The Rebuttle*

To make this post less confusing, here's a link to the blog entry which forced this one:

*http://fallenangelzeon.blogspot.com

All things considered, it was not a bad turnout for my first official blog survey. Based on past reader response I had not had high hopes at all. You people are a lazy, self-centered breed as a rule (no offense), and do not follow comment directions unless it suits you. However, you seem to have changed your ways in the last post and responded admirably.

The debate was over which monster the general populus found to be better, vampires or werewolves, and I am sorry to say that vampires have it. The overwhelming majority of the voting public chose the nocturnal bloodsuckers as their favorite.

I had to cast my vote for werewolves. I voted so with a clear conscience after reviewing many aspects of the campaign. If you recall, I asked you readers to judge the two demons on any scale you wished. To be throrough, I compared them on several different scales. These I will explain now.

First off, no matter which way you slice it, werewolves are far scarier. Vampires have a quiet, sensual sophistication about them. Death from a vampire will be (and scientists agree on this) blood loss from a neck wound nine times out of ten. Dying of blood loss is most likely one of the most peaceful ways to die (provided one can't see oneself bleeding.) On top of this, vampires always work the hypono-magic of theirs to ensure their prey's complete docility. I imagine being killed by a vampire would be a very sexual, comfortable experience. And the "foreplay," the stalking leading up to the inevitable kill, would be even more enjoyable. Now, being killed by a werewolf on the other hand . . . . With it's primal metality, bestial figure, and raging hunger, not to eat, necessarily, but to kill, a werewolf is obviously scarier. Whereas a vampre will merely bite your neck, a werewolf will, in the words of Adam West, rend you limb from limb. A rabbit, pursued by a snake, becomes paralized with fear, arguably hypnotized. That same rabbit, pursued by a bear, will not be so lucky. A werewolf, like a bear, will maul its prey, tearing it apart with its claws, teeth, and freakish strength. And the chase would be scarier still. No romance or intirgue, only a few minutes of breathless fear before a very painful, very messy death.

Scale One: Fear Factor. Winner: Werewolves.

Secondly, if asked which of these one would rather be, let's pause to think before we become overwhelmed by the glitz and style of vampires. Okay, to start with, let's look at how long a person stays each. A vampire is immortal. Unless killed in the few possible and specific ways, vampires will live forever. This may sound appealing right now, but give time for thought, my impatient amigos. As evidenced by almost every vampire tale and film, immortality eventually leads to loneliness and boredom, which lead to manic restlessness, which leads to insanity. As a werewolf, you have your life, acording to most moythology, and perhaos a bit longer. But what a wild time it would be. True, transformations would most likely be unimaginably painful, but it's long been a belief of mine that pain is a good thing. (This will be covered in another post.) Also to be considered are the powers, contrasted with the limitations, inherent with each. Vampires are startlingly powerful, this is true. But they have some startling weaknesses. According to some myths, vampires are powerless to enter a dwelling unless invited. Werewolves would probably just let themselves in. Vampires succumb to the same obligatory special substances: silver, gold, garlic, holy water, etc. that werewolves do, but they are also in many cases obsessive compulsive and cannot tolerate any messiness. How does Agent Fox Mulder stop a vampire about to drain him a hotel room? He upends a bag of sunflower seeds onto the floor. I'd imagine a werewolf would not be as concerned about untidiness as it closed in for the kill. Now, vampires' number one weakness, the thing that defines them the most ( aside from how they act really gay in most circumstances) is their aversion to sunlight. For me, this pretty much clinches the deal right here. I don't think I could stand never seeing the sun again. I have not witnessed enough, nor will I ever, I suppose, witnes enough sunsets or -rises to be satisfied for an eternity. Vampires hide from the sun; werewolves walk freely at night and during the day. While this is both a spiritual and aesthetic bonus for the werewolves, it also provides them with an invaluable advantage. The best time to kill a vampire is whilst he or she sleeps. One has more than 12 optimum hours, therefore. The most inept human could kill a sleeping vampire, and given a werewolf's heightened strength, senses, and speed (which it has even in human form), it would easily be able to accomplish such a task. Finally in this arena, let's look at what each beast stands for. Vampires, as Tony pointed out, represent living death. They are an embodiment of halted decay, or eternal limbo. That's not necessarily a bad thing. They still look pretty. Vampirism is a leaping forward. What lies in men's futures? Still, cold, reserved, austere death. Werewolves, