Dracula: The Dark Mirror

Vampires are not simply just mythical creatures that people like to write about, I think that vampires are a dark mirror for humanity. As humans, we have been programmed by society to repress a large portion of our natural desires. If we were to act on every desire, a coherent, working society would not be able to exist. This was even truer during the Victorian Era, where sexual desires were even more repressed. Dracula embodies the desires that the English society did not want to admit. Lucy is held up as a paragon of virtue, but it is after she becomes a vampire that she becomes incredibly attractive and sexual. The men do not want to admit it, but they are attracted to what would have been considered a “fallen woman”. By forcing our desires onto an external “evil” creature, we can take pleasure in the forbidden, but we do not need to acknowledge them. Dracula holds the same kind of attraction for Buffy. He reflects the dark side of Buffy and she desires to be able to share in that darkness. He has knowledge and power that she wants. Dracula, however, is not simply a way for her to cope with her internal desires; he is her way to defeat the darkness within herself. She says that her fighting him is her “true nature” and it is. Because of Dracula, Buffy begins to understand that there is light and dark within everybody, but it is how a person deals with their own darkness that defines their true nature.

Buffy vs. Dracula

One of the stigmas associated with Buffy is, for lack of a better word, the cheesiness of the show. On a superficial level, the show can appear to be silly and overly dramatized, with somewhat fake looking vampires and ridiculous special effects. Although, for those that actually watch the show, the plot is incredibly complex and extremely well planned and only gets deeper and darker as the show progresses. What I did come to realize in this episode, however, is just how meticulous Joss Whedon is. He is completely conscious of every subtle element of the show and purposefully has created characters and a setting to fit this theme. Although I have always been aware that Joss Whedon never does anything without a reason, I never thought about it in terms of mockery of the Gothic period, never having had very much to do with it before. This episode, however, brought to light the full extent of Joss Whedon’s understanding of the Gothic and the humor that he finds in it. Despite the debate in class over the term ‘meta-commentary’, I think that it is an apt way of describing the way in which Joss Whedon has decided to confront the Gothic tradition. He takes the stereotypes that have been developed and uses them, but in a way that the audience is fully aware of their ridiculousness, but at the same time they still work and apply. For example, the way that Dracula enthralls Buffy is so over the top and overplayed that even Buffy mocks the way that Dracula has gone about it, but at the same time, she does fall under his thrall. This is the same way that Joss Whedon mocks the Gothic, but in the same breath, acknowledges its importance and influence to our contemporary culture. The entire structure of the show is based on the same formula as Dracula and this episode brings that relationship into light. The roles of Xander as Renfield, Buffy as Lucy/Mina, and Giles as the van Helsing character haven’t changed in order to fit the Buffy vs. Dracula episode, so much as acknowledged their origins. At the same time as Joss Whedon pays tribute to Buffy’s origins, he also highlights their differences. The combination of Lucy and Mina in a single character demonstrates the dramatic difference in women’s rights between the two periods, as well as the change in attitude toward gender roles. Although Buffy is caught under Dracula’s thrall and Riley and Giles go to save her, she ultimately saves herself. In addition, the character of Giles/van Helsing is weakened, because he is no longer the ultimate source of infallible information. Although Buffy’s character acknowledges his use and knowledge at the end of the episode, he doesn’t have the power of van Helsing’s character and is more easily seduced and tricked. In Dracula, Van Helsing represents the ultimate source of knowledge, always providing the correct answer to any situation or problem. In the case of Buffy, however, Joss Whedon makes the point to the viewers that the Giles/Van Helsing character only has the power of information if we choose to accept it. Van Helsing was unable to save Lucy because the others weren’t ready to hear his explanation, it is only when they decide to listen to him are they able to pursue the proper course of action. In the case of Giles, his role as Watcher gives him power, but as Buffy grows, she uses him less and less. This episode demonstrates his realization of this and decision to leave because Buffy no longer values his knowledge. In addition, he is weakened by the way he falls under the power of the three vampire sisters and requires saving. His role and power as Watcher, however, are restored when Buffy acknowledges his importance and asks for his help and aid again.

