XML FeedsThe Good Vampire
By wade ogletree on Mar 29, 2009 | In Writing, Film, Books | 16 feedbacks »
In the movie and book, "Twilight", a young girl finds love with a "good vampire". He and his family do not drink human blood nor participate in the other typical behaviors that mark the evil vampire characters we are used to from literature. This concept has raised some eyebrows among Christians. The AFR morning radio show, "Jump Start", with Buster Wilson and Meeke Addison, tackled this subject last week, and I believe their commentary needs commentary of its own.
They believe this is a work of the devil for it "calls evil good". Isaiah 5:20 says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
The support for this position was, as Meeke put it, "Vampires are evil. We know this."
Fiction can be harmful. "It's just a story," is not an excuse. When I remind everyone that there is no such thing as a vampire, that they are fictitious characters, I am not making such an excuse. We do, however, need to begin examining Meeke's logic with that point. Vampires are not real. They are a creation of fiction and defined by the writer.
In past stories, these characters have been evil. What made them so? It was the evil that they did and their association with the evil side of the spiritual world. As I understand it, "Twilight" disassociates the characters from these things that mark the vampire as evil.
Today, our culture is guilty of what Isaiah warned against. In one example, we now call sexual immorality good and attack those who stand against it. The concept that "Twilight" uses could be applied in a story to show the fallacy in our modern thinking. The good vampire, refusing to drink human blood, could have been a symbol of man standing against the base desires of the flesh, demonstrating that we need not be slaves to our urges, and convicting readers of the fact that evil is not justified by our desire to commit it.
By making illogical and blanket statements like the hosts of "Jump Start" made, they condemn all writers who may seek to take a character the reader "knows" is evil and turn that assumption on its head. The Jews of Christ's time "knew" that Samaritans were evil, and Christ told the story of the Good Samaritan, using their assumptions to drive home His point.
Now, does that mean that their concern has no merit? No. Though the argument is poor, the concern may be justified. "Twilight" is not a Christian book or movie. That in itself is okay. However, the story will not point readers and viewers to Christ but rather leave us simply with a love story about a good vampire. Since it points us to the vampire, and has nothing greater to offer us, the girls who adore this book may desire to delve deeper into vampire fiction. Their love for this good vampire could then be transferred to the vampires that Anne Rice used to write about, among others. In this way, they are seduced. This is not meant to condemn those who have read "Interview with the Vampire" but to point out out the fact that these new readers will pursue such books with a built-in expectation to find love and acceptance in the character of the vampire. They very well may be ready and willing to accept as good all manner of evil for the promise of romance.
"Twilight", then, could lead readers down a path where they themselves will eventually call evil good and good evil. This is the logic that justifies the concern.
Christ's story of The Good Samaritan was not meant to put the focus on the Samaritan. Likewise, I think a Christian writer could write a story about a good vampire, a friendly ghost, or whatever, but we should ask ourselves: what or who do our stories point to?
We might also ask ourselves, have we gone beyond the realm of fictitious characters which are and must be defined by the writers themselves? Are we guilty of taking something truly evil and calling it good?
It is popular in Christian fantasy to invent worlds in which there are God-loving people wielding magic. Often, I can't see the difference between what these "godly" people do and the sorcerers that God's Word condemns. These kind of stories make me uncomfortable, and I will not write them. I understand the writers are trying to make godly points with their stories, but this draws too close to Isaiah 5:20 for me.
What God says is evil, is evil in any context. Sorcerers fall into that category. Vampires do not.
Wade Ogletree
16 comments
Comment from: wade ogletree [Member] 
Emailed Reply from the Meeke Addison:
Hmmm thanks Wade for your comments and I think we’re honored that we found our way onto your blog. I think we said all we wanted to say about Twilight last week. I respectfully disagree with you about allowing vampires to sort of grow with us and become good. Yes they are fictitious I’ll give you that. But what has originated in the mind of sinful man to propagate evil remains evil - my opinion. The Samaritan example is in my opinion weak, I think your comparison is apples to oranges. You are now comparing an actual people group to a group that could fall into the category of “the smurfs” this is unfair to the Samaritans, don’t you think? At any rate I’m glad we were able to provide you with a blog topic.
I think the vampire representing a stand for good and avoiding fleshly desires is a huge stretch, Wade but again your opinion. In fact I believe this sort of reach is precisely what secularists would hope for.
