Simsweb pl.

[Ash Redfern]

I've heard a theory that a vampire 'being' is not the one of the former human, but that of a demonic spirit. The human spirit is killed, and the soul and body are preserved and occupied by the demon. This entity is a faulty trinity, because one of three does not belong there, and has forcefully entered and destroyed the original. Therefore it dies but is not really dead.

Rumors of our demonic nature have been highly exaggerated.

[mando]

I don't glamourise them at all - but faced with two bad choices, I have considered which has the most desirable traits.  I am working from the general body of mythology of vampires, including the Transylvanian legends concerning them - which are not at all favourable, as well as the Albanian ideas of vampire spirits (which resemble Lord Voldemort in his incorporeal form - feeding on the blood of small creatures - souls that are bound to the earth, angry and tormented).

Well, you choose awareness and I'll take oblivion, I guess :lol:. I'm not sure that it would be preferable to be confronted with an unending life if I'm actually experiencing it. I don't know that easy suicide is really a benefit, I would prefer not to ever have to make a choice like that (especially if it is my only choice). Thanks for stating which set of mythologies you are working off of as it helps to define where the argument is coming from. For vampires (and for zombies, too) there are so many different interpretations and stories, all of which are updated and changed constantly. I suspect that the development of both creatures in folktales, mythology, film, and literature came from similar fears over death, the afterlife, and consciousness.

I still argue that zombies wouldn't merely remain thoughtless, uncontrolled monsters, but that is entirely tied down to whether you buy into the genre of film that I am working from. I find the development of traits over time of zombies a really interesting premise (even though, yes, they are an imaginary creature), and I feel that they are less locked down to the strictures of their previous lives (e.g. through reasons emotional, financial, etc.).

I will say, though, that while the vampire may retain memories and personality traits from the original person, I don't think that the vampire is "you" anymore than a zombie would be. The fact that the vampire does not consider itself human, and may see humans as "cattle" as Calalily put it leads me to believe that this new creature is something else. It may mimic the personality, desires, and interests of the original human, but I actually think that this is a false connection.

However, if the only valid choice is one that the original person must make in full consciousness (and in both cases that choice is problematic), we must determine what a person actually is, where the "soul" (for lack of a better term) resides. Is it in memory? While vampires have more complete and developed (human-like) memory, zombies also display this same skill (i.e. remembering places they used to go, people who had hurt them in the past, etc.). Is it in personality? Again, while further developed  in vampires, zombies also show a movement towards developing distinct personalities. Is it in the ability to appreciate the finer things in life? While vampires have it all over zombies in that case, I think this could be seen as an unfortunate attachment to the original human (a person that the vampire never truly was). Is it in our thoughts and desires? In both cases, the main desire seems to be for food, and while the vampire may be a more sophisticated hunter they are no different than the zombie in this case. There are whole hosts of traits that we attribute to humans that we can weigh both vampires and zombies by to determine how much like humans they are. However, neither group is human, no matter how well they imitate a human life. While the vampire may be acting in a fashion that you would and enjoy some of the same things that you do, it does not mean that it is necessarily you (all general "you"s here, of course).

I also take into consideration the legends surrounding Vlad Teppes (Vlad the Impaler) as well as Elizabeth Bathory, and Vera Renczei (sp?).

Poor Vlad! A hero in his home country and connected forever to a Gothic horror story in the rest.

I'm also going on the modern idea of infection as a way in which the "zombie virus" may be transmitted.

We are working off a similar idea about the infection method, but I (obviously) don't see the modern day zombie as simply a transfered virus that can act in only a simplistic way with no hope of consciousness. We also don't know that it is a "virus" in a true sense, as all recently dead humans (zombie killed or no) seem to be affected (think of Night of The Living Dead and the cemetery scene). Perhaps a zombie bite is simply very poisonous and means a quick death, with the zombie state simply being some kind of newly developed genetic trait. However, the popular conception at the moment seems to be a zombie "virus", so in the interest of fairness I guess I have to stick with that.:lol:  

I still think that the general reticence here to becoming a zombie is somewhat (and not necessarily in your case Calalily as you are working off of numerous mythological sources) related to our fear of being physically  unattractive. As humans we want to be seen as attractive (for the most part anyway) in order to improve our lives (for ease of attracting mates, for example). Vampires have all of these finer qualities, as well as super powers and appear to retain their original personalities and memories. Zombies are grotesque, smelly, and no longer function in a recognizable, understandable human way. In my case, I think that is part of their charm, the fact that they are able to (or are forced to) throw off shallow appearance based desires and are still part of the larger group. Again, this is very inhuman (and even very unnatural as a whole), and I believe part of the reason they horrify us.

