Vampire Victims

[Josette]

The reaction of the "bitee" seems to be different in each case, apparently depending on how they want the story to go.

I think that Maggie didn't really know what had happened to her.  She was weak, but didn't seem to know anything.  Then, after Barnabas abducted her, she went "in and out" of knowing who she was and what Barnabas was.

The one that really puzzled me was Josette in 1795.  Barnabas did finally bite her and she was ready to go away with him.  Yet, she seemed to be completely unaware of what he was and what going with him would mean.  I could never figure out how she could have been bitten and yet still not know what he was.

Today's episode would seem to confirm how crazy that was.  Charity was immediately aware of what had happened (as have other victims been, i.e., Joe with Angelique, Carolyn with Barnabas, etc.).

[Annie]

Hi, Joesette your'e right it does seem like some of
Barnabas's victims don't realize they have been bit
or even act scard for some reason.
                     Love Anne

[Mark Rainey]

This is a topic that a lot of writers of vampire fiction, including I, have addressed in different ways, inconsistency within DS itself notwithstanding. DS offered the somewhat landmark idea that vampirism was a preternatural "disease" rather than an explicitly supernatural condition. Thus, since different people have different reactions to bacterial and virile infections, based on their individual constitutions, it's conceivable they would have different reactions to the bite of a vampire. Not only that, different vampires themselves might carry different strains.

In DREAMS OF THE DARK, for example, the bite of Thomas Rathburn, whose characteristics are somewhat different than Barnabas's, causes very severe personality conflicts in Victoria Winters (to the point that some less-enlightened soul decided it was "character corruption").

I don't think any such thing was in the minds of the DS writers back in the day, but in hindsight, one can use all kinds of such devices to rationalize.

--Mark[/color]

[RingoCollins]

In DREAMS OF THE DARK, for example, the bite of Thomas....

Hard to believe it took a whole paragraph before ya got to the book plug!!

We used to relate the different reactions of the bite-ee to different reactions to Dr. Leary's sugar cube treats!  Some 'didn't know what was happening to them', some went 'in and out', and some were ready to 'go away with him'.  But I've said before that the hippie-types all thought the whole show was about US [the soft white underbelly of society] and I've read from the gay posters that they thought it was all about them, and that the 'lonely, shy' types thought it was all about them.  I think that's another aspect of the show that has allowed its continued popularity [like the Beatles songs - they were singing to us, about us, for us].  Everyone can relate to it their own way - it's 'our' show!

Just a 'glazed-eye' thought....

Ringo

and Mark, I was just yanking ya about the book promo - I love DOTD, read it several times, and recommend it to everyone that is a DS fan [and many who don't visit the board, I know I have 'pushed it' on several.]  That's another thing - Do you all know of DS watchers who DON'T do this board???  I know several, but they never post here! ? !  Some lurk, but no post???

[and yes, it took me two paragraphs before I mentioned the Fabs!]

[but no TLATKLS in this post.........]

[Gerard]

I'm just putting it down to the victim reacting in whatever way the vampire (in this case, Barnabas) desires.  He has a certain power over them, and I imagine he can make them remember or respond according to his dictates.  Still, way deep down, the victim retains a very small amount of free will.  That's why Willie tried to resist, but couldn't, and the same for Maggie.  And Barnabas has to keep reminding Sandor not to outfox him, or else.  If it wasn't at least theoretically possible for him to do so, even momentarily, Barnabas would have no reason to warn him.

Gerard

[Midnite]

This is a topic that a lot of writers of vampire fiction, including I, have addressed in different ways, inconsistency within DS itself notwithstanding. DS offered the somewhat landmark idea that vampirism was a preternatural "disease" rather than an explicitly supernatural condition. Thus, since different people have different reactions to bacterial and virile infections, based on their individual constitutions, it's conceivable they would have different reactions to the bite of a vampire. Not only that, different vampires themselves might carry different strains.

I recently rewatched House of Dracula (actually, re re re re re rewatched would be more like it) that also dealt with this issue, explaining vampirism as a "peculiar parasite" that could be isolated and treated.  Actually, it bugs me that this last installment in the Universal monster rally had a simple explanation for all the creatures' problems, but I digress.  Anyway, after Dracula (yay for John Carradine!) takes one look at the doctor's gorgeous nurse and changes his mind about being cured, he reverses the procedure (and a valve or two) by transfusing the doctor with his own infected blood.  Then I guess we're supposed to believe that what the doctor becomes is a vampire since his image isn't reflected in a mirror, yet he's able to freely walk in the sunlight, and even more confusingly changes in Jekyll/Hyde fashion at what seem to be the points in which the writers needed to up the intensity and violence of their story.  I guess the point I'm making is that here's a movie, and a short one at that, that doesn't even make sense within its own time frame-- the lack of explanation as to how the Wolfman and Frankenstein survived the last movie notwithstanding-- so perhaps it helped inspire DC & Co. to change the rules of vampirism on DS at their own whim as well.