People will do with this movie what that will and we’re ok with that. We simply discuss our perspectives as you are entitled to yours as well.
At any rate, thanks for listening and we appreciate your comments.
Meeke
Hmmm thanks Wade for your comments and I think we’re honored that we found our way onto your blog. I think we said all we wanted to say about Twilight last week. I respectfully disagree with you about allowing vampires to sort of grow with us and become good. Yes they are fictitious I’ll give you that. But what has originated in the mind of sinful man to propagate evil remains evil - my opinion. The Samaritan example is in my opinion weak, I think your comparison is apples to oranges. You are now comparing an actual people group to a group that could fall into the category of “the smurfs” this is unfair to the Samaritans, don’t you think? At any rate I’m glad we were able to provide you with a blog topic.
I think the vampire representing a stand for good and avoiding fleshly desires is a huge stretch, Wade but again your opinion. In fact I believe this sort of reach is precisely what secularists would hope for.
People will do with this movie what that will and we’re ok with that. We simply discuss our perspectives as you are entitled to yours as well.
At any rate, thanks for listening and we appreciate your comments.
Meeke
03/30/09 @ 19:27
Comment from: wade ogletree [Member]
The show is usually good, and I like both Meeke and Buster. I have a long drive to work and the AFR station was down today. Really missed it. I think Meeke was graceful, especially since I called her comments illogical. Unless there is some call to do so, I won't answer the challenges stated within her email. It's no big deal.
Except, that this illustrates why Christian Fantasy is fighting such an uphill battle. There is NO possibility of a Christian author using a vampire character in her mind. If we extrapolate that out, creativity is snuffed out and trampled and the Christian fantasist is out of a job.
I don't know, but I didn't think "Dracula" was an evil book. It dealt with evil, but I didn't think the book was evil. Was I wrong?
Wade
Except, that this illustrates why Christian Fantasy is fighting such an uphill battle. There is NO possibility of a Christian author using a vampire character in her mind. If we extrapolate that out, creativity is snuffed out and trampled and the Christian fantasist is out of a job.
I don't know, but I didn't think "Dracula" was an evil book. It dealt with evil, but I didn't think the book was evil. Was I wrong?
Wade
03/30/09 @ 19:33
Comment from: Melinda Reynolds [Member]
The vampire in DRACULA was evil; those fighting him in God's name were supposed to be 'good'
I don't think ANY vanpire can ever be considered good, as they cannot bear the the image/relics of God.
Shoudl we accept Satan as good if someone decides to write him that way?
--Melinda
I don't think ANY vanpire can ever be considered good, as they cannot bear the the image/relics of God.
Shoudl we accept Satan as good if someone decides to write him that way?
--Melinda
03/30/09 @ 20:00
Comment from: wade ogletree [Member]
A point of clarification.
I have not read nor was any of this a justification of the book or movie "Twilight". The movie is besides the point. My question goes deeper and is very much tied a point from Meeke's reply:
"But what has originated in the mind of sinful man to propagate evil remains evil - my opinion."
The fictitious character of the vampire was created to multiply and breed evil. (That is the definition of propagate.) According to this opinion, it is evil in its every use. I wonder if she also means to say that every use of it is evil. This is why I asked if the book "Dracula" was itself an evil book. (Sometimes I assume the reader is following my line of reasoning, and that may not always be true.)
It also occurs to me that we may be tangled in a double misunderstanding:
"I think the vampire representing a stand for good and avoiding fleshly desires is a huge stretch, Wade but again your opinion. In fact I believe this sort of reach is precisely what secularists would hope for."
I'm not sure if she thinks that I was implying this was the meaning behind the movie. That would be erroneous. I was proposing a Christian story idea featuring a good vampire, for argument's sake. In my initial reading, I assumed she understood my argument and the she was arguing that "secularists" were hoping that we would write stories like these. Maybe she meant that they hope we will interpret the movie as a statement against sexual immorality. I don't know.
Over all, from both the broadcast and the response, I still get the feeling that stories about characters such as these are off limits for some (maybe many) Christians--without exception. I end up with the feeling that the market is doomed.
Please, tell me I am wrong.
Wade
I have not read nor was any of this a justification of the book or movie "Twilight". The movie is besides the point. My question goes deeper and is very much tied a point from Meeke's reply:
"But what has originated in the mind of sinful man to propagate evil remains evil - my opinion."
