monsters, such as 30 Days Of Night. And there are stories where vampires seem to oscillate between monster and super hero, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (most are just fodder for being slain, but characters like Angel are essentially super heroes).



But if you are a vampire in a universe like True Blood, Vampire Diaries, or Twilight, it seems to me that the only downside to being a vampire is either intra-vampire politics, or, more commonly, each individual vampire's self inflicted psycho-drama.


Am I missing something? Are vampires in these narratives in any sort of physical duress or have any seriously debilitating afflictions that we are supposed to assume even though it's never shown? I'm sorry, but constant brooding and moping, and other problems solved with a modicum of self esteem, are just not convincing disincentives.


It seems that vampirism is just a ticket to being perma-sexy for hundreds if not thousands of years.


Why would anyone not want to be a vampire in these modern depictions?



Update: In order to address concerns that this question may be to open ended, I'd like to constrain it to the following points:




  • The downside must be physical, not psychological.





  • The downside must not be one of this list of traditional downsides that have already been worked around in one way or another in various fictional depictions:




    1. damage caused by the sun




    2. need to kill humans to survive





    3. damage from religious icons




    4. not seen in mirrors, or cameras or any indirect viewing (completely eradicated in modern depictions)




    5. damage by garlic (completely eradicated)




    6. damage by holy water (completely eradicated)







What does that leave? Plenty of possibilities. One that occured to me recently is that it is vague, at least to me, as to whether or not these vampires face eternal damnation for being vampires. Once a person becomes a creature of the night, is some kind of "hell" a certainty once they are destroyed? In the stories I am familiar with, I don't know if that is ever made clear.


Or it could be something else entirely. There are lots of ways to make it unappealing to being a vampire, and I wonder if it supposed to be assumed, or if it is ever stated.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Do the Kwikspell courses work?

In Harry Potter we are introduced to Kwikspell course in The Chamber of Secrets (and never hear about it again). We see Filch taking courses, presumably by mail. The descriptions of Kwikspell make me think it is for people who are weak in magic (kind of like how Neville was supposed to be when he was younger), but had magic in them nonetheless. However, Ron's comments later in the chapter make it sound like it is mainly for Squibs to learn magic. However, it is strongly implied through out all the books that Squibs are essentially Muggles, and will never be able to do magic. How then is a Kwikspell course supposed to work? Do we have any information to know if it works at all? Is it a scam? An answer from any level of canon is welcome. Answer Kwikspell courses are (probably) useful to some wizards, but not to squibs. The Kwikspell course literature comes with two testimonials. Madam Z. Nettles of Topsham writes: ‘I had no memory for incantations and my potions were a family joke...
Post a Comment
Read more

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...
Post a Comment
Read more

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...
Post a Comment
Read more