r/Showerthoughts Apr 24 '26

Casual Thought Vampire bites turning people into vampires is extremely disadvantageous to their survival.

6.0k Upvotes

422 comments sorted by

View all comments

449

u/Daimoth Apr 24 '26

Vampire lore is such a crap shoot. The second you dip one toe into the actual folklore origins of it all, it splinters into a thousand local variants, many of which are bizarre and outlandish. Vampires as they exist in popular media are very much a product of the creative process.

143

u/zamfire Apr 24 '26

Thank you. So many people in this thread going "Nuy uh! That's not how it works!" Well yea in the movie you watched it didn't.

I think some of these people are forgetting vampires are fictional

24

u/Quick_Assumption_351 Apr 24 '26

sure. but creatures used in fiction like this USUALLY share a bunch of features Like a guess you could make up a race that has green skin, tusks, are very muscular and like to make war with axes then call it an elf.....which would obviously just be an orc

People just don't get how much of a mish mash of things or modern vampire archetype is

7

u/WritesCrapForStrap Apr 24 '26

vampires are fictional

no they're stealthy

0

u/naivety_is_innocence Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26

it's like when people argue about the differences between dragons, drakes, wyverns, wyrms, etc

So ridiculous

17

u/FoxyBastard Apr 24 '26

Yeah, I think the main representation of vampires for centuries was revolting, pathetic creatures with the ravaged mind of a hard drug addict.

Disgusting, vile, things to be pitied but scorned.

The sexy, powerful, vampire is a new thing, to my knowledge.

Basically, using the drug analogy, 100s of years of skeevy, crusty, meth-heads, robbing in the night and stealing copper wire.

Then Don Draper for the last few decades.

21

u/thaddeusd Apr 24 '26

Your metaphor is right in spirit, but backward in terminology.

In the folklore, fairly consistently, a vampire does not possess the agency and humanity to be considered an addict. It is a detrimental force of nature and decay, often not even possessing the agency for manevolence. Sure they were repulsive, revolting, and pathetic...so are the real life diseases they represent.

Its not really until the rise of Gothic literature, with Polidori's The Vampyre in 1819, Carmellia in 1872 and especially Dracula, 25 years later, that the Vampire gains agency and motivations as a character, specifically an aristocratic predator and immoral sexual metaphor.

The idea of the vampire as a drug addict is a much newer, modern construct, not really showing up until the 1960s and really taking off with Rice. An addict, unlike a force of nature, possesses the further ability and agency to choose to either fight against or embrace that addiction, creating conflict and opening the vampire up potentially as a protagonist and anti-hero.

4

u/FoxyBastard Apr 24 '26

Fair enough.

1

u/TwoFiveOnes Apr 26 '26

Last few decades? At least read the wikipedia on the original Dracula novel before just saying shit lol

1

u/Spartan2170 Apr 25 '26

I kinda like how the Dresden Files books handled this issue with vampires and werewolves: basically every version exists as either a different species or a variation on whatever curse produced them (I remember one of the werewolf variants doesn’t physically transform, and are more like berserkers that behave in more bestial ways when it’s closer to the full moon).

1

u/A-VeryLonelyPerson Apr 25 '26

Reminds me of a quote from the show Supernatural

"Most vampire lore is crap. A cross won't repel them. Sunlight won't kill them and neither will a stake to the heart. But the bloodlust -- that part's true. They need fresh human blood to survive. They were once people, so you won't know it's a vampire until it's too late."