Even Good Vampires are Bad
by Candice Watters on 08/15/2007 at 9:30 AM
It seems the biggest complaint among commentators on my blog about the vampire book Eclipse is that I haven't read the book. They insist if I did, I would see that it's really a good book and that Edward the vampire is really a good character. My point was not to critique the literary value of the book -- maybe it's well-written, maybe it's not -- that would require a thorough reading. My goal was to point out yet another example of poor modeling for a generation of young women who are already confused about how to form healthy romantic relationships with men.
To say this book is worth reading because Edward the vampire is a good vampire is to underestimate the power of stories.
Thanks to Ellie for taking the discussion to an even deeper level by mentioning Michael O'Brien, whose book, A Landscape with Dragons, is exceptional. In it, he shows that the problem with much of the modern fantasy genre is that it turns the moral universe upside down. Characters that were once, and always, evil, are now imbued with good and noble traits. His example is the dragon. Once historically and biblically the epitome of evil -- the dragon is now cast as savior. In the case of Eclipse, the vampire, traditionally an evil character, is cast as good.
It's as if the authors of such fiction want to numb their readers to the idea that real evil exists and is consistently recognizable. If you're convinced a dragon, or vampire, can only be deemed bad after you've gotten to know him, you're more likely to give all the dragons and vampires a chance to prove their character before making a judgment. Sadly, the time that passes between meeting a new and as yet unjudged dragon/vampire and deciding whether he's of the good sort, or bad, is a time of extreme vulnerability.
This is problematic because we know there is a dragon, Satan, who's goal is to devour what's good, all the while "masquerading as an angel of light." In the world we inhabit, even a dragon that appears good is evil. O'Brien writes, "Evils that appear good are far more destructive in the long run than those that appear with horns, fangs, and drooling green saliva."
To those of you who would say, "lighten up, it's just a story!" O'Brien shows that stories are an essential part of what informs our moral universe. In his introduction to O'Brien's book, David Sloan writes, "[O'Brien] maintains that, without exposure to a literature springing from authentic spiritual sources, a society will be ill-equipped to detect the influences of false culture."
As O'Brien says, "The imagination must be fed good food, or it will become the haunt of monsters."
1. Jacob said the following at 10:00 AM on Aug 15:
Good thoughts, Candice.
Nothing is neutral because everything we say, write, or do, is tainted by worldview. There is no such thing as "just entertainment," because whether you want to admit it or not, everything is coming at you with an agenda and a bias.
Turning an evil character like a vampire into a "good guy" is nothing but postmodern story-telling where morality is reduced to perspective and judgments are based on vague sincerity. Last I checked, creatures that prey on young women, whether the women like it or not, are evil. Either there is a trancendent moral order or there is not. Fantasy and allegory writers like MacDonald, Tolkien and Lewis understood this. I think it's no mistake that those writers who do not are coming from a fundamentally different worldview. The postmodern appeal of fantasy is that you can change reality however you want and can completely disregard metanarratives, in this case, the moral metanarrative.
I suspect that there will be lots of comments on how dragons and vampires are not always evil, etc, trying to make the alleged exceptions the rule. Sadly, I think those tempted to leave such comments will have missed the whole point of this blog post. It's not about dragons and vampires, it's about having the courage to call something that lots of people like "evil."
2. Karl Thienes said the following at 10:00 AM on Aug 15:
I enjoyed O'Brien's "Father Elijah" (and I'll state up front that I've never read "Ecplise") but O'Brien seems to make the same error about vampires as he did in his analysis of Harry Potter: he treats literary symbols in fantasy fiction as univocal when they often have multiple meanings across cultures, even within the West.
For example, the dragon isn't always and everywhere evil within Western Christian culture.
Dragons are all over Romanesque/Gothic art in churches and manuscripts--almost always as fantastic animals. Medieval bishops' thrones typically had dragon images on the arms as symbols of strength and nobility. Cities and nations used dragons as emblems in heraldry. England, the Low Countries and France had Rogation Day parades featuring comical dragon floats which seem to symbolize fertility. The Douay-Rheims Bible, following the Vulgate literally, says "Praise the Lord, ye dragons and ye deeps."
And, of course, there is the famous serpent of Moses used in the Gospels as a direct symbol of Christ (John 3:14-15).
The point here is not that dragons *should* be seen as good, but rather that the intertexuality and history of literary symbolism is far more complex and layered than some, like O'Brien, would have us believe.
3. Dan Gill said the following at 10:15 AM on Aug 15:
The trend of making formerly evil creatures and characters into good creatures and characters is driven largely by the publishing industry's desire for novelty and innovation. A story about an evil vampire: it's been done a thousand times. A story about a good vampire: it's only been done a hundred times.
That's a big part of it. There is the desire to show all of us as conflicted, part-good, part-evil creatures. That's more in line with popular philosophy. Authors go over the top in the way the equate all behavior on the same scale. So it's okay to want to kill people and drink their blood if you're really in love with someone, or just really good looking and sexy.
Just remember that most people, authors and publishers included, do what they do because they believe it will bring them success. That's usually what's behind their decisions.
4. John said the following at 10:19 AM on Aug 15:
It's funny how Christians who would have trouble with a "good" pornographer or a "good" pedophile as a hero have no problems identifying with a witch or a vampire.