The Thrall

I want to talk about the supposed "thrall" that Buffy was under during the Buffy vs Dracula episode. I have been pretty confused about the affect that Dracula has on his victims. Other than Lucy and Xander, we have yet to see Dracula's ability to put people under his "thrall" actually be completely successful. In the episode, Buffy certainly feels the affects of Dracula's power over her. Although some of it may be a ploy to get him to think he has control, I believe that there are instances where he does actually have power over Buffy. Yet, in the end she comes back to "reality" and realizes the enemy she is facing and vanquishes him. For comparison, lets also take a look at Renfield. Even crazy Renfield is not completely under the Count's influence. Clearly he has a weaker mind to begin with and I think that is what allows Dracula to have control initially, but even Renfield breaks the spell. Despite his lunacy Renfield finds the wherewithal to break the Count's thrall and rebel against him. Because of the inconsistency I think it reinforces Van Helsing's theory that Dracula still has a child's mind. Although he has super-human ability, I think we are all to believe that it is not completely sharpened just yet. Ultimately, Dracula's abilities are not as powerful as he would like. Van Helsing and the gang are correct to follow Dracula as he flees. We are to believe that any delay will make it more difficult in the future because Dracula's powers will mature and make him even more difficult to kill.

Angel Vs. Dracula

In response to Sydney's post, I think it is really great to have people who aren't Buffy-obsessed in our class because it reminds us that Buffy wouldn't be the brilliance that it is without the texts that it is derived from. Watching Buffy Vs. Dracula, now that I have read Dracula (I knew the folk lore surrounding Dracula prior but had never read the novel) was much more fulfilling and made me appreciate Buffy as a show even more. That being said, I want to use my post to explore things that are, well, literary, but mostly based on the show.

I want to talk a little bit about relationships between vampires and slayers. Sure, Dracula has a sexual thrall over all women (Lucy, Anya and Willow are examples) but there is something deeper when he envokes his thrall over a slayer. Buffy is able to break out of Dracula's, but this episode is very reminiscent of Buffy's relationship with Angel. In the 4th season episode "Restless" we begin to see the source of a slayers power, and how her strength is derived from a demon from the very beginning, and she is tied to the darkness more than she knows. Dracula sees this and points it out, but we also have this pointed out earlier in the series by Faith. Faith is overcome by the power and by the darkness, contrary to Buffy, but Faith importantly points out that Buffy is under a sort of thrall with Angel, and attributes this to Buffy's craving for darkness that she doesn't release elsewhere. While Faith lets her darkness show, Buffy supresses it. Now, I recognize that Angel is "good" but he is also dark and broody and sort of pathetic, like Dracula. He follows Buffy, and in the beginning of the series, plays the role of teacher to Buffy the pupil. Buffy's friends make comments in the third season about how she can't help but lie when it comes to Angel, and that she will always protect him. Though that is not a gypsy thrall, it demonstrates the sexuality between slayer and slayee. In "Buffy Vs. Dracula" we see Dracula take this role, contrary to Angel, and later in the series, we see it with Spike as Buffy finds she has demon and undead-ness in her and can't be protected from his chip. It is like Buffy is attracted to the paradox of the unknown mixed with what is a huge part of her. It makes me wonder if there is a similar paradox in Stoker's novel. Does Lucy perhaps have darkness inside of her? And what in Lucy draws Dracula, the teacher, to her? Is it her romantic notions of life? Does he want to show her that she can be powerful through her sexuality and rather than cry over the three men who love her, she should use it to her advantage? It seems a little far fetched, but it makes sense with the idea of turning her into a glam vamp to teach her a lesson.

