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 - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...
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

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF
Post a Comment
Read more

tolkiens legendarium - Did Gandalf wear his Ring of Power throughout the trilogy?

After Gandalf discovered that Sauron was back and sent Frodo on his quest to Rivendell, did he continue to wear Narya (one of the Three Rings)? It seems like a huge risk to continue to wear it after the Nazgûl (Ringwraiths) started to try and reclaim the One Ring; if they managed to get the ring to Sauron, couldn't he be corrupted by his power? Whatever powers Narya bestows upon him couldn't possibly be worth the huge risk, could it? Answer When Sauron forged the one ring and put it on his finger, the other ring bearers were immediately aware of him and his intentions and removed their own rings. There is no reason why they couldn't merely do so again. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and preceived that he would be master of them, and of all they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings. "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age," Silmarillion
Post a Comment
Read more