Have some discernment, people. Don't embrace evil in your bosom.
5. Esther said the following at 10:25 AM on Aug 15:
I would put a plug in for Michael O'Brien's entire series. Karl mentioned Father Elijah, which I also enjoyed, but I would say that Strangers and Sojourners is my favorite. While I don't identify with the Catholic focus, I did find the exploration of how the will of God works in hidden ways through the lives of ordinary people to be inspiring. These books were also the foundation for a wonderful friendship with a girl I met randomly at a conference 3 states away, someone who is a true "kindred spirit" in spite of distance and theological differences.
6. Karl Thienes said the following at 10:53 AM on Aug 15:
Jacob wrote: "Either there is a transcendent moral order or there is not. Fantasy and allegory writers like MacDonald, Tolkien and Lewis understood this.
How then should we interpret the fact that in Tolkien's short story, "Farmer Giles of Ham", a dragon plays an important and not villainous role? I hope we don't need to take him off the Good Christian Author list! :)
John wrote: "It's funny how Christians who would have trouble with a 'good' pornographer or a 'good' pedophile as a hero have no problems identifying with a witch or a vampire."
The difference, and I hate to say it because it is so obvious, is that witches and vampires as they exist in fantasy literature aren't "real" like pornographers and pedophiles are; they are symbols and archetypes with a long and storied history of use in literature that is far more ambiguous than pedophila.
For example, C.S. Lewis has the Dufflepuds use spells and magic under the tutalge of a wizard in "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and Mr. Tumnus is, at least on the surface, a recapitulation the mostly wicked Greek god Pan. But something tells me most educated Christians aren't running to warn the world that Narnia or Tolkien is satanic. It would behoove us to think why that might be. Hint: it has something to do with the actual themes of the story told and the displaying of a comprehensive understanding of literary tradition by the author, not merely an univocal analysis of certain symbolic characters and motifs.
7. Eric said the following at 11:01 AM on Aug 15:
I have not read Eclipse, I don't know that I will (more from a lack of interest than anything else). I highly doubt the author was sitting around thinking "I really need to numb my readers to the real evil in the world." The good Vampire is an accepted literary figure. Just like the good dragon, the good wizard, (which is a nice way of saying witch, sorcerer, or warlock), and all the other evil characters that used to be evil but became "good" through some series of circumstances. That does not make it right, it simply is.
As Christians we need to be cautious about what we read, listen to, and watch, because the world does not care that a dragon does exist and that he is evil. We need to avoid such things that will cause us to stumble in our faith, and not to cause those around us to stumble. Some Christians cannot stand Harry Potter. Others cannot stand Winnie the Pooh(really, I'm not making this up).
I think the literary world was tired of the hero without a flaw. At some point people realized there was no one around them that was perfect, and so the brooding, struggling, human hero was born. It is easier to identify with a vampire than it is to identify with the shining knight on a white charger who is the epitome of all goodness and right. We all know of the evil things we have done, and so we (I say we in a worldly humanity sense) say to ourselves, "Hey, that vampire has some flaws and he isn't always good, but he is still the hero." And it seems more true than the real hero of our story who didn't have a flaw.
My two cents on a sticky topic. As a society we jumped off of the slippery slope of calling good evil and evil good a long time ago.
8. Samuel PG said the following at 11:26 AM on Aug 15:
I have not read the book, but having read the comments of those who have it seems as if the problem with the vampire as a good character should not be such a problem for Christians. It sounds as if the story largely revolves around a vampire, a monster of course, who is doing his best to fight his inherent demonic nature and to refrain from drinking human blood. That does sound like a fair metaphor for the Christian experience, of putting to death the sinful nature, and the struggle in doing so that Paul desribes in Romans 7.
9. nikki said the following at 12:05 PM on Aug 15:
I haven't read the books either and don't plan to, but from the comments of those who HAVE read it, I gather that the vampire is actually trying to combat or restrain his evil desires. It doesn't appear that he is insidiously trying to deceive an innocent girl or pretend to be better than he is; he's a bad creature who's actually trying to do something good. As pointed out, symbolism is often vague and has wildly varying connotations throughout cultures and time. So I fail to grasp how a book like this is preying on young girls. I guess the parents need to read the books and make the decisions as to whether their preteen/teenage kids should read them. It would make an excellent discussion topic (as seen here...). :)
I appreciate the point that "If you're convinced a dragon, or vampire, can only be deemed bad after you've gotten to know him, you're more likely to give all the dragons and vampires a chance to prove their character before making a judgment." I know what you are trying to say, Candice, and I agree with what I think is the point of your...point. :) But since real people living in real life are probably never going to encounter someone who is a known pure embodiment of evil -- I can't think of anyone in the world who I would term a metaphorical dragon or vampire -- why is it wrong to wait to judge people until after you get to know them? Again, I understand what you mean about vulnerability, and it's a good thing to keep in mind especially for impressionable youngsters. But I doubt people in real life are so easily typecast as evil or good, and vulnerability isn't sinful. It is actually a good thing for people to remember to give people a chance before you judge them. I might even remember being taught this in school and church. :)
And let's not forget that the heart of man is despicably evil already! When we realize that our own hearts are wicked, it might not be such a shock to discover wickedness in the hearts of everyone around us. Thank you for all the thought-provoking discussion, Candice, and I hope I have not misrepresented or misjudged your message in any way.