To bring it back to the book, I want to talk about eyes. In the book, Dracula has red eyes, and in the show they are piercingly blue, but either way, the writers make a point to say that his eyes are both frightening and entrancing to his victims. For my final thoughts, I want to ask you all, what do you think the significance of this is? We know the significance of blood and the ceremonial removal of the head (or mind) to stop evil, but what is the power of eyes? Perhaps a play on seeing is believing, a little gothic play on the suspension of disbelief? Or perhaps it is just saying that when you make eye contact with someone, you feel an instant connection, be it positive or negative, and that connection sticks with you, like it stuck with Lucy when she saw the sunset in the man's eyes and was afraid it was Dracula.

Buffy and Dracula vs. Blood and Life

As cliché as it is to talk about blood, I thought Joss Whedon's incorporation of the quote "And blood, blood is life," was a really intersting detail in Buffy vs. Dracula. Between Carmilla, Buffy, and Dracula, we've already established the ways drinking another persons blood can be considered taking a part of their life force. However, Buffy's reaction to blood in this episode is different than audiences may have expected it to be. For example, the fact that she is "under the thrall of the Dark Prince," as Riley would put it, should mean that she begins having cravings for blood, or life, as Xander does. When Riley offers her the jelly donut that looks like it's oozing blood however, it seems to repulse her and make her sick to her stomach. Similarly, instead of Dracula being able to control Buffy even more easily after she drinks his blood, the blood bond between them suddenly breaks his hold over her.

I think this small detail that Joss Whedon incorporates is a difining part of what makes Buffy's Dracula experience unique. It's almost as if through Buffy's defeat of Dracula, Whedon portrays the lack of fear which humans now have for vampires thanks to the recent incorporation of vampires into pop culture over the last few decades.

A World Without Dracula

It's hard to imagine a world without Dracula and that modern popular culture could exist without them.  Between Trueblood, Twilight, the Vampire Diaries, and the countless books that have been written about them in the past decade, vampires have become so ubiquitous they no longer terrify us.  In fact, they now attract modern consumers of popular culture with their dark brooding good looks.  They have transformed from the gaunt monsters that haunted our ancestors nightmares to the heroes that inhabit our fantasies.  One of my friends even jokingly remarked, "Vampires exist, and they're using shows like Trueblood to make humans like them before they come out of the coffin."  Well, it's not a direct quote, but you get the idea.  Vampires are everywhere in modern popular culture and, thanks to Anne Rice, they no longer resemble the archetype that Brom Stoker created in Dracula.

In "Buffy vs. Dracula," Joss Whedon comments on this phenomenon and does so, as Claire observed, with self-aware humor.  While Whedon's Dracula loosely resembles Bram Stoker's - he is incredibly pale and has long fingernails - women still find him attractive.  Even Buffy, as Riley notices, is in thrall to him.  However, Dracula's attractiveness lies in his hypnotic eyes, not his strength or manly good looks.  In fact, he is almost effeminate.  Dracula must rely on his mind tricks, his mysterious mannerisms, and the promise of immortality to draw women to him.  Although I'm not as well-versed in Buffy as some of my classmates, I know this is not the case for all vampires in Buffy.  As a fan of Bones, I know that Angel (David Bozneaz) certainly fits the modern vampire stereotype.  Spike, with his muscles and British accent, would even fulfill many a fangbanger's fantasy.

In contrast to Angel and Spike, Dracula has become the parody of a vampire.  He wears a long black cape, speaks with an Eastern European accent, and is incredibly pale.  He is, as Xander initially mocks, a human version of the Count from Sesame Street.  While Buffy and the Scooby Gang are impressed and even terrified of him, Whedon's characterization makes him almost laughable.  The audience in no way finds him threatening.  Whedon even neutralizes Dracula's supernatural powers by dismissing them, through Spike, as, "Nothing but showy Gypsy stuff."  Spike clearly doesn't see Dracula as a true vampire.  By parodying Dracula, Whedon reminds the viewer, as he does almost every episode, that, like Dracula, the Gothic has become a caricature of itself.  It no longer terrifies people but merely amuses them.

This brings me to my main point.  As we've often noted in class, Dracula didn't exist in Victorian England until Bram Stoker created him.  While Victorian readers certainly had a sense, thanks to earlier Gothic novels like "Carmilla," of what a vampire acted like, they didn't have our modern homogenized conception of how a vampire should look and act.  As such, I'm sure many of them found Dracula, and everything he represented, terrifying.  We get a sense of this from the characters in Dracula, but we can never truly understand it because we are immersed in a vampiric and Gothic culture.  Buffy, especially the "Buffy vs. Dracula" episode, recognizes and plays with this idea. 

Mina the "Angel" and Buffy the "Dark Angel"

I sometimes feel out of place in our class. I know, objectively, that I’m not the only one lacking a membership card to the Buffy fan club, but sometimes it feels this way. I love literature. I’ve never been a really big television person. Sure, I watch some Gossip Girl here and there, some Food Network, and have recently developed an unhealthy propensity towards turning on Keeping Up With the Kardashians, but I’ve always lacked the patience to watch TV. Up to the current moment, my blog posts have been more “literary,” so I think I’m going to take a little break to express a more prototypical, angsty-opinionated blogger sentiment with this post. Okay, so basically, I really liked the episode today. Yes, Buffy’s pink pleather pants were rather, “kick-ass,” and there was something dreamy and “penetrating,” about Dracula’s eyes that made me reminisce about my childhood crush on the mascara-clad lead singer of Green Day, but this episode also demonstrated that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a successful show in that it is incredibly self-aware of its motives. What made “Buffy vs. Dracula” effective was how in-tune Whedon was with Stoker’s novel. Using the already socially awkward and “off-putting” Xander as Renfield was genius. This episode was also shrewd in that it was able to mock the previously established Gothic parameters, while at the same time, making the story resonate with contemporary viewers. Without having read Dracula, I think the brilliance of the script would have been lost on its spectators. Watching this episode made me feel the pleasure one gets when successfully close-reading a text. One of the biggest differences between the episode and the novel manifested itself in the comparison of Buffy to Mina. Both women are forced to straddle the world of the “un-dead” and that of the living. However, I would argue that Mina is ultimately the stronger of the two women. Though she was slowly turning into a vampire,” Mina clings desperately to her humanity. Her self-awareness acts as her ultimate preservation. Buffy may have eventually defeated Dracula, but like Dracula acknowledged, there is something “dark” in Buffy that she doesn’t yet understand. She still needs to learn about herself, to be taught. Buffy is more akin to the “un-dead” than the completely self-aware “angel,” Mina could ever be.

What does “Buffy vs. Dracula” do for us?

The more I study Buffy in this class, the more I fall in love with the series. Joss Whedon really did know exactly what he was doing, the whole time. Everything about the presentation of Dracula in “Buffy vs. Dracula” screams tongue-in-cheek. I didn’t understand certain aspects of the behaviors and references before reading Dracula, but now everything about the episode is way more interesting.

That being said, I want to briefly revisit the question we explored at the end of class – why did Whedon choose to include this episode now, at the beginning of the fifth season? I spoke a little about the juxtaposition it presents between New World and Old World powers. The last season just ended with a clash of Buffy’s ancient powers and today’s obsession with empirical studies. Having a “count encounter” now reminds the viewer of the other forces in the world besides underground military operations. We think of Dracula as old world relative to today, but Buffy’s power is much older than even him, harnessed from almost the dawn of time. Relative to that, Dracula’s assertion that he knows all about the slayer’s power and that her darkness rivals his own, seems a little ridiculous. Dracula is, after all, just an old vampire; in Buffy’s world, this means a human died and a demon set up shop in his body. Buffy’s power, as we find out later in the seasons, is “rooted in darkness” because it actually does come from the demon side of things. Fire to fight fire. Buffy struggles with this constantly, fighting evil with evil power and good intentions. So although Dracula at this point serves to point back to the Old World and how Buffy is suspended between the two, he also provides a spring board for Buffy’s further study of her ancient power. In the end, her love and courage are more powerful than her physical strength, although that certainly helps a lot in fighting Glory, the big bad of this season.