[calalily]

Well, you choose awareness and I'll take oblivion, I guess :lol:.

My husband said it's grunge vs. horror.  Eh - trying to explain the draw of this debate to someone else - won't try my luck with anyone other than the hubby.  :lol:

I still argue that zombies wouldn't merely remain thoughtless, uncontrolled monsters, but that is entirely tied down to whether you buy into the genre of film that I am working from.

That's the difficulty with the zombie - they really don't change from any of the sources - they are mindless and a state to be feared - used very effectively by the powers that be in all those countries.  "Put a toe out of line, and it's service and doing my bidding, and eating flesh for you."  The modern ideas of infection are quite kind - as are the ideas of community, as the original zombie is mindless - a tool to be used.

I will say, though, that while the vampire may retain memories and personality traits from the original person, I don't think that the vampire is "you" anymore than a zombie would be. The fact that the vampire does not consider itself human, and may see humans as "cattle" as Calalily put it leads me to believe that this new creature is something else. It may mimic the personality, desires, and interests of the original human, but I actually think that this is a false connection.

I've only ever seen this in BTVS though - nowhere else.  The vampire is overtaken by unnatural desires, but at worst, it is merely an addition, rather than a replacement to the soul.

However, if the only valid choice is one that the original person must make in full consciousness (and in both cases that choice is problematic), we must determine what a person actually is, where the "soul" (for lack of a better term) resides.

In both cases in mythology, the soul is trapped in the body.  Whether the personality accompanies it is the difference between vampires and zombies.

Poor Vlad! A hero in his home country and connected forever to a Gothic horror story in the rest.

He might have been a brutal bastard, but he was just the brutal bastard needed to get his country out from under the control of the Turks.  Without him, Transylvanian identity within Romania wouldn't exist as a separate culture we know today.

We are working off a similar idea about the infection method, but I (obviously) don't see the modern day zombie as simply a transfered virus that can act in only a simplistic way with no hope of consciousness.

The desire in all the movies, is so strong that it overrides the previous memories.  The virus makes them a shell based on ease with which they kill those they love, and the fact that they mill in public places.  Those with a vestige of what it means to be human do not randomly mill around looking for food in a giant group - this is an ineffective food gathering strategy.

In my case, I think that is part of their charm, the fact that they are able to (or are forced to) throw off shallow appearance based desires and are still part of the larger group. Again, this is very inhuman (and even very unnatural as a whole), and I believe part of the reason they horrify us.

I do agree with the general theory that vampires are more "attractive" - the dream of meat is one little story that we can tell ourselves.  That they would see us as something more than just a meal - and would love us and cherish us for our life, and pick some other nebulous victim we can't name to feed on.

Vampires and their needs, in reality, are far more heinous than the worst serial killer we could consider.  Nightly victims - whether through assault or actual killing (which is entirely plausible considering the missing and homeless) they brutalise on a daily basis.  The dream that *maybe* they wouldn't harm us is not realistic.  They are like John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer, and the Green River Killer, all rolled into one - never resisting their desires, but harming others on a daily basis.  

One of the best things illustrated by BTVS was the carnage that they leave behind them - real people with real deaths - forever eating their way through the throats of centuries, with little regard for life, or respect for those things we value.  If one is outside a community, they are less likely to understand, abide and respect those standards - that's why we want to destroy paysites.  They cannot understand the common values of this community, and see themselves as outside the rules.  

Vampires are the same, but they have been placed outside their community by virtue of their difference, and their need to prey on the community (again, paysite owners).  They would have little regard for the community, and for the people in it.

[mando]

My husband said it's grunge vs. horror.  Eh - trying to explain the draw of this debate to someone else - won't try my luck with anyone other than the hubby.  :lol:

It would be difficult which is why I haven't even tried :lol:.

That's the difficulty with the zombie - they really don't change from any of the sources - they are mindless and a state to be feared - used very effectively by the powers that be in all those countries.  "Put a toe out of line, and it's service and doing my bidding, and eating flesh for you."  The modern ideas of infection are quite kind - as are the ideas of community, as the original zombie is mindless - a tool to be used.