10. Jen said the following at 1:19 PM on Aug 15:
*Hear, hear!* to Samuel, Eric, and Esther. I just erased a LONG comment because you three made my points before I could post them..... ah, what the heck, I typed it all out, I might as well post it!
Candice,
It's interesting to me that you felt you needed to clarify your original post about Eclipse when people commented that you needed to read it before criticizing it. I think that the original post was entirely clear in what you were concerned about (the emotional well-being of the young ladies reading the book). But I think that the commentators were right: you should have read the book, or at least read a summary of the book, before posting about it. You could be wrong about this new book. The girl could be an upright, strong, loving young woman who tempts the vampire to goodness. On the other hand, maybe you're right. Maybe the vampire in the story really is a destructive, evil force who tempts the girl to become a vampire - or tempts her into a destructive relationship. But it takes discernment and more information before we can make a decision about whether to recommend or condemn a book like this.
As several people have already noted, the vampire and dragon (for that matter: werewolf, beast, mutant and any fantasy character that is not strictly human and is supposedly evil) are part of a history of symbolism and storytelling that has never been as straightforward as Good=White Knight vs. Evil=Dragon. I could fill pages with examples of stories, but the other lovely readers have already done that for me!
Not to mention, however, the archetype that all stories are based upon. I think I read this in one of Lewis's books, though I'm not sure, so I apologize in advance for my plagiarism of this idea - it is not mine. Aren't all of our stories based upon the Great Story, the story of salvation? Aren't we all, to begin with, "dead in our trespasses and sins," sucking the life from those around us, hating and lusting after it at the same time? We ARE vampires, looking for freedom from our vampire-ness. In the stories about vampires, sometimes that freedom comes through true death (a stake through the heart, and the soul is finally at peace) and sometimes it comes through transformation in life (forming relationships with those they formerly hated). It is the same for us, both through death to sin releasing our souls into the freedom of Christ, and the transformation of our lives through our relationship with Him and others.
Esther already mentioned "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" so I feel safe in also bringing up the transformation of Edmund into a dragon and back again. Jenny Schroedel already described the beauty of that story.
Vampire/dragon salvation stories are not new, nor are they universally to be avoided. I think we should approach them with all the care and thoughtfulness that we should approach anything that comes from this world and the other. The key is that we should be looking for stories where the "good" vampire or dragon is trying to overcome their nature and not BE the evil character that everyone is afraid of. What we should be avoiding is stories where the hero is a vampire who does not try to change.
(BTW, for a good vampire story where the vampire really IS evil, read the original Dracula by Bram Stoker. Not only will you get the chills of a good suspense story, but you also get true heroism in the main characters.)
11. JO said the following at 1:47 PM on Aug 15:
The count on Sesame Street is a "Vampire." Why don't we just attack him, too? If something is make-believe, it is whatever creator says that it is--a talking bird, a singing vegetable, OR a friendly vampire. Satan, pedophiles and serial killers are real AND evil. Vampires do not exist and, therefore can be imagined to be whatever the author wants them to be.
12. JO said the following at 1:56 PM on Aug 15:
The Bible calls Satan a "Roaring Lion seeking whom he may devour" but also refers to God as the "Lion of the tribe of Judah." In the Bible, a lion is used to represent good power and bad power. Why can't a dragon be the same way? Personally, I think we should write more books about good dragons and vampires--we shouldn't let Satan lay claim to them. He already took the rainbow as a symbol of homosexuality.
13. BDB said the following at 3:54 PM on Aug 15:
Hmmm...I don't find Vampires anywhere in the Bible - good or bad. So, we've got a fictional creature here. I don't see how anyone can argue that fiction writing about a fictional creature conflicts with the Bible.
You can of course argue that murder is a violation of God's laws, but it appears to me that the primary thing that makes fictional vampires "evil" is that they murder other human beings. So, if you have a vampire that doesn't murder...they're no longer evil.
However, the Bible does depict tax-collectors as engaging in evil activity. Perhaps we should eschew any novels that talk about IRS agents, or other employees of the Treasury department...
That's my $.02, before deductions...
14. Alex C. said the following at 5:16 PM on Aug 15:
"Esther already mentioned "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" so I feel safe in also bringing up the transformation of Edmund into a dragon and back again."
It was Eustace, not Edmund. I was just about to mention that part of the book too, but you beat me to it ^^.
The main problem this argument has, that I see, is that Vampires and all the related creatures that have been mentioned, are totally fictitious. "classical" vampires are pure evil simply because the authors and legends said so, NOT because vampires are somehows *supposed* to be evil; vampires don't exist. I can't think of any reason why fictitious creatures can't be "re-invented" or portrayed in different lights, when you consider that the "classical" portrales were just as invented as any other portrayle.
15. Josh said the following at 8:49 PM on Aug 15:
Why shouldn't we identify and even pity the "evil" characters of our fictions? I think it's a very important and very Christian sentiment to have the compassion to believe that nobody is doomed to their evil and that there is hope. To paraphrase Chesterton, I shouldn't think something is terrible because I can't imagine myself doing it, but because I can. It's like that archaic form of Calvinism that polarizes the world into the elect and the reprobate based on your judgment of their behavior.