In DREAMS OF THE DARK, for example, the bite of Thomas Rathburn, whose characteristics are somewhat different than Barnabas's, causes very severe personality conflicts in Victoria Winters (to the point that some less-enlightened soul decided it was "character corruption").

I like that explanation best of all.  We saw so little of Charity Trask pre-attack that we don't really know what she was like under all the repressed emotions.  And the changes she undergoes even further into the storyline, though for a different reason, are even more surprising and entertaining.

[jennifer]

it's funny but books and movies about vampires all
seem to change something about them.but i tend to think that always felt as Gerard that Barnabas controlled them they way he wanted. i always thought it was weird
that tom Jennings and dirk became the "monster vampires" while Barnabas and roxanne appeared
normal and could interact like before!

jennifer

[Raineypark]

This is hilarious!!  A discussion on the vagaries of vampirism?!!

What are we comparing to?  A control group of actual Vampires in a lab in Romania somewhere?

Is there a data bank of Vampire DNA that authors and film-makers should be referring to before they begin a new version?

Vampire legends are probably as old as civilization.  Every culture has it's own take on them.   Every writer from Stoker on down re-creates them in his/her own image.  Every film-maker steals from, borrows and contradicts every one before them.  

And thank goodness they do.  Imagine how boring the whole genre would be if you couldn't change the way they rise up, the way they feed, the way they make slaves or companions of their victims, and the way they feel about themselves as creatures of Evil (or not!).

There's no one right way to be a Vampire.  And no one right way for a vampire victim to behave.  No one has 'holy writ' on the subject.  And that's what makes us keep coming back for more!

Raineypark

[Midnite]

This is hilarious!!  A discussion on the vagaries of vampirism?!!

I'm, uh, glad you're enjoying it, hee hee!!  I love the subject of vampires-- it's the hook that brought me to DS, though of course it's not what kept me coming back.

I also love the different interpretations of vampirism among different works, but I think the bigger discussion here is about how the rules changed (what some call inconsistencies) for vampires and their victims within the DS story itself.

It's just my POV, but I don't think you can compare Barn's and Angelique's vampires to the others simply because they were victims of a curse and a spell respectively.  And

SPOILERS AHEAD...

I think the difference between the vampire Roxanne of 1970 and, say, Megan's vamp stems from the fact that the former had 130 years on the latter.

[Raineypark]

..... I think the bigger discussion here is about how the rules changed for vampires and their victims within the DS story itself.

And again!....thank goodness they DID change.  Can you imagine if Willie's reaction had been more like Maggie's ("....where am I?....who am I......what am I doing here?....).  Never could have gotten the Old House fixed up  like it was if Willie had been wandering around like a lost soul all day.

Even worse....can you imagine if Willie had been as sexually enthralled as little Miss Charity seems to be by Barnabas' love bite?  EEKKK!

SPOILERS AHEAD...

I think the difference between the vampire Roxanne of 1970 and, say, Megan's vamp stems from the fact that the former had 130 years on the latter.

Well, you have me at a disadvantage there....I've never seen any of those episodes.  I just think it's a strange exercise to critique each victim's behavior as though there were  an agreed upon norm to compare them to!  If one wants to critique at all, I say do it on each one's own performance.

raineypark

[Bernie]

I recently rewatched House of Dracula (actually, re re re re re rewatched would be more like it) that also dealt with this issue, explaining vampirism as a "peculiar parasite" that could be isolated and treated.  Actually, it bugs me that this last installment in the Universal monster rally had a simple explanation for all the creatures' problems, but I digress. 

I liked John Carradine as Dracula too, although the character by this point was rather weak and dumbed down.  I'd still prefer Lugosi, though.  As far as Larry Talbot goes, I thought he was finally cured at the end of House Of Dracula, but I guess the thrill of getting to work with Abbott and Costello caused a relapse!!

Bernie

[Gerard]

i always thought it was weird
that tom Jennings and dirk became the "monster vampires" while Barnabas and roxanne appeared
normal and could interact like before!

jennifer

Actually, Jennifer, Tom Jennings and Dirk acted exactly the way they did before they were vampirized as well.  Their dishevelled hair, dark circles under their eyes and sometimes rather ratty clothing, making it look like they spent too much night-lifing just showed them to be what they always were:  bachelors.

Gerard

[Mark Rainey]

Actually, Jennifer, Tom Jennings and Dirk acted exactly the way they did before they were vampirized as well.  Their dishevelled hair, dark circles under their eyes and sometimes rather ratty clothing, making it look like they spent too much night-lifing just showed them to be what they always were:  bachelors.

ROFL! Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best...

--Mark

[jennifer]

Actually, Jennifer, Tom Jennings and Dirk acted exactly the way they did before they were vampirized as well.  Their dishevelled hair, dark circles under their eyes and sometimes rather ratty clothing, making it look like they spent too much night-lifing just showed them to be what they always were:  bachelors.

Gerard

ROTFL,TOO
oh that is too funny Gerard!!Why didn't i think of that!
But does that mean all bachelors are really monsters at heart??LOL
(know the show is ICK)
jennifer

[jennifer]

ROFL! Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best...

--Mark

and Mark i liked your vampires!!

jennifer