Admittedly, unlike you, I am working from one particular zombie genre and am ignoring all the rest, including any ancient or modern folklore. Yes, the original zombie was oftentimes either a spirit desperate for revenge or a slave attached to a cruel master due to wrongdoing in life (as explored in some of Wade Davis' work, for example). I feel like the genre I am working with (although it is heavily based in American pop culture and not in older zombie mythology) is a generally accepted conception of them, at least in North America where I live. In the films I am working from (again from America's most well known and enduring zombie movie director, George Romero), there are indications of newly forming intelligence and more complicated thought processes.

As examples (because I probably should give some), in "Dawn of the Dead", zombie Stephen is well aware of where Fran and Peter are hiding and leads the other zombies directly to them. In "Day of the Dead", the zombie Bub is the most sympathetic and kind hearted character in the film and even learns how to shoot a gun (something that would require more than just base impulse control). In the recent "Land of the Dead", the zombie named Big Daddy continues on with this more self aware behaviour, as he is able to learn how to use a firearm as well and is able to "teach" his zombie compatriots survival skills. As well, Despite their supposedly uncontrollable desire for living human flesh, Big Daddy and his zombie group ignore the masses of easily killable humans living outside of the walled city once the structure of the city falls . If nothing else, he certainly seemed like he hated Dennis Hopper's character :lol: (is it obvious that I'm a fan of George Romero, yet? I thought so).

I am working off of modern stories such as this one to form my conception of zombies as I feel they are equally valid as the old style zombies. However, even in older folktales zombie type creatures were not necessarily just slaves to a master (for example, revenants, draugr, and several types of Japanese Yōkai), and some seemed to possess rudimentary intelligence and personality (otherwise how else to pursue those who had done them wrong, or protect their valuable treasure). Plus, didn't you ever see that "Thriller" video? Because apparently zombies love to dance. :lol:  

I've only ever seen this in BTVS though - nowhere else.  The vampire is overtaken by unnatural desires, but at worst, it is merely an addition, rather than a replacement to the soul.

I was trying to avoid citing BTVS as that seemed to be the writer's way of explaining that schism of personality, but I have to agree with that idea that the vampire you become is not the human you were, no matter how closely your personality is imitated. Becoming a psychopathic killer living solely for it's own desires and ignoring the needs of the community for its own self benefit would be an "unnatural desire", indeed.

The desire in all the movies, is so strong that it overrides the previous memories.  The virus makes them a shell based on ease with which they kill those they love, and the fact that they mill in public places.  Those with a vestige of what it means to be human do not randomly mill around looking for food in a giant group - this is an ineffective food gathering strategy.

Unlike vampires, zombies don't even try to pretend to be human (although that may be more because they haven't developed that particular skill), and so trying to measure them based on acceptable human standards of behaviour or logic can be tricky. As I said before, their actions are incomprehensible simply because they are almost "a-human", so they don't behave in an understandable fashion. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are entirely mindless simply because their behaviour is abnormal or doesn't follow a human pattern of logic.

Vampires and their needs, in reality, are far more heinous than the worst serial killer we could consider.  Nightly victims - whether through assault or actual killing (which is entirely plausible considering the missing and homeless) they brutalise on a daily basis.  The dream that *maybe* they wouldn't harm us is not realistic.  They are like John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer, and the Green River Killer, all rolled into one - never resisting their desires, but harming others on a daily basis.

Exactly. Incredibly brutal, and not something I would have any desire to become simply because the other choice didn't seem like it would be as entertaining at first.  

Vampires are the same, but they have been placed outside their community by virtue of their difference, and their need to prey on the community (again, paysite owners).  They would have little regard for the community, and for the people in it.

Well done, Calalily! I am impressed by your skill at relating this debate to the original point of this site :lol: .

[calalily]

In the films I am working from (again from America's most well known and enduring zombie movie director, George Romero), there are indications of newly forming intelligence and more complicated thought processes.

There are no complicated thought processes though - basic swarming activity is not complicated.  It is the thing that social creatures do - I wouldn't consider meerkats a great thing (although a cute thing) to become - and they have rudimentary understanding of the benefits of social creatures.  This doesn't indicate intelligence, merely a survival strategy, and perhaps not an effective one in light of the predator humans who can find a big group to pick off.

In the recent "Land of the Dead", the zombie named Big Daddy continues on with this more self aware behaviour, as he is able to learn how to use a firearm as well and is able to "teach" his zombie compatriots survival skills.

Yes, but here, the zombie is still basically a creature of revenge.  That particular zombie seems to have regained rather than gained the skills needed to survive.  I suspect in this kind of form, zombies regain limited benefits that are residual human knowledge, rather than new knowledge.