16. Josh said the following at 11:44 PM on Aug 15:
I have a hard time coming around to the author's point of view. The idea of the monster reformed is not unsympathetic to my mind; its the story of any follower of Christ.
17. Melanie said the following at 6:33 AM on Aug 16:
This calls to mind one of the best articles I ever read on Boundless.
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001277.cfm
Melanie
18. Sam Spade said the following at 10:23 AM on Aug 16:
If even good vampires are bad, then Gandalf is as evil as is Sauron for there can be no such thing as a "good" wizard. I shall not be recommending Tolkien to any Christian readers.
19. Fred Walker said the following at 2:53 AM on Aug 17:
Farmer Giles of Ham - the dragon is evil, albeit like a pompous aristocrat. When Eustace was transformed into a dragon it was because he sinned (he took the bracelet because of greed - in Norse mythology dragons are a symbol of greed). In western history dragons are evil, in eastern they are good.
Aside from dragons and vampires, witchcraft is evil and even if it isn't portrayed realistically it is still best to avoid it particularly if it is painted as morally neutral and this applies to Christian and non-Christian writers.
20. Danielle said the following at 5:29 AM on Aug 17:
Awesome post. Thank you.
21. Leah said the following at 10:15 AM on Aug 17:
I suppose next we're going to be hearing about how Lord of the Rings is "poor modeling" because it portrays a wizard (Gandalf) as a good character. And if we begin giving wizards a moment to judge whether they are "good" or "bad", we are opening ourselves to vulnerability.
I mean, honestly. It's not like someone is ever actually going to stumble across a vampire or dragon, let alone be vulnerable to it while judging its character.
22. k. said the following at 2:50 PM on Aug 17:
If you're convinced a dragon, or vampire, can only be deemed bad after you've gotten to know him, you're more likely to give all the dragons and vampires a chance to prove their character before making a judgment.
So does this mean I should rethink my date with dinner date with Smaug this weekend???
23. BDB said the following at 12:49 PM on Aug 20:
Well, I finished Anne Rice's "Menoch the Devil" this weekend. I would be cautious before recommending it - they'd need to take some parts out in order to make it into a PG-13 movie.
Anyway, I must say, it's the only novel I've read that really takes a hard look at where vampires (in the fictional world) fit in with real Christian theology. Very thought provoking - lots of discussion about the suffering that happens in the world, what it takes to get into heaven, etc.
As well as an interesting discussion on how vampires were created - because in the fictional world they were, after all, created by someone. They didn't choose to be that way. That provides all sorts of interesting fodder for thinking about sin and whether it is chosen behavior, or whether people are inherently sinful, etc. Pretty graphic description of Christ's Passion, too - reminded me of Mel Gibson's movie.
Of course, we know that Anne Rice converted. It's easy to see how she wrestled with God along that path to conversion. When you look at all the bloodshed in human history - or even the violence in many modern movies, for example - it's hard to say that a "good" vampire is worse than, say, the "good" military leader who slaughters a bunch of people or the "good" maverick cop who spends an entire movie killing bad guys without a trial.
Hey, Mel Gibson has played all those roles, hasn't he?
24. Courtney said the following at 4:38 PM on Aug 23:
I am going to paste here my comment that I just posted a few minutes ago on Candice's opinion of Eclipse because I believe it is more applicable to this anyway. So here it is. :)
Whoa, guys. This free reading of anything that makes a best seller list and condemning anyone who chooses not to read it seriously troubles me. I have heard the argument many times that you "can't judge a book by its cover," but is the purpose of a books cover not to attract the person who might want to read it? Books, especially most new books that you would find at Barnes and Noble, often have a summary of the story on the cover for the very purpose of knowing what the book is about before you purchase it.
Your "don't judge a book by its cover" could quite easily be applied to other media that common sense tells us (even if some radicals who do not believe in morality tell us that whatever we want to expose ourselves and children to is our choice) that you should never hand your small child a porn magazine to read. Now, I have never read a porn magazine and this is honestly an area where I have never felt tempted. You could easily say, "well, you may have heard that it's bad, but you really won't know for yourself that it's porn until you open it up and look at it." But you see, I don't want to open it up and look at it, because even though my own eyes have not shown me it is porn, I have sufficient evidence to believe it is porn, and I know I don't want to see porn, so I choose not to look at it. And I don't believe I have made an uninformed decision, nor do I believe that I am unequipped to speak out against the idea of giving a porn magazine to your child instead of giving them a picture book intended for children.
This vampire may or may not be violent...I don't know because I have not read the book. Nor am I going to make any inferences concerning the plot of the book. Doing that would seriously make me appear stupid.
I do however understand the historical significance of a vampire. There are many proposed origins of the vampire, but one that stands out in my mind is Count Dracula. You may or may not be aware that Count Dracula was a real man. He was a tyrant of a ruler, and he really was from Transylvania. After his death, parents would scare their children by telling them that Count Dracula had not really died, and if they did not behave he would come and suck their blood out of their bodies while they slept. Now, I consider this playing on children's fears to be a horrible, depraved parenting tactic. In our culture, it would be the equivalent of telling a child that Osama bin Ladin will come for them and kill them if they misbehave. If a parent were to tell a child that, and someone found out, they might find themselves in court fighting to keep their child, as a statement like that would be defined as emotional abuse in most states.