Vampire Slayer?

The aspect of the hallmark episode Buffy vs. Dracula that most intrigued me was the moment in which Dracula commented on how he and Buffy were actually quite similar, and that she had powers “so close to [his] own”. For me, as an irregular viewer of Buffy, this moment represented the first time in the series that anything sinister is associated with the mysterious “slayer” powers that Buffy has. Seeming to imply that Buffy’s abilities come from the same demonic realm that empowers vampires and demons, Dracula attempts to convince Buffy that she is more like him than other humans. He comments on the way in which she feels like she does not belong with other humans, and for the most part, this fact resonates deeply inside Buffy. On many levels, Buffy does feel like an outcast, unlike normal people, and this fact makes the viewers question where exactly Buffy’s powers come from. If Buffy is truly more like the demons she devotes her life to slaying, is she fighting on the right side? This sort of question is what makes this episode a truly intriguing one to watch.

Buffy and Mina vs. Dracula

The episode “Buffy vs. Dracula” is both a updating of, and meta-commentary on, the well-known “Dracula” myth. In this way, Buffy is set up as a sort of heir to Mina and is able to do what the earlier woman could not.
Joss Whedon’s “Buffy vs. Dracula” is extremely self-aware in its humor. Buffy and the other characters are very impressed by Dracula’s “celebrity.” Dracula, with his long hair and heavy black and white makeup looks more like a famous rockstar than the aging Count we are first introduced to in Stoker’s novel. There are references in this episode to both Sesame Street and the Dracula movies. These references allow the audience to remain removed from the action and to enjoy the episode’s intentional and self-referential campiness. Everything about the episode, from the “hand of God” appearance of the castle, to Spike’s reference to Dracula’s humble beginnings insists that the audience remember that this episode is an intelligent commentary on what we have come to think of as the tropes of the gothic tradition.
It is important that it is Buffy who vanquishes Dracula, and not one of the male members of the “Scooby Gang” because it reverses the idea that to be female is to be solely a victim. Of course, within the world of the show, it is perfectly natural that Buffy would kill Dracula as she is the most powerful, the slayer. However, with the larger “Dracula” myth, it is significant that a woman can be both a victim and a conqueror. Mina, who at first seems poised to transcend the stereotype of the victimized female because of her “man’s brain” and status as a “New Woman” ultimately must step aside and let Quincy Morris, perhaps the most masculine of all the men in the novel, defeat Dracula. Mina is portrayed as competent throughout the entire novel, often more competent than the men. However, at the end of the novel, particular in Jonathan’s closing remarks, she is transformed into a hopeless damsel in distress. Buffy is able to do what Mina is not, and thus she is the only who truly deserves the title of “New Woman.”

Survival Instinct

Hey everyone!

Sorry I was so late in my Inca Mummy Girl post!

So, I want to take this time to ponder the villainhood of our two lovely ladies, the Inca Princess "Ampada" and Carmilla. Though there are many differences between how they are portrayed, Ampada and Carmilla, at heart, want the same thing: to stay alive. Ampada we view as the more human of the two, as we see her budding relationship with Xander and her inner turmoil over having to kill to stay alive. Carmilla, on the other hand, has more of a mystique about her, as she maintains the anonymity of her murky past, keeps odd habits, and goes through bouts of suspicious "illness" and hysteria. But Carmilla, too, seems to be enchanted by Laura as Ampada is by Xander, and both have an unwillingness to take them as victims - Ampada pulls away from Xander's kiss for fear of hurting him, and Carmilla draws out her stay with Laura, confessing her affections and seemingly unable to strike the final blow that she does the General's niece. Therefore, we see them to be capable of at least some kind of love.