The fictitious character of the vampire was created to multiply and breed evil. (That is the definition of propagate.) According to this opinion, it is evil in its every use. I wonder if she also means to say that every use of it is evil. This is why I asked if the book "Dracula" was itself an evil book. (Sometimes I assume the reader is following my line of reasoning, and that may not always be true.)
It also occurs to me that we may be tangled in a double misunderstanding:
"I think the vampire representing a stand for good and avoiding fleshly desires is a huge stretch, Wade but again your opinion. In fact I believe this sort of reach is precisely what secularists would hope for."
I'm not sure if she thinks that I was implying this was the meaning behind the movie. That would be erroneous. I was proposing a Christian story idea featuring a good vampire, for argument's sake. In my initial reading, I assumed she understood my argument and the she was arguing that "secularists" were hoping that we would write stories like these. Maybe she meant that they hope we will interpret the movie as a statement against sexual immorality. I don't know.
Over all, from both the broadcast and the response, I still get the feeling that stories about characters such as these are off limits for some (maybe many) Christians--without exception. I end up with the feeling that the market is doomed.
Please, tell me I am wrong.
Wade
03/30/09 @ 21:25
Comment from: wade ogletree [Member]
Melinda,
Thanks for joining in. I didn't see your comment before I wrote the one above.
Here's where I disagree:
"I don't think ANY vampire can ever be considered good, as they cannot bear the the image/relics of God."
Whether or not the fictitious character of the vampire can or cannot bear the image/relics of God is dependent upon the writer. Let me continue my hypothesized story in order to make my point.
"Vampires" would be created by a disease that gives them some of the basic components associated with the characters as we've known them: a hunger for blood and sensitivity to light. Let's say they are not the undead in this story. Instead, the molecular degeneration that is aging is slowed. They are not immortal, however.
Most of the vampires would live according to their urges, killing people and feeding off of their blood. The hypothetical "good" vampire would not.
Perhaps the "good" vampire is even a Christian. We come down with other diseases. If vampirism is just a disease, then why not?
Taking all of that, I want to find a way to work in your point about bearing the relics of God. (Although the idea of religious relics is not part of my own faith.) I would base it on Romans 1, I think. As the evil vampires give in to their fleshly lusts, God abandons them to their desires and they become spiritually and psychologically twisted. Thus, the "evil" vampires could react very strongly to the relics of God. -- Of course, my story example holds up very well (better, actually) if I just dump that aspect of the mythology. In which case, a vampire would react to a the relics in the same variety of ways that other people do.
As for the other points, I believe Satan to be a real person, a real and evil person. Different rules apply. I made a similar point with the sorcerers.
And I appreciate your point about the vampire in "Dracula" being evil, thus differentiating the character from the book. A book about an evil character does not immediately make the book evil. Nor does it make the author evil. Oh, I know that's not carte blanche. A book can, in and of itself, be evil.
However, I do believe a Christian could write a story about an evil vampire and it still be a Christian story. I am also arguing that he could write about a good vampire without being guilty of Is 5:20.
Wade
Thanks for joining in. I didn't see your comment before I wrote the one above.
Here's where I disagree:
"I don't think ANY vampire can ever be considered good, as they cannot bear the the image/relics of God."
Whether or not the fictitious character of the vampire can or cannot bear the image/relics of God is dependent upon the writer. Let me continue my hypothesized story in order to make my point.
"Vampires" would be created by a disease that gives them some of the basic components associated with the characters as we've known them: a hunger for blood and sensitivity to light. Let's say they are not the undead in this story. Instead, the molecular degeneration that is aging is slowed. They are not immortal, however.
Most of the vampires would live according to their urges, killing people and feeding off of their blood. The hypothetical "good" vampire would not.
Perhaps the "good" vampire is even a Christian. We come down with other diseases. If vampirism is just a disease, then why not?
Taking all of that, I want to find a way to work in your point about bearing the relics of God. (Although the idea of religious relics is not part of my own faith.) I would base it on Romans 1, I think. As the evil vampires give in to their fleshly lusts, God abandons them to their desires and they become spiritually and psychologically twisted. Thus, the "evil" vampires could react very strongly to the relics of God. -- Of course, my story example holds up very well (better, actually) if I just dump that aspect of the mythology. In which case, a vampire would react to a the relics in the same variety of ways that other people do.
As for the other points, I believe Satan to be a real person, a real and evil person. Different rules apply. I made a similar point with the sorcerers.
