The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Ok I've read a few vampire novels (who hasn't) but in a few e.g The Vampire Lestat it was said a few times that some vamps to ease the cinflict of who/what hey were slew only the Evildoer.
Ok so vampires feed on blood and kill ppl revel in the pain and sadness of humans (in some books anyway) and yet to assuage there own guilt/remorse /conflict of their own evilness they kill only evil ppl who may just be a thief whereas they have slaughtered many just to feed and at the same time they sometimes revel in taking innocence as well.
Contradiction or what??
What do you think???

You do not have to kill to get enough blood to fill you. I have never killed anyone to fill my dark need nor do i need to. And yes the vamps in books like that usualy do play with a doubled edged sword. I shal agree with you there

i agree you dont have to kill to feed.
and the books are fiction and depend on the character. count dracula was a gentleman killer lol

I've never killed to feed but I've come close. The bloodlust can be erotic at times. And take control. But, Mess with my house or others under my coven and you are toast.

i agree but thats just movies
a little blood here a little there an sonn enough you get your fill

I haven't killed nor will I ever kill just to feed... a few drops of blood will give me a good fix for a while.

The reason Lestat ONLY does the evil ones is simply because he was never given a choice. Lestat's biggest problem has always been not having a choice from Interview right up to Blood Cantilce. Lestat feels since the choice was never given he will feed on the ones that dont respect life and rules. As in evil ones don't give innocent a chance.....hence he feed on those evil ones...makes him feel better about being what he had no choice in becoming....

i have no clue i havent read any vamp novels so i wouldnt know

Well, I'd have to say that books and movies contradict themselves all the time...But its only entertainment, not fact.

Hmmm.....

Vampire Psych 101

Vampires are, basically, humanoids. They think, feel, love, and hate like anyone else. Some despise what they are, while others revel in it.

The life of a vampire must indeed be a double-edged sword. You take life, or life force, from others in order to "live." But existance as a creature of the night can be dull and lonely after a while, which is why so many find refuge in places like this.

I am hear for one purpose, to learn more about vampires and meet people with similar interests. That, and meet sexy bat-babes! LOL

Oops, did I say that outloud, again? Sorry Ms. Diamond. Hehehehehehe!

I am "here" for one purpose....

Hehehehehehe!

Fair point and all I know it's fiction and all maybe I should slightly re-phrase as in the original eplanation what would YOU feed on or do??
I would avoid killing if possible and another thing why are most vamps pro life (would not kill) yet bein a predator is cool?? another catch 22??

i agree, u dont have to kill to feed, its just fiction though so i dunno

I do think it's a contradiction. but not everyone feels guilt. Of course it would be hard to prey on the things you USED to be. But still vampires are creatures of their own, perhaps blessed magical versions of humans. And they must kill to survive.

I'm glad there are so many people here to explain these things.

As I always say, in my personal life I see a huge difference between fictional and real vampirism.

I suppose that its just the same as moral standards in humans in regards to your questions, and the ideas of the writer o how this person has been 'turned.'

You could be very sensetive and it makes sense.

If you where that type of mind, then it would make sence to kill those who are considered 'evil'

However, vampires are often considered 'evil' and how can we really measure how 'bad' someone is??

maybe i dont understand the catch here but vampires dont have to kill they dont even have to feed of human blood, as far as i understand drinking the last drop is not the best of ideas anyway, if i dont make sense please message me i will explain more.

You do make sence, but I think Chaos was referring moe to fictional vampires than those of the lifestyle.

that's why I thought. hmm

WHAT U TALK IS FICTIONAL.. ARE THERE ANY REAL VAMPS? IF THEY ARE HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM FICTIONAL ONES.

OR JUST STOP TO MY PAGE AND LET ME KNOW :)

okay okay you need to calm down. the whole "prove it prove it!" is starting to get to be a bit much.
real vampires may always be debated.

The capital letters suggest your getting a bit angry. As I said, its just my opinion.

The myth of vampires, mainly the Slovac myths, where they cannot cross running water, they are immortal and damned by God, and crucifixes and daylight can destroy them etc. This is what films are based on, and obviously films have actors playing roles.

My approach may not be for you, as everyones approach to the subject is valid and varying, however I believe in the energy utilisation of a HLV, and that is the clear difference. Do you understand?

I really don't like the movie versions of things...

Exactly Morrigon.