The other theories concerning the origin of vampires are very similar and no less terrible. All that I have heard were stories intended to scare children. There are no happy stories about vampires in history. I have great difficulty with the concept that such a terrible parenting tactic would become glorified to the point that people would think that vampires are entertaining, harmless, or at the very least not necessarily bad. To support such a thing knowing what I do makes me no better than those medieval parents who had twenty-five kids that they couldn't control and therefore resorted to scare tactics. I can't enjoy stories with vampires in them, regardless of the target audience, because the sicken me. So if I read the cover of a book and find out it is about vampires, I choose not to read any further. That is not an uninformed decision. It is a decision that takes in other sources as well as what I believe and what I know about myself instead of drawing a conclusion based on one source (the book's cover or the praise it received in a review). Drawing a conclusion based on less than five sources would, by the way, would get me an F if this were a history paper.
25. BDB said the following at 6:01 PM on Aug 23:
Courtney wrote:
>>You may or may not be aware that Count Dracula was a real man. He was a tyrant of a ruler, and he really was from Transylvania.<<
Yes - I saw that on the History Channel...
Maybe even the good shows on the History Channel are bad for us...
26. Fred Walker said the following at 9:53 PM on Aug 23:
Good post Courtney, well said.
27. Jadie said the following at 7:53 AM on Oct 15:
yea, except that dragons and vampires are *fictional* characters. They aren't real life. They are figments of someone's imagination. Tradition really doesn't matter, as it's all still fake.
Now if an author should take something that was evil, and write a story where what was once considered tainted is now considered good, well now- isn't that the very story of redemption?
28. Ethan Cordray said the following at 1:23 PM on Oct 15:
For a very good vampire story (certainly not the story of a good vampire), I recommend Thomas Ligotti's ""The Lost Art of Twilight," from his hard-to-find collection "Songs of a Dead Dreamer." Its thesis seems to be that vampires are essentially evil, and that efforts to view them otherwise are dangerous and misguided -- basically the same thesis as Ms. Waters'.
It also happens to be the most beautifully written vampire story I've ever read. Ligotti is a true master of supernatural horror. He has no truck with the romanticization of monsters that's so popular nowadays.
Be forewarned, though: Ligotti is something of a nihilist. Don't be too quick to buy into the worldview he espouses in his stories.
29. Ethan Cordray said the following at 2:23 PM on Oct 15:
I consider myself something of a student of supernatural horror in literature, and I'd like to respond to those posts that argue that portraying "good vampires" and "good dragons" in fiction is a good thing.
Sorry if this turns out to be a long post, but I think the situation is a bit more complicated than it's been made out to be, and it's an important subject seeing as vampires are so popular.
It's not the case that just because vampires and dragons "aren't real" that we can make of them anything we so choose. Even imaginary creatures or characters have certian defining characteristics, and sometimes these include morally definitive properties.
I think those who have noted that dragons have multiple moral connotations in world culture are right. It seems to me that there is room for both good and evil dragons in literature without distorting their traditional associations. Perhaps a good model for this is something like the approach in Dungeons and Dragons, where there are certain species of dragons that are essentially evil (chromatics) and others that are essentially good (metallics), but the two categories are not generally intermixed, and it's pretty easy to tell the difference.
When it comes to vampires, I think there's a much stronger argument to be made that they must always be protrayed as essentially evil.
When we're talking about fictional vampires, we're not really talking about a folklore figure. The gothic literary vampire which dominates our imagination is vastly different from the vampires of folklore, which are more a type of evil spirit of the dead or witch, usually horribly disfigured and resembling a corpse. The very fact that we can imagine a "good vampire" means that we're talking about something quite different from the demonic predator of vampire folklore.
The gothic literary vampire, which began with John Polidori's novel The Vampyre in 1819, is the suave, attractive and aristocratic being we think of today. It's this type of vampire that becomes the romantic interest in books like Eclipse, and which seems to permit the idea of a "good vampire" as a literary character.
The trouble with this is that even modern vampires are defined by an essentially evil quality: the need to consume the blood of others to sustain an artificial immortality. That is what makes them vampires, and that is what links them to the old folklore figures. No matter what their personalities or appearances might be, vampires still drink blood and live forever. That's what makes them vampires.
To imagine a "good vampire," then, is really an impossibility. Vampirism is essentially evil, and one who engages in it is thus a doer of evil. If being a vampire is the essence of a character -- that is, if it's what defines the character's personality and behavior -- then that character is essentially evil, and I think we can rightly demand that it be portrayed as such.
On the other hand, I think it's possible to portray a vampiric character that contains goodness, or even one that is morally transformed within a story. This would require, however, that the "redeemed vampire" character give up vampirism, just as we would expect a redeemed criminal to give up crime.
I think the trouble with most contemporary protrayals of "good vampires" is that they are viewed romantically rather than morally. Their power and mystery make them attractive, much like the Byronic heroes of the Romantic movement (this isn't a coincidence, since they emerged from the same movement). However, also like Byronic heroes, their attractiveness usually is also directly associated with their menace and amorality. They're a version of the typical "bad boy" erotic type, elevated to supernatural proportions.
I think this is dangerous enough for young girls by itself, teaching them to positively associate fear and danger -- real danger of physical harm -- with erotic thrills.