And I appreciate your point about the vampire in "Dracula" being evil, thus differentiating the character from the book. A book about an evil character does not immediately make the book evil. Nor does it make the author evil. Oh, I know that's not carte blanche. A book can, in and of itself, be evil.
However, I do believe a Christian could write a story about an evil vampire and it still be a Christian story. I am also arguing that he could write about a good vampire without being guilty of Is 5:20.
Wade
03/30/09 @ 21:51
Comment from: wade ogletree [Member]
Of course, we're discussing this like Christians haven't written Christian Vampire Fiction. That would ignore the likes of Thomas Nelson publishing the "Jerusalem’s Undead Trilogy" by Eric Wilson.
As far as I can tell, though, the vampires are evil; though the protagonist is immortal, she is not a vampire.
As far as I can tell, though, the vampires are evil; though the protagonist is immortal, she is not a vampire.
03/30/09 @ 22:25
Comment from: Rachel Starr Thomson [Visitor] · http://www.rachelstarrthomson.com/inklings/
Wade, great topic! I'll throw in my two cents, but with a disclaimer: I have not read Twilight. I have not seen the movie. Anything I say is theoretical and not actually connected to the particulars of Meyers' story.
My father and I actually got into exactly this discussion a few weeks ago. He objects to the movie on the grounds that there is a living and active "vampire" subculture within the occult today. Be that as it may, I made the argument that in THIS story, the vampire is "good" because he resists his fleshly urges--as you pointed out, Wade. So in this story, we could see him as a picture of sinful man. We don't like to admit it, but aren't we all beset by evil desires? And isn't fighting those desires the right thing to do?
Dad countered that argument with an excellent point: yes, the vampire can be a picture of sinful man. But if the story has him overcoming out of his own strength, his own self-control, his own inherent "goodness," then it is not a "true" story. To be a real picture of who we are and what we must do to overcome sin, the story needs an outside Messiah.
Ultimately, yes, vampires are fiction--so they way they behave in a story is defined by the author's vision. Methinks that any Christian writer who wants to write about "good" vampires had better be careful to draw some very clear distinctions--readers won't just automatically jettison everything they already "know" about vampires. We need to be aware of the assumptions readers will bring to a work and learn to use those assumptions to create a more powerful story.
Thanks for inviting me in on this discussion :).
My father and I actually got into exactly this discussion a few weeks ago. He objects to the movie on the grounds that there is a living and active "vampire" subculture within the occult today. Be that as it may, I made the argument that in THIS story, the vampire is "good" because he resists his fleshly urges--as you pointed out, Wade. So in this story, we could see him as a picture of sinful man. We don't like to admit it, but aren't we all beset by evil desires? And isn't fighting those desires the right thing to do?
Dad countered that argument with an excellent point: yes, the vampire can be a picture of sinful man. But if the story has him overcoming out of his own strength, his own self-control, his own inherent "goodness," then it is not a "true" story. To be a real picture of who we are and what we must do to overcome sin, the story needs an outside Messiah.
Ultimately, yes, vampires are fiction--so they way they behave in a story is defined by the author's vision. Methinks that any Christian writer who wants to write about "good" vampires had better be careful to draw some very clear distinctions--readers won't just automatically jettison everything they already "know" about vampires. We need to be aware of the assumptions readers will bring to a work and learn to use those assumptions to create a more powerful story.
Thanks for inviting me in on this discussion :).
03/31/09 @ 09:29
Comment from: Melinda Reynolds [Member]
But then you're changing the 'history' of the vampire as created/set up by the original writer, Bram Stoker (sorta like gays are 'redefining' the word marriage; now the word 'vanpire' is being redefined).
A disease that gives a person the vampire characteristics that you state would not make a person a 'real' vampire; therefore, the argument is moot.
Vampies on TV are invariably damned creatures (whether by choice or by the vmpire's bite), and are the walking dead (undead sounds like an oxymoron).
I haven't seen or read Twilight; I don't intend to. Im burnt out on vmapire themed stuff; it's soooo worn out and the angst (if any exists) is either 'oh, poor, pitiful me; I'm so persecuted' or 'it's not my fault, it's not my fault! I want to die! I don't want to be this! yada yada.
The distinction, I think, needs to be made between the original Stoker Vampire creation, and the biological disease causing SIMILAR effects (but the person doesn't die; ie, soul leaves body).