Unlike vampires, zombies don't even try to pretend to be human (although that may be more because they haven't developed that particular skill), and so trying to measure them based on acceptable human standards of behaviour or logic can be tricky.

But even by the standards of evolutionary beneficial actions, this is a stupid move.  No animal with a predator (such as humans with guns) is going to choose an ineffective strategy such as the swarm.  Their urge here is more in line with the virus modus operandi - to infect others, with a side order of revenge.

Well done, Calalily! I am impressed by your skill at relating this debate to the original point of this site :lol: .

All scoundrels in history can be related back to the paysite owners!  :lol:

[mando]

Yes, but here, the zombie is still basically a creature of revenge.  That particular zombie seems to have regained rather than gained the skills needed to survive.  I suspect in this kind of form, zombies regain limited benefits that are residual human knowledge, rather than new knowledge.

I think the capacity for revenge, and the ability to access older memories (not to mention the, at least basic, skills to use this knowledge) are indications of more complicated thought processes, and considering that these abilities seem to develop slowly over time (brand new zombies seem unable to function in intelligent ways, although they do appear to retain some memory) we have no idea where this development would stop or where the cap on intelligence is for the zombie.

But even by the standards of evolutionary beneficial actions, this is a stupid move.  No animal with a predator (such as humans with guns) is going to choose an ineffective strategy such as the swarm.  Their urge here is more in line with the virus modus operandi - to infect others, with a side order of revenge.

Admittedly swarming is not fantastic hunting or survival technique, and is generally attributed to creatures who work within the societal structure of the hive, however as I said before, this swarming behaviour seems an early (meaning newborn zombie) technique. There are indications that more effective survival strategies are developed by zombies the longer they exist (see my examples in the last post). As well, the fact that the "infection" spreads so quickly (and is, in most films, untreatable) is itself a survival "skill" for the zombie. While they will lose several of their number attacking a human defended post, only a small number (like one) of humans need to be bitten in order to introduce the "virus" and increase their numbers. This gives the humans a very few choices, either become zombies, exile that individual to the zombie wastelands, keep them locked up in hopes of finding a cure, or to kill them now or to kill them later after they have changed. At any rate, it is a moral quandary and will always mean the loss of at least one of their group (keep in mind that at times the "infection" spreads so quickly that they might not have time to make any of these decisions). That sounds like a fairly effective survival (and reproduction) strategy to me, for the group if not the individual.

All scoundrels in history can be related back to the paysite owners!  :lol:

In that, I agree!  :lol:

[calalily]

I think the capacity for revenge, and the ability to access older memories (not to mention the, at least basic, skills to use this knowledge) are indications of more complicated thought processes, and considering that these abilities seem to develop slowly over time (brand new zombies seem unable to function in intelligent ways, although they do appear to retain some memory) we have no idea where this development would stop or where the cap on intelligence is for the zombie.

I think we can.  If they are indeed, merely regaining old abilities, then their development and intelligence has the same cap and limits as that of human beings - just far slower.  If they were something altogether new, then it might be a mode for differential development - but as they are really only regaining what they once had, and making use of it - then their development is capped and slowed.

There are indications that more effective survival strategies are developed by zombies the longer they exist (see my examples in the last post).

Again, if this is regaining formerly held skills, it is reversion to the old survival strategy - which is a social group formed for protection.  In humans though, it leads to breeding cycles, social connections, empathy and altruism - without empathy and altruism (such as helping the sick - as opposed to revenge) then there can be no cohesion as a social group.

While they will lose several of their number attacking a human defended post, only a small number (like one) of humans need to be bitten in order to introduce the "virus" and increase their numbers.

That is not an effective survival strategy for the zombie - merely for the virus.  Viruses need to spread - it is their primary code - zombies may need to eat (brains) but they do not need to make more zombies.  Making said food supply into competition for food is a deeply stupid survival strategy.

Not to mention, that this is an ineffective breeding strategy.  If zombies are to continue, and dead bodies have a limited life span (there's a wonderful thing called "skin slippage" after 5 months due to liquifying tendons and membranes holding the skin to the body) then killing all humans is ineffective.  You will be the last of your kind.  

It would be far more effective to hide, and then pop out and bite someone, and breed - zombies and humans living in tandem.  But since zombies cannot lurch into public, and have a seemingly insatiable need for brains, they are unlikely to be able to do this.