I won't go into what I think is the worse problem with romantic vampires, that they offer a specifically anti-Christian religious image that can imperil the immortal soul. For that, read Dracula or (so I've heard) the later Anne Rice books. I hope I've given some food for thought already.
30. Whitney Doster said the following at 8:47 AM on Dec 23:
I am 16 years old and have read all of the stephanie meyer series on the outlook on vampires. i believe young girls my age are already intrigued by the thought of their being vampires out in the real world. the books are great. edward may be seen as a vision of evil but his heart lies with bella. he doesnt want her to become a vampire because he does not know if his soul is comdemmed to hell. during the three books he has tried to postpone and sway her decision of becoming a vampire. even though he has tried it has been her decision to become the vampire not his swaying her to become one. if that is the case of edward being the bad person you are wrong because even jacob, the werewolf, should be comdemmed as a bad person to be seen as evil. jacob is also in love with bella and only wants whats best for her also. he may be the better choice for her because she could remain human but he is still just as dangerous. so in truth who is to say who is the better choice for her except for who she wants to be with. i was intrigued by the thought of vampires way before the books. they only put a new twist to the thought of vampires.
as for the biblical inputs to the comentaries. i fully support them. i am a missionary baptist and i know my beliefs and that god does not portray them as a light of good.
i still support the book though meyer's is a great writer and i hope she keeps on coming with her twilight series!!!! way to go stephanie!!!
31. Ann said the following at 3:43 PM on Apr 17:
Stephenie Meyers books are amazing! They do not try to confure the mind, but to teach it a new leason. Not everything is what it seems. I've read the entire Twilight Series, and I believe that Edward is an extremly unique character. He shows that essentially evil things can have a good side. Just because you're given somthing in life does not mean that you have to stick to. There is also an extremely religious aspect to Meyer's books. Don't slam it before you read it people!
32. deedee said the following at 9:46 PM on May 20:
Edward's being a vampire shouldn't just be seen from the point of view as traditionally evil mythological creature made good. The "vampirism" is more of a metaphor and provides deeper meanings than just good vs. evil. Edward a byronic character and represents to the reader the idea of being superhuman, having elevated senses, speed, strength, beauty, and immortality. He also shows that such things come with a price. He suffers, he longs to reconnect to the human world and experience and he is constantly battling with his own selfish desires and what is best for others. He is more than just a "good vampire". He illustrates that there is always choices in life. he can take the easy road, decide he is a monster just like every other vampire and act accordingly, or he can take a harder road to be moral, to endure, and to discover within himself what evil truly entails. Are people inherently evil because of what they are or how they were born, or do they choose that path. Edward represents a struggle. Most teens struggle everyday with identity and he is a character that shows them they aren't alone and that making the right choice isn't always the easiest.
33. Mark said the following at 2:46 AM on Jun 11:
Is it any wonder that most of the world thinks so poorly of Christians? I mean look at this topic. I wish I could say it was a joke. Vampires are entirely fictional creatures. To say you can't make a fictional creature to be whatever you want is ludicrous. Christians want to find some type of evil intent and malice in everything, even when it isn't there.
34. bonnie said the following at 4:59 PM on Jun 16:
I am 13 and have never read twilight or the other books in that series, although everyone I know that has read it says it is a wonderful series. I plan to read it myself soon. Vampires and dragons are fictional characters, you can make them whatever you want! I personly like the idea of good vampires. What does satan have to do with ones creativity? The Cirque Du Freak Series by Darren Shan is one of my favorite series I have read. The main characters are vampires that are good. They drink human blood, but don't harm the poeple they drink from, and they heal any cut they make on the human(any cut they would make would not even hurt a little kid). The "bad" characters are the "vampanize", which drain people of their blood. The vampires are in a war against the vampanize in some of the series. If you are writing a FICTIONAL book you should be able to make the characters however you want to!!!
35. Alex Larson said the following at 1:16 AM on Jun 29:
A warning: this will be long! I'm a 17-year-old who's been interested in vampires since elementary, so this is an important question for me...and I have a lot to say on this topic...but before I start, it's so good to see so many people looking for the answer together, sharing opinions and beliefs in one place! That is the mature way to discovering truth, isn't it?
Anyway, one major argument that really stood out to me was that when we take time to judge a vampire's character (at least in literature & media), we become vulnerable to attack. My first question after reading that was, "What attack?"-but that's irrelevant, really.
As for me though, I really think that it is more of the mind inside the creature that is important-not the external and historical features. I mean, if we are going to stop allowing ourselves to take time to judge others, then we should despise all humans, right? I mean, they crucified the Son of God-even vampires didn't do that! In some vampire stories, (the ones I enjoy at least, with the exception of Dracula,) the vampires are portrayed as trying to restrain themselves from their urges. A moral action? Yes. And isn't that what Christians are trying to do? And of course, vampires and humans alike aren't perfect...they both slip up. The vampire will give into an urge, and a Christian will give into sin.
Yes, vampires are associated with a dark past, but so are humans....Yes, vampires are associated with demonic tones-but, then again, aren't humans too? (I mean, we decided to trust Satan instead of God in the beginning, right?)
My question to all who read this blog is this: Is there anyone (besides Satan) who cannot achieve salvation; who cannot be good? (Adventists believe that Satan's murder of Jesus sealed his fate-he could have changed his mind up until then.) I think that, albeit vampires (in fiction) sure have it rough, I don't think that they are incapable of portraying Christ (or Christ-like character). I believe that ANY SYMBOL can be used to whatever purpose it was designed for.
