Skip to main content

Why Vampires Shouldn't Sparkle


Now, before everyone starts screaming that this joke is old and tired, let me just say that there is a reason why the title is as it is.

Because it's not just "Twilight" that's guilty of a sin against horror.  It's any book, movie, or game that tries to humanize monsters.

Vampires, werewolves, zombies, etc are monsters for a reason.  They are cursed creatures- meant to symbolize the darkest parts of our Society and ourselves.

Vampires symbolize the parasitic, greedy, lustful, cold hearted parts of Society.  They are predators that prey on the innocent in order to survive.  They lust for the life blood of those around them, seeing mortals as nothing more than cattle- contemptuous because the living have souls, while they are souless, empty shells greedily trying to fill themselves up with life.

Kinda like a large corporation or government when you think about it.

Vampires are supposed to have no soul (part of being cursed and undead), they're missing that vital element that is generally accepted to be the source of love, compassion, mercy.  Part of becoming a vampire is losing that moral compass, and becoming corrupted by the darkness and the powers it bestows.  We don't like people who act like financial vampires by draining our bank accounts to satisfy their life style desires, right?  We don't like people who act like psychic vampires by draining us of our self-esteem, confidence, and good cheer in order to make themselves feel better, right?  These people lack a moral compass that would direct them away from that behaviour.  Why idolize a creature that sucks the life out of you- and leaves you an empty shell longing to be filled up with life again?

One reason given is that vampires are sexual creatures.  To an extent, they are... but they use trickery in the form of hynoptism to gain consent from their intended prey.  They seduce their victims, use them... and leave them empty.  Essentially, the women vampires neck with are being date raped, then often discarded.  The only lust they feel is for the blood that pumps nourishes you.  Once you give that up to them, you're useless to them.  It's like the handsome player flirting, and leading a woman on to think they're might be more to them... but once they have sex, they're gone.

Another reason giving for sympathetic vampires is that there has to be some that don't want to be the way they are.  I can agree with this one to an extent- but only because the Law of Probability dictates the possibility.  The only problem with this is psychology over an extended period- as demonstrated by the Stockholm Syndrome.  This is when a captive, over an extended period of captivity with their kidnapper, begins to bond with- and sympathise with, them.  Essentially, after awhile, they become what they started out resisting.  The vampire condition would eventually remove the resistance to feasting on humans (after all... cow blood isn't really genetically compatible with human biology), and the use of their powers would ultimately lead to them being contempful of mere humans.  Not only that- but guilt at having to murder people to survive would also take its toll... possibly driving the vampire to submerge the pacifist side in order to do what it needed to.

After 100 years, it's highly unlikely that a vampire would say no to a juicy human jugular vein... kinda like the way Donald Trump can't say no to a bad haircut.

There is a biological side to the vampire that makes it a monster.  The first being the fact that they're in between life and death.  This is because they've lost their soul.  They're doomed to spend eternity watching people live and enjoy life without being able to join them.  They have to watch family- immediate and descendants live and die without being able to mourn with them.  They are denied a place in Humanity without a soul.  This would add the psychological elements of jealousy and most likely a desire to destroy that life, and spread the pain by turning others into vampires.

And there's the whole sunlight thing.  There is a reason WHY they burst into flames in sunlight (and not pretty fairy dust sparkles).  When they were transformed into a vampire, they are damned to darkness- which is when Satan is supposed to have the most power.  Sunlight is God's domain.  Those under Satan's domain are unable to battle the holy light of God as illustrated by sunlight.  Since God's power is stronger, they're bodies are unable to handle it- and thus are destroyed by the righteous fire that erupts from contact.

On a side note- the above scenario isn't all THAT far fetched, since there is a condition called  xeroderma pigmentosa (used quite effectively in "The Others" (2001)) where those afflicted are sensitive to sunlight.

The final biological thing that makes a vampire a monster to be feared is their manner of reproduction.  As has been pointed out in a couple of "Twlight" memes, since vampires don't have a heartbeat, there's no blood pressure, thus no blood flowing through the body.  Since there's no blood flow in the body, there can be no flow of blood to their... well, their danglies.  In addition to being impotent, they most likely don't produce sperm, since cell division has essentially stopped at the moment of becoming a vampire.  Because of this, they can't get a woman pregnant.

But that's not the part of it that makes them a monster.  Since they can't have sex the normal way, their sexual act comes via sucking the blood out of their victim and transforming them into a vampire- passing their curse on through their saliva.  This is one of the common ways that sexually transmitted diseases are passed around.  And to add to it- vampire have more than one victim... and knowingly spread their curse.

So... when you look at vampires realistically, I think most of us can agree that there are very good reasons why vampires are monsters... and shouldn't sparkle...

Would you like to see my analysis of other famous movie monsters?  E-mail me at cornerofterror@hotmail.ca, and I'll get to work on it!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Grave Questions: Jessica Cameron

February is " Women in Horror Month "- a month in which to celebrate the impact that women have had on the genre and the industry- from writing, to acting, to directing and producing. Jessica Cameron has experienced the industry in all those capacity- making her a perfect choice for me to ask some " Grave Questions " of in order to raise awareness of the great women in Horror. Please not that this article SHOULD'VE been posted in February, but due to technical difficulties, we're putting it up now.  Thank you. TCoT :   Which female horror stars helped to inspire you to not only enjoy the genre- but to get involved in bringing scary movies to the world? Jessica :  I literally said to my " Truth or Dare " producer, "If the Soska sisters can make " Dead Hooker in a Trunk " with nothing, then I can make " Truth or Dare ".  So needless to say that those girls have been a huge inspiration in everything I do behind the

Meridian: Kiss of the Beast (1990)

Sometimes, a director/producer will surprise you- such was the case during " Terrorpolooza 2012 " when I watched Charles Band's " Meridian: Kiss of the Beast " Catherine Bomarzini has come home after her father's death.  Needing company, she asks Gina to stay with her.  Soon, the two meet a wondering troupe of performers that Catherine invites to dinner at her castle. Catherine find herself pulled into a love triangle and an ancient curse that only she can break. After watching movies like " Evil Bong ", and " Demonic Toys ", I really wasn't expecting too much from this Charles Band movie- but I was pleasantly surprised by it. The story is actually quite interesting with lots of potential for eerie scenes, and character development.  It's a nice twist on the classic " Beauty and the Beast " story.  It's a bit slower than most of Band's other works, but moves smoothly and draws you with it. I have to ad

The Phantom of the Opera

  Not too long ago, I reviewed the silent horror classic, "Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror", and wound up being in the mood to view a few other of the silent horror films in my collection.  The next one I watched was "The Phantom of the Opera", starring Lon Chaney, Sr, and released in 1925.   A mysterious stranger has been threatening the star singer of the Paris Opera House- someone who has signs his letters simply as, "The Phantom".  This stranger wants to clear the way so his protege, Christine Daae can ascend to stardom herself.  Soon, her love for the Comte de Chagny collides with The Phantom's desire for Christine forcing both to take drastic actions in order to be with the one they love. " The Phantom of the Opera " actually underwent three periods of re-shoots and editing, due to poor reception and test viewings.  In 1930, a sound version was created- often assumed to be what is called "The Eastman House Print".  It is