What, then, is the driving force behind their violent actions? What makes them the villains that are portrayed to us? Life. The thing that Carmilla and Ampada both crave is life - though have unfortunate ways of obtaining it. Their motives are not ones of malice; they both act on their survival instincts through the biological (or magical) mechanism that is provided for them. Can we really blame them for wanting to stay alive, if even at the expense of others? We can't all be expected to die gracefully, knowing that there is a way to stop it - if you were in a situation where you had to kill to survive, would you?

And just to give a nod to the Byers article, I'd like to comment on "the body problem," (174). Byers mentions the conflict between the show's feminist message and its conformity to media-inflicted body and beauty stereotypes. This made me wonder about the certain personality traits that we assign purely based on aesthetic appearance. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it is evident that beauty isn't really an indicator of anything at all. People often attribute beauty with sinister qualities because it acts as a lure; and yet go on to attribute it with goodness because it is representative of innocence. This contradictory nature of beauty in the gothic (and everywhere else) shows that you can't judge characters based on their descriptions or depictions; "the performance of these bodies" must also be the only factor that is taken into account (175). Appearances can be deceiving - especially in the Gothic.

And, just to add another character into the mix:

http://www.online-literature.com/coleridge/655/

This links to Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Christabel," which is a gothic poem that follows nearly the same plot as "Carmilla." It's long, but a quick read, and super cool. I recommend it!

<3

Spice Girls, Empanadas, and Feminism in the Buffy World

As a card-carrying follower of the Spice Girls and a 90’s child, my knowledge of feminism comes from a place of Grrrrl Power (yes, that is how it’s both spelled and pronounced) and a lot of glitter scrunchies. Hair products aside, the 90s as I remember them were a great time for a tween to celebrate being a member of the female kingdom, and my current foray into the Buffyverse is reminding me of my younger, feminist-ish days.

I found it interesting, then, that reading the article by Michelle Byers has me doubting my acceptance of Buffy as a relic of the 90’s feminist movement. I remember watching Buffy in a kind of awe, loving a girl who could both accessorize and kick-ass. While Byers comes to an acceptable conclusion (Buffy can be both demon-slayer and pretty, of course), I find myself at in need of a reassessment of feminism in both Buffy and my childhood.

While watching Incan Mummy Girl, I am reassured that my love for the Buffinator has not been in vain. Sure, in the first scenes, Buffy seems a far cry from fulfilling feminist principles. She finds museums boring and seems to lead Zander on in a hopefully unintentional way. Yet with the introduction of Incan Mummy Girl, we can see a juxtaposition that allows for a deeper analysis of feminism. Incan Mummy Girl begins her entre into the episode through the retelling of her story by a curator in the museum (a museum without security, alarms or plexiglass, apparently). A 16-year-old princess, she has been selected to die in order to save her people from the underworld, evil spirits, the usual drill, etc. While my prior experience with Buffy reminds me that Buffy too, did in fact die in the first season, I find the difference between the characters telling. Buffy, like Empanada, (am aware that that might be an entrée at Taco Bell and not exactly be her name) has been chosen for a role in order to protect her people. Yet Buffy’s role as slayer lacks the passivity of the Old World Inca Mummy Girl. Instead of being led calmly to her symbolic death, Buffy instead faces demons head on and assumes a traditionally masculine role of protection. Empanada, on the other hand, takes on first the traditionally passive female role of self-sacrifice (as say, a mother might do for her children) and then gradually reverts to another female stereotype: the seductress.

Empanada, it seems, becomes representative of traditional female roles in literature. A princess, she embodies both the tragic heroine as well as the evil vixen role. Buffy, on the other hand, the perky California blonde, represents Joss Whedon’s break from the prescribed roles of women. Sure, Buffy is beautiful, blonde and occasionally vapid, but she transcends traditional gender roles with her physical prowess and capability. She becomes a hybrid of traditional female and masculine roles, and unlike Empanada, gets to keep her arms in the end. What is more girl power than that?

Feminism and Diversity in Buffy and Dracula: Can they work in harmony?

In reading “Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Next Generation of Television,” I was drawn to the parallels I saw in both “Inca Mummy Girl” and Dracula. Specifically, I was interested in the body problem that Michele Byers proposes; my attraction to this idea could be in part because that’s what I wrote about for my last blog post.

One visual memory I have of “Inca Mummy Girl” is the scene during the dance, in which Willow is huddled in her parka feeling lonely and uncomfortable. I think this image reconciles what Byers perceives as a tension between the possible feminist agenda inherent in Buffy and Sunnydale’s lack of cultural diversity. Willow feels physically confined in her costume – not only is it unattractive (at least, by conventional standards), but the “un-sexiness” of it also affects her emotional well-being. Byers writes that the women in Buffy “represent a spectrum of possibilities for contemporary womanhood that includes superior intelligence, physical strength, the desire for relationship, the quest for independence, and the refusal to be dominated circumscribed, or limited in action and mobility [my emphasis].” Because Ampata’s presence accentuates Willow’s unusual choice of costume, surely Willow feels immobile on several levels.

But what’s interesting to me is that Ampata felt the same thing, too; she was so happy to get out of that coffin and enter into a dynamic physical state. When she first explores Buffy’s room, I noticed how delicately she maneuvered herself and touched Buffy’s belongings. Ampata revels in bodily freedom, while Willow is struggling to recover it. I think that because Ampata is viewed as the “other” in this episode (she’s of a different ethnic background and it turns out she’s a succubus), the viewer sees that both women essentially want the same things for themselves. Maybe diversity becomes something of a non-issue, since Willow and Ampata are more alike that we think.

I also wanted to comment on the similarity I saw between Byers’ discussion of feminism in Buffy and our class discussion of sexism in Dracula. I think Byers has it right – does the show have to be all or nothing? Does Dracula have to be all or nothing? Texts are often much more complex than they seem, and I think reducing either the show or the book to a label would be unfair.

Why become a vampire? Why feel sympathy?

Kim’s post has inspired me to briefly explore the different viewpoints towards humans becoming vampires. There seem to be too standpoints: "I don't want to be a vampire because I want the human experience of choices and growing old and changing and dying" and "I want to be a vampire so that I can have a higher consciousness, live forever, be with my vampire lover." It seems that throughout literature humans who want to (perhaps irrationally) become vampires tend to downplay the whole drinking blood concept. From a completely scientific, cold, objective point of view, this technically wouldn’t be a problem, if a vampire chose to drink animal blood, like Angel, or dated a phlebotomist and thus has a supplier (from a “The Vampire Diaries” episode). But from a more romanticized perspective, blood is life, as Spike tells us around the end of season 5, “It keeps you going, makes you warm, makes you hard, makes you other than dead.” Thus, requiring blood to live requires taking life from others. It’s a tricky line to balance on; for example, does a vampire who drinks human blood without killing or maiming count as evil? Yes? Tell Bill that, from True Blood. He’ll cry his nasty bloody tears, and indirectly beg not to be perceived as evil. So what is it about modern humans that makes us want to complicate the idea of an inherently evil incubus/succubus? I guess it’s curiosity, always asking What if?

So when do we feel sympathy towards a vampire/demon/creature of darkness? Is it being made vampire against one’s will? What if that vampire turns around and embraces evil, though? Then, I suppose, I wouldn’t feel much sympathy for THAT creature, but I definitely would at the time of the new vampire feeling regret and emotional pain at his/her life being taken away. Angel evokes sympathy, Lucy as well, Mina has a small breakdown when she realizes that Lucy’s fate may soon be her own. Dracula? Not even a shred of sympathy, essentially because he so fully embraces his nature, feels no remorse for the lives he destroys, and continues to wreak havoc on innocents. This makes him repugnant in our eyes. But then there’s Ford and Ampata, humans sentenced to an unfair, unpleasant death, simply trying to take back what was rightfully theirs – the right to life. Not evil, not good. As Buffy says, it’s so hard to distinguish between who to love, who to hate, and who to trust. But, it provides excellent discussion material.