To me, there is such a clear difference. Maybe there where a species of vampires at one time, bt I cannot honestly say I believe a single profile of a person who claims that they where born in 100 BC and Lestat is their brother :-)

haha yes exactly!
People need to look for facts, but never let go of the possibility that there could be magical things and things might have happened that can't be explained or controlled. without claiming that lestat is their brother.

Well actually, he is my sister :-P

The importance of the media, adn the power it has over us is marking the waters of what we know as vmapirism. Lets admit it; a lot fo us wouldn't be as interested in vampirism if we hadn't read a good book or seen a good film when we where younger, but for that to be considered real is like saying that the pictures n a childrens book are photographs.

Myths may have truth to them, and so may many beliefs within the variations of the vmapire community, as with magik, but there must be a clear line between fiction and fact, and we can then all enjoy the grey area!

oh of course, My real introduction to vampires was through movies and books there is no doubt about that. but it is better look at these things, and enjoy them, then discuss and try to sometimes figure out what might actually be true. of course people do this about almost all sorts of movies and books any way.

Good point... martial arts has tenfold the popularity that t used to... I wonder why :-)

Ithink this is also he costant link betwen vampirism and darkness, as that is the way that vampires are always represented. When consdiering other typs of vmapirism beyond that of myth and media, it is hard to see why this link would really exist, apart from photosensitivity, which I do sometimes suffer from, but that in itself is no stronghold for such beliefs.

Most people can only imagine vampires as dark, evil beings that sucks blood, jump high and looks cool. sometimes they take that image as the truth. Not even in science exist absolute truth, exist observations that are confirmed by data. Correct or incorrect is not the same as true or false. I've read in this site that "the only vampires are the one that sucks blood. the others are wannabees". I can't accept that fact as a correct one sinse, well the information I've gathered contradicts that. That doesn't mean the postulate is false, it just means tht the evidence doesn't support that point.

You can feed without killing.

Alvens, you ave a ret point, and I hope peope read your post :-)

I agree with you, and it does peturb me that people still think of things as beig so black and white.

is it just me or has this thread gone off track??? im lost :S

most novels about vampires were written by an author who only half assed has information about them. they dont need to kill in order to get their fill of blood, and many choose not to. sure in books and movies thats all you see is Vampires killing people "sucking them dry" so to say. but in actuality they dont need to. And as for the evil. Vampires are evil in no sense they are just misunderstood and have an altered way of living.

as many say. that which is naught understood is feared. or even stories exagerated to the point of making others fear them.

what does catch 22 mean *looks around for help*

was wondering the same......

I don't know what it means. but the question is easy to understand :P

mmm you'd need to catch 22 vampires to know the answer???? :P

yeah... sorry i went off subject but i was sitting and staring at the screen trying to figure it out.. and i got scared so had to ask *blubbs*

I think that is a contradiction. If vampires kill then they degrade themselves (talking about real life ones here) so killing is wrong. no matter what your race..

even us elves dont kill...

well only if someone killed me first :P

wow...just, wow.

what did i do nowwww *cries and looks at morrigon*

Sorry, hah I was responding to the post before yours.

i guess you could call it a bit of a contradiction, but, most vampire novels are not based upon much fact...

HUH?

no the idea is that only some of us revel in the sufferings of humans. Some do not and we quiet our aching minds by killling rapist, murderers and the likes.. especially child mollestors.. love killing them

I view this as a literary irony, since the characters are expressing base human moral issues and are dead/not human. So by looking at these characters and the views that are expressed, we are able to explore more of our own humanity.

As for the question what do I think re this in reality? I think we all take aspects of our beliefs to form our own moral codes, and whether or not we follow them will create this same internal conflict. So if we believe that we are bad, then we create behaviours that strengthen or weaken this point of view. In the same manner we can in fact take this view and use it to create changes that will allow us to feel good. It depends on the individual's views on life and morals.


*Hangs head and runs for door… damn, too much script analysis… must stop…*

books and movies as close as they may come never capture the truth,so i do not ponder over them

Catch 22 was a book, it means to be stuck in a sitution of which there is serious contradictory evidence etween both choices of action.

hmm... dont really kno wat to say

Well imagining the books were real portrayals....

I'd say that most of the books emphasise that not every vampire is the same... there's been whole big bang of stories that emphasis the differece in different characters from the normal sterotypes...