I don't like the glamourizing and glorifying of anything vampire related. In out area, stupid teens and college kis think they're vampires and have actually killed people. They don't need further inducement to this perversion via movies, books, TV glamorizing it. And if it wasn't shown in a positive light, and was very dark and deadly, it would gain even more followers.
Humans are easily led astray.
--Melinda
A disease that gives a person the vampire characteristics that you state would not make a person a 'real' vampire; therefore, the argument is moot.
Vampies on TV are invariably damned creatures (whether by choice or by the vmpire's bite), and are the walking dead (undead sounds like an oxymoron).
I haven't seen or read Twilight; I don't intend to. Im burnt out on vmapire themed stuff; it's soooo worn out and the angst (if any exists) is either 'oh, poor, pitiful me; I'm so persecuted' or 'it's not my fault, it's not my fault! I want to die! I don't want to be this! yada yada.
The distinction, I think, needs to be made between the original Stoker Vampire creation, and the biological disease causing SIMILAR effects (but the person doesn't die; ie, soul leaves body).
I don't like the glamourizing and glorifying of anything vampire related. In out area, stupid teens and college kis think they're vampires and have actually killed people. They don't need further inducement to this perversion via movies, books, TV glamorizing it. And if it wasn't shown in a positive light, and was very dark and deadly, it would gain even more followers.
Humans are easily led astray.
--Melinda
03/31/09 @ 12:10
Comment from: Melinda Reynolds [Member]
addtional note:
I think a Christain writer can write abut an evil Vampire; I thought you were saying a Christain writer can write about a 'good' vampire.
It's when evil is protrayed as good in fictional works, is when that work ceases to be Christian.
I think a Christain writer can write abut an evil Vampire; I thought you were saying a Christain writer can write about a 'good' vampire.
It's when evil is protrayed as good in fictional works, is when that work ceases to be Christian.
03/31/09 @ 12:38
Comment from: Brandon Barr [Visitor] · http://www.christiansciencefiction.blogspot.com
Hi Wade,
This topic has clearly garnered quite a bit of exciting discussion. I have two points I want to make.
Point 1:
I agree with Wade's idea of a Christian writer taking the vampire story, and making it into a metaphor for a human fighting against his fleshly lusts. It is actually quite a good literary comparison.
Another comparison that popped into my head is the comparability of a vampire to a homosexual. Both of these beings (one being fictitious, the other real) has an inherent bent to do something which God condemns (murder, homosexual acts). However, just as the vampire has the choice to resist his bloodlust, so too can the homosexual resist his desire for other men. Both of these beings, resisting what they know is wrong, are in fact, doing nothing wrong--even though the vampire is still a vampire, and the homosexual is still a homosexual--they are resisting the desires within. And if they resist those desires because of a knowledge of God, then they do so for the purest reasons...because to resist is GOOD.
Point 2:
Wade, don't worry, there are lots of Christians who are fine with vampires, werewolves, dragons, ogre's, and the like. It's all about how they are used within fiction. As Christians, we can use such creatures in two ways. The above mentioned creatures all have an evil bent, but if these beings resist that evil bent, then they are in fact great pictures of repentance, and of a willful turning from their "sinful" nature.
So that being said. I know few people who would disagree with you and I Wade, and all of them are great Christians. So don't loose heart, there are lots of readers for our particular genre of Christian fiction...be it sci-fi or fantasy.
This topic has clearly garnered quite a bit of exciting discussion. I have two points I want to make.
Point 1:
I agree with Wade's idea of a Christian writer taking the vampire story, and making it into a metaphor for a human fighting against his fleshly lusts. It is actually quite a good literary comparison.
Another comparison that popped into my head is the comparability of a vampire to a homosexual. Both of these beings (one being fictitious, the other real) has an inherent bent to do something which God condemns (murder, homosexual acts). However, just as the vampire has the choice to resist his bloodlust, so too can the homosexual resist his desire for other men. Both of these beings, resisting what they know is wrong, are in fact, doing nothing wrong--even though the vampire is still a vampire, and the homosexual is still a homosexual--they are resisting the desires within. And if they resist those desires because of a knowledge of God, then they do so for the purest reasons...because to resist is GOOD.
Point 2:
Wade, don't worry, there are lots of Christians who are fine with vampires, werewolves, dragons, ogre's, and the like. It's all about how they are used within fiction. As Christians, we can use such creatures in two ways. The above mentioned creatures all have an evil bent, but if these beings resist that evil bent, then they are in fact great pictures of repentance, and of a willful turning from their "sinful" nature.
So that being said. I know few people who would disagree with you and I Wade, and all of them are great Christians. So don't loose heart, there are lots of readers for our particular genre of Christian fiction...be it sci-fi or fantasy.
03/31/09 @ 16:30
Comment from: wade ogletree [Member]
Ran into this editorial that condemned Focus on the Family for giving Twilight a Pro/Con review instead of just telling Christians to avoid it completely.
"worldviewtimes article
The scripture they quote illustrates why I'm uncomfortable with good sorcerers in Christian Fiction, but they apply it to Twilight as well. I assume they'd also condemn Eric Wilson's vampire trilogy.
Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (New International Version)
9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
Maybe they have a point. Maybe we're all too indoctrinated in secular culture. Isn't that what Meeke and Buster were saying in the first place?
(I keep having to erase what I write in addressing this last paragraph because it quickly degrades into irony. I don't mean it that way. Or, I don't want to mean it that way. I want to ask the question honestly and seek God for an answer.
I don't have much respect for the overall point of the article, and I think the author of the article is a fragile believer. Of course, the Biblical mandate is for me to be careful with that believer. It's not for me to try to dissuade him, less I cause him to stumble and sin. The question is not how does the author use scripture. The question is what does scripture say, and what would God have of us as readers and writers?)
"worldviewtimes article
The scripture they quote illustrates why I'm uncomfortable with good sorcerers in Christian Fiction, but they apply it to Twilight as well. I assume they'd also condemn Eric Wilson's vampire trilogy.
Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (New International Version)
9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
Maybe they have a point. Maybe we're all too indoctrinated in secular culture. Isn't that what Meeke and Buster were saying in the first place?
(I keep having to erase what I write in addressing this last paragraph because it quickly degrades into irony. I don't mean it that way. Or, I don't want to mean it that way. I want to ask the question honestly and seek God for an answer.
I don't have much respect for the overall point of the article, and I think the author of the article is a fragile believer. Of course, the Biblical mandate is for me to be careful with that believer. It's not for me to try to dissuade him, less I cause him to stumble and sin. The question is not how does the author use scripture. The question is what does scripture say, and what would God have of us as readers and writers?)
03/31/09 @ 23:14
Comment from: Chris Schmitz [Visitor] · http://www.thekakosrealm.com
there are a lot of interesting dynamics that you can bring into play as a writer, but the original author's intent usually holds the most sway. Who wrote first about vampires, then, you must ask. Nobody in particular, but vampire myths exist in every culture in the world dating back quite far, and in all of the myths the vampire is an evil figure.
It is my personal belief that the vampirism=evil connection comes from two sources. the first is that there is a link between life and blood. This is a theme that runs throughout the entirity of the Christian Bible and is even rooted etymologically within the very language (with words such as nephesh: a hebrew term that literally means "the life is in the blood."). The second issue is that I believe there is enough archaelogical evidence to suggest that there is some sort of truth behind the vampire legends, even if htat truth is nothing more than a mental condition similar to psychological lycanthropy that is often associated with werewolves.
Anyhow, an absolute statement is beyond my paygrade. actaully, I just don't have the time or resources to really delve into the topic. I do feel, however, that the Twilight characters show us the shifting mentality of moral relativism in western culture: we have taken something that has classically been viewed as anathama and heroised it. I could name scores of teenage girls who are "in love" with edward cullen the vampire "hero" from the book/movie. that would've been unthinkable twenty years ago. And a final sidenote since my preacher side is ramping up: I don't hate or love twilight... it is what it is (a story that many love and many don't) but with the issue behind it, we should remember that just because our thinking has progressed, (from moral absolutism to moral relativity) that doesn't make it better like so many suppose. No inpatient at the Mayo clinic gets excited to hear that their cancer has "progressed."
It is my personal belief that the vampirism=evil connection comes from two sources. the first is that there is a link between life and blood. This is a theme that runs throughout the entirity of the Christian Bible and is even rooted etymologically within the very language (with words such as nephesh: a hebrew term that literally means "the life is in the blood."). The second issue is that I believe there is enough archaelogical evidence to suggest that there is some sort of truth behind the vampire legends, even if htat truth is nothing more than a mental condition similar to psychological lycanthropy that is often associated with werewolves.