And, in reality, I think it really matters from person to person, though. One thing (or symbol) may mean something to one, and another completely different thing to another. As one of my good friends says often, "To each his own."
I also believe that we should be focusing more on helping our youth to discern for themselves what is good or bad instead of teaching them what is good or bad. I mean, that's the best way to teach a language; first, give the rules, then learn the vocabulary! I once heard on my favorite classical station an interesting idea: NOTHING is tall or short, big or little, old or young, fun or dangerous, good or evil, unless it is compared to something else. I mean, why is murder bad/evil? (Hang in with me here...) Because I compare it to the morals of not only my own being, but also by comparing it to God's word, specifically the 10 Commandments.
You have probably already noticed that I've been making the effort to say "fictional vampires," right? Well, have any of you ever heard of the term "Sanguarian?" Well, "sanguarians" are people (human, although most don't want to admit it) today who drink blood on a regular basis from a regular (and quite legal) donor. (I think they suffer from Reinfield's Syndrome.) But there are many congruences and similarities between "sanguarians" and vampires; for one instance, they're painfully sensitive to light. But do you think that they are exempt from the moral issues their fictional counterparts go through? I've read horror stories, people: some "sanguarians" have been treated so poorly that I want so badly to comfort them...wait a minute! Isn't that what...what Jesus did on a regular basis? Care for people, no matter who they were, no matter what they drank, what they thought, what their history was...he helped them nonetheless.
*But...they're sanguarians...vampires. They're monsters...right?* I am a big fan of fantasy/horror, and I think that before you're going to look down on a species, you'd better be ready to look down on your own species first; judge yourself before you judge others.
One thing we also must remember though, is that although Jesus cares for each and every one of us just as we are, He wants the best for us; He won't leave those who are broken-hearted or heavy-laden in the same place that He found them, and if that means change, we can always go to Him for help.
Through change in Christ, in drinking His blood (therefore accepting His sacrifice for us), we can be made into new creations ourselves.
In short, I personally don't think that we are in a position to judge the fictional and real vampires of today until we get to know them better. Please don't get me wrong, judging for ourselves is healthy and necessary, but good judgment comes from time, gathering facts and forming opinions.
Well, there are my two cents...although it feels like my two-hundred dollars.
36. Valdenis said the following at 10:51 PM on Jun 29:
Hello, I have been struggeling (I'm a bad speller, so don't mind that) on the issue of dragons and vampires being evil or good. First of all let me point out some of my observations...
Dragons are now extinct correct? But clearly we know they existed because otherwise they wouldn't be a symbol in the Bible. How could God demonstrate something with something else that doesn't exist? Ok, now that we know dragons existed, we can asume that God created the dragons right? But nothing that God created was intended to be evil... that was the concequence of sin! So Dragons arn't evil.
Many times things that are feard are portraid as evil, and depending on what point of view you look from something could be the "bad guy" or the "hero". For example Vlad Tepes (the ruler Drakula was based off of) has the reputation of an evil and hartless king who impaled everyone who got in his way... but that's from the "enemy's" point of view... if you ask Transilvanians/Romanians today they still wish he was alive because while he reigned there was no crime in the towns...
You see, depending on how you look at it you can portray something as good or evil.
Now about the issue of Vampires... this one is a hard question and I'm still struggeling about it myself. Vampires are clearly mythological and if useing the Bible to "judge" these 'creatures' then they are most likely evil. The Bible sais not to feed on blood, and that's what vampires do... can there be good vampires? Well, I don't know... It's like being in power (president, principal, etc.) You can either use your power for good or abuse that power. Same with vampires... but like it was mentiond vampires were originaly created to be and evil character to be feared, but then again it depends on the writers point of view. So I'm not taking any sides for now, I'll admit that I am itrigued by these creatures, because it's human nature to like and want what is not possible, but I don't think we should sway off the path and reduce our morals or let our guard down just because we think it's ok. I believe this matter takes a lot of prayr, study, and meditation and then I'm sure we'll come up with the right answer.
Also, I waold like to coment on the "Twilight Series"... Yes, I've read the books, and I'll admit they were good. Well written, good action, great story line... BUT this is just entartainment!!! We can't let ourselvs follow 'their ways'. Although nothing "major" happens in the book, girls, as well as guys (you're not getting off the hook guys), should have high morals and proper behavior when it comes to the opposite gender. We, as christian representatives, should not lower ourselvs to the "common way of behavior", it is when you 'save/preserve' yourself for the spouse God has chosen for you that you and honor the marrige vow to the fullest that you can experience the romance and love completely without any guilt or regret...
Anyway, I'm starting to sound like a preacher, arn't I? Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answers, but hopefuly this has made... well whomever reads this... think about these issues and hopefuly come to a healthy decision about things.
37. lucy said the following at 7:34 PM on Jul 21:
On what Sam Spade, comment #18 said: After writing Lord of the Rings in some of his personal letters Tolkien said that he regretted saying the Gandalf had used 'magic' and was a wizard. He wished he hadn't been as ambiguous with the terms he used for fear they might be taken as black magic. If you read into other works like the Silmarillion, you can see that Gandalf and all the other wizards were given their power by Illuvatar, the God figure, and sent to Middle Earth to help fight Sauron.