So (if that didn't make sense to anyone, cause I think I confused myself)

What I'm trying to say is that it's reasonable to find people or vampires that like innocence and some who despice it.. and some who don't care...

yeah i must agree with the last post..well not all vampires are the same..there are some who hate being vampires like the vampire from the vampire journals..she was a loving mother and wife turned to a vampire and had to kill her family but instead of killing them..she forced them to run away...in order to be safe..

uh...could you repeat the question?

Jason Edit: Bullshit posts like this will earn you a suspension. Keep it up. :-)

Yeah it is a bit of a catch 22.

lol CannibalBoy

:))

Jason Edit: Encouraging him with equally thin posts will earn you the same. :-)

I think it could be considered that....We dont need to kill to survive...maybe some do...some just get off on killing...to some, its abhorrent. And I do not believe I would ask anyone about their feeding habits...its impertinent....and books do so make things more complicated.....

Ok back to the question at hand. Yes it is a catch 22. But what the author is trying to show is that Lestat feeds on the evil doer to save his conscious. When he feeds on the innocent he feels guilty.

Well worded Danzig..I say your answer is better than what I had to say...

To kill for the sack of killing is wrong but killing to survive isn't so I don;t think that there would be remorse in that.

I agree it is a contradiction because u don't have to kill to feed

I would have to agree with Danzig and Revensway. People try to deal with their remorse and emotions in the way they see fit even if it is wrong or right. Who truly to say if its wrong.

why kill the milking cow ??? or cut open a bird to get the eggs??? if you get the drift

This is silly, but I wouldn't kill to feed. Have come close a time or two, but never crossed that line. And I don't feed on exclusively one kind of person. The only requirements there for me, are consent, legal adult, testing clean for std's and drugs, and willingness to sign a consent.

i dont know of anyone who has taken life to feed.

As a whole, all the myths and folk tales contradict each other... the way they die, how they die, how to breed other vamps, ect... it is all inconsistant.

There is no need to take a life to feed. The more life in people the stronger we are.

I have never had to kill to feed, You only need a few drops of blood , or energy from the person. Books are fiction

i dont kill bcuz i have blood stored up in a whare house........ it may be my blood and my sisters ...but it is still blood...... and i think of catch 22 as if u kill other evildoers ..u r thinking tht by doing tht u r saving others but on the other hand u r also killing innocent ppl to u

Theives steal for greed....murderers kill for revenge, greed, lust, fun....a vampire feeding to "live" hardly seems compairable at all..

i dont feel that it is a catch 22 since a catch 22 situation is one which occurs when you feel there is no other choice to be made but a bad one...taking a bit of blood doesnt constitute murder, especially since, for many vampires, they have willing donors

Ya Danzig said it quite well...the Novels on Lestat are showing his inadequacy to come to grips with being a vampire so to alleviate any feelings of guilt he only feeds from the "damned",the dregs of society.

since we tak in the land of fiction here, it wouldn't be good business to write about a main character that kills innocent people. None of you would like characters if they just killed random innocent person a. It helps Ii think ease some of our own pain of us being evil. We sort of live through them.
In the world of what it sould be, they should just be killing and feeding from whoever is near by, be it a mugger, or a school age kid. But how many of you would love Lestat if he stared killing a bunch of 10 year olds. Thats why they get the evildoers.

i agree wih dark daughter you dun have to kill

Well according to where you read,most characters were made up but then again how the hell can we know for sure? You do not have to kill to feed, but if you feed and the person you feast upon lives, then well.. there better be some kind of spell or something so they dont go crazy from it all. Also some kill to feed because they dont want to be reminded of what they have to do to keep alive. But there are many reasons.

"Catch 22" was a book written by, I believe, Joseph Heller. The phrase became popular because of it. What the phrase refers to is an ever-changing status in the book: the soldiers were told that after a given number of missions,m they could go home - but the number kept going up and up, so it was unattainable! On one hand, yes, they had earned their right to go home, but on the other hand, they hadn't! THAT was the Catch-22!

Vampirism as portrayed in most books/movies is pure hype and stereotype, influenced by Hollywood. It draws some of the conflict from the world we live in today, and the confusion of modern society.

As for the opening post of this discussion, I have to say that it's among the most poorly written statements I have read in my life! It was a genuine struggle to read and understand. ~Please spare us from such torture in the future!~

..cool...

I believe this has been discussed sufficiently. Thanks peeps!