Anyhow, an absolute statement is beyond my paygrade. actaully, I just don't have the time or resources to really delve into the topic. I do feel, however, that the Twilight characters show us the shifting mentality of moral relativism in western culture: we have taken something that has classically been viewed as anathama and heroised it. I could name scores of teenage girls who are "in love" with edward cullen the vampire "hero" from the book/movie. that would've been unthinkable twenty years ago. And a final sidenote since my preacher side is ramping up: I don't hate or love twilight... it is what it is (a story that many love and many don't) but with the issue behind it, we should remember that just because our thinking has progressed, (from moral absolutism to moral relativity) that doesn't make it better like so many suppose. No inpatient at the Mayo clinic gets excited to hear that their cancer has "progressed."
04/01/09 @ 00:14
Comment from: Dean [Visitor]
[Now that I've read the other feedback, it looks like my points will be similar to Melinda's]
First, I should say I haven't read the book or seen the movie. All I know of the story I've heard second-hand or will be making assumptions, so my comments should be taken in that light.
It seems to me the concern over a fictitious "good vampire" might be misplaced and is caused by a matter of definition. I have to agree with Meeke Addison that "Vampires are evil." By definition, they are. Folklore clearly establishes they were born from evil, are cursed by it no matter how "good" or innocent they were before being turned. A vampire cannot truly find redemption or be "good" unless he's somehow able to remove the curse (and then he wouldn't be a vampire anymore, of course). So a "good vampire" is actually an oxymoron.
In this sense, Twilight's afflicted characters are a different sort of creature that the author has made similar to, and calls, "vampires" even though they're not. Now if instead they _were_ vampires doing evil and yet made to seem good, then I think there would be a real cause for concern.
As to how this misuse of the vampire term may negatively affect viewers or readers, I think it depends on how the "vampires" are described. Are their origins the same as the vampire? How are they able to resist their curse? Is this an issue at all in the story?
If they are not cursed and can choose to do good or evil, I don't see a problem. They're basically superheros then. Otherwise, the author may indeed be spinning evil as good and the naysayers have legitimate cause for concern.
First, I should say I haven't read the book or seen the movie. All I know of the story I've heard second-hand or will be making assumptions, so my comments should be taken in that light.
It seems to me the concern over a fictitious "good vampire" might be misplaced and is caused by a matter of definition. I have to agree with Meeke Addison that "Vampires are evil." By definition, they are. Folklore clearly establishes they were born from evil, are cursed by it no matter how "good" or innocent they were before being turned. A vampire cannot truly find redemption or be "good" unless he's somehow able to remove the curse (and then he wouldn't be a vampire anymore, of course). So a "good vampire" is actually an oxymoron.
In this sense, Twilight's afflicted characters are a different sort of creature that the author has made similar to, and calls, "vampires" even though they're not. Now if instead they _were_ vampires doing evil and yet made to seem good, then I think there would be a real cause for concern.
As to how this misuse of the vampire term may negatively affect viewers or readers, I think it depends on how the "vampires" are described. Are their origins the same as the vampire? How are they able to resist their curse? Is this an issue at all in the story?
If they are not cursed and can choose to do good or evil, I don't see a problem. They're basically superheros then. Otherwise, the author may indeed be spinning evil as good and the naysayers have legitimate cause for concern.
04/01/09 @ 00:39
Comment from: Eric Wilson [Visitor] · http://JerusalemsUndead.com
As the author of a vampire novel with Judaic and biblical foundations, I guess I'll chime in here. My book, Field of Blood, was written to counter the slide toward amoral acceptance of the vampire genre. I wanted to return to the traditional view of vampires, as seen in Stoker's book and most of the novels before the 1980s. I took a completely different approach, though, using two sets of undead--one evil and one good--and pitting them against each other in an atmospheric, history-ridden, and character driven story.
Recent fiction has chosen to strip vampires of good and evil connotations and use them as a vehicle for entertainment, often bawdy. In my opinion, Twilight falls into the category of teen drama masquerading as vampire fiction. I don't even see it as the real thing, more like a clever plot device to deal with ideas of love.
Personally, I prefer books that dive deeper into the myth, the themes of life in the blood, and the legends of life-sucking, blood-leeching creatures that are present in nearly every culture throughout history. My own series works off the spiritual ideas therein.
Recent fiction has chosen to strip vampires of good and evil connotations and use them as a vehicle for entertainment, often bawdy. In my opinion, Twilight falls into the category of teen drama masquerading as vampire fiction. I don't even see it as the real thing, more like a clever plot device to deal with ideas of love.
Personally, I prefer books that dive deeper into the myth, the themes of life in the blood, and the legends of life-sucking, blood-leeching creatures that are present in nearly every culture throughout history. My own series works off the spiritual ideas therein.
04/01/09 @ 08:21
Comment from: Karina Kantas [Visitor] · http://www.urban-novels.com
I've seen the movie, Twilight and loved it, but there is nothing new about a Vampire trying to live a good life.
Look at Blade the trilogy, comic, TV series. He's a vampire and takes a serum so he doesn't have the urge for human blood.
Is he evil?
I think Vampire movies and book are cool. I enjoy watching them on the screen and reading about them. I don't find that the movies/books portray good verses evil. I think Vampires are portrayed as sexual predators. Think about it. There are not too many films our there with ugly vampires. lol
So in answer to your question, I think the Vampire family in Twilight are good, or at least trying to live a good life.
Now here's a question for you...
The female teenager that falls in love with a Vampire, is willing to give up her human existence and become a Vampire. She desire it more than anything.
Does that make her evil?
Does wanting to abandon God and become the un-dead make her evil?
Even though she would be existing a human blood free diet.
She wants to be with him forever and unless she becomes one of them, she will die young and without him.
I think that's a very romantic notion, if not stupid, but I don't see anything evil about it.
For those of you that haven't seen the film or read the first of many books, he refuses to change her and wants to enjoy the time they have together.
Now that's a love story.
Look at Blade the trilogy, comic, TV series. He's a vampire and takes a serum so he doesn't have the urge for human blood.
Is he evil?
I think Vampire movies and book are cool. I enjoy watching them on the screen and reading about them. I don't find that the movies/books portray good verses evil. I think Vampires are portrayed as sexual predators. Think about it. There are not too many films our there with ugly vampires. lol
So in answer to your question, I think the Vampire family in Twilight are good, or at least trying to live a good life.
Now here's a question for you...
The female teenager that falls in love with a Vampire, is willing to give up her human existence and become a Vampire. She desire it more than anything.
Does that make her evil?
Does wanting to abandon God and become the un-dead make her evil?
Even though she would be existing a human blood free diet.
She wants to be with him forever and unless she becomes one of them, she will die young and without him.
I think that's a very romantic notion, if not stupid, but I don't see anything evil about it.
For those of you that haven't seen the film or read the first of many books, he refuses to change her and wants to enjoy the time they have together.
Now that's a love story.
04/05/09 @ 04:42
Comment from: wade ogletree [Member]
Via Email:
Hello Wade,
I’m writing to tell you about a new book, Sons of God by Rebecca Ellen Kurtz.
Sons of God is a work of speculative biblical fiction that tells the tale of a 3,000 year old nephelim, half-human, half-angelic female warrior, disguised as a treasure hunter for mythic items.
This is a work of fiction that explores some controversial areas that some believe reveals the truth about what is in the Bible. Kurtz’s research in this book also presents an alternate theory on vampires based on ancient religions and civilizations, including the three religions embracing the Old Testament.
Rebecca Ellen Kurtz is a passionate amateur archaeologist and expert on historical mysteries who has traveled widely around the world studying foreign cultures authentically and experientially. To learn more about Kurtz and her book visit her blog at http://rebeccaellenkurtz.com/blog/
Thanks,
Jessica Lorenzen
Hello Wade,
I’m writing to tell you about a new book, Sons of God by Rebecca Ellen Kurtz.
Sons of God is a work of speculative biblical fiction that tells the tale of a 3,000 year old nephelim, half-human, half-angelic female warrior, disguised as a treasure hunter for mythic items.
This is a work of fiction that explores some controversial areas that some believe reveals the truth about what is in the Bible. Kurtz’s research in this book also presents an alternate theory on vampires based on ancient religions and civilizations, including the three religions embracing the Old Testament.
Rebecca Ellen Kurtz is a passionate amateur archaeologist and expert on historical mysteries who has traveled widely around the world studying foreign cultures authentically and experientially. To learn more about Kurtz and her book visit her blog at http://rebeccaellenkurtz.com/blog/
Thanks,
Jessica Lorenzen
04/13/09 @ 18:46
Leave a comment
| « New Cover Now Up | New Cover Needed » |