And I agree with Michael O'Brien. I have read the Inheritance (Eragon) series and looking back what he says makes sense. I have not read on vampires, largely because I find them gross, in my mind proving his point right.
38. Carrie said the following at 8:24 PM on Aug 30:
I am in love with the Twilight series. But i have a question. If vampires were real what if the person who got bit by a bad vampire did not volunteer for their transformation? Would god damn them straight to hell? That wouldn't make any sense at all especially since god is all about second chances and forgiveness and such. Just a question. Please answer with your take.
39. Leah said the following at 8:44 PM on Sep 1:
Carrie: your question makes no sense at all.
a) Why would a vampire who "did not volunteer for their transformation" be damned to hell? have they done anything wrong?
b) Vampires *aren't* real, so there's no point asking "what would God do in this situation that doesn't exist". Trying to put an action/attitude onto God in a non-existent situation is just... wrong. God doesn't need a way to respond to that situation because it doesn't exist.
40. BDB said the following at 10:53 PM on Sep 1:
Carrie (#38) - you know, what's interesting about that question is that Anne Rice DOES grapple with that in her Vampire novels. There's even one novel where some of the Vampires decide they must seek redemption by "sacrificing themselves" by walking into the sun in public and drawing attention to a Miracle - what's considered in the book to be Veronica's Veil. I'm not sure there's a good theological answer for a fictional being, but it's an interesting question.
41. Laura Cera said the following at 9:04 PM on Sep 25:
I actually have read all of the series of books like eclipse
but to be honest good and evil have never been well difined. Vampires can be good or evil just like humans
not all people are good and not all are bad. Like the stario types that some race is really bad in stuf that's a load of bull! In every race, sex, or whatever there is both good and bad. In some ways the strugle Stephenie Myers (the author of Eclipse and other books) illustrates to us is like an every day strugle we probably all experience some time except the story is made more apealing I think the word would be.
# 38 If Vampires were real (which i think would be awesome!) I don't know if god would damn them if they didn't volunter. Technically if you beleived in Jehova (name of god its christian for the Jehova witnesses)(ya i'm a dork that compares religions. deal with it -_-) he/she should forgive you
but it all depends what religion you are. Like if ya budist If you learned the 'right' lesson after death then alls forgiven i guess. I'm not religious so i really wouldn't know to much.
# 39, Leah her Q makes perfect sence I think atleast
Just like there is no prof to prove of disprove god it goes with Mythology, Vampires, Dragons ect. So you can't say It absolutly doesn't exist
buts your opinion not mine
Valdenis (#36) i'm really sory but and i hope u don't get ofended but i'm not a fan of the bible or christianaity
its probably my expirience and the way i see things but lot of christianity has to do with converting and I strictly have the belief that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want 1 as long it doesn't harm anybody 2. I will Never (not intentionally) try to cange someones beliefs 3. they respect everyones beliefs
I also think its dangerous to get to suck up into vampires and stuff but same goes for religion, like the crusades. I also think that books (in general and all the twilight series) are more than entertainment at the core they demenstrate themes that are good for us to learn, kinda like morals but not, if you get what i mean. Like the Gilgames.
I'm going to stop writing now because it feels like I just wrote a 5 page essay for English or Ancient History.
42. kayla said the following at 1:24 PM on Oct 10:
so i take it that you're going to critique all sci-fi because it's going to shape our lives?well i guess i'm in trouble my mom read me fairy tales as a kid my life is doomed.
43. Windstorm said the following at 2:22 PM on Jun 12:
If vampires and dragons were real, I'd imagine that they would be labeled "evil" only out of fear of the unknown. In my opinion the two races would have their share of benevolent and malevolent individuals just as the human race does.
Just my two shinies worth.
44. tarayvonne said the following at 12:25 AM on Aug 24:
I would give anyone a chance to be my friend and not judge him as a sinner until I see him sin, fictional or otherwise. Throwing anyone away was not Jesus' way, he forgave the evil in the hearts of those around him (including the man who would lead him to his death) and chose to die for them anyway because he knew there was good in them too. The world is not divided into stictly good and evil, there is a little of both in us all. It is the Lord's business to sit in judgement, not ours. Whatever happened to "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? Have we fallen so far that we have to sit and pick apart fictional creatures that don't even exist for moral entertainment? Lord protect the real people around us then from ourselves if this is how deep moral prejudice goes. No one is a lost cause who tries and succeeds in fighting their inner demons and manages to stay good despite temptation. This is a fight we all go through every day of our lives in the real world. I think it's important to remember how imperfect we all really are. If you need to judge morality, look no further for something to judge than your own heart. Until you are the perfect being God meant you to be, you can have no right to tell someone else how they should live, or in this case-what's too evil to be read.
45. L said the following at 9:02 AM on Aug 24:
I find it interesting the discussion is only about vampires.
I found the Twilight series to be quite underhanded with its treatment of Bella as a human girl. She was very one dimensional and could barely survive without a male on the horizon (Edward or Jacob) She was not a good example for young girls. She showed very little personality. That to me was far more negative than the overt use of vampires. But even here that hasn't been brought up or noticed! Yikes! How can we teach our young girls that they don't need to be 'wilting flowers' when we don't draw attention to media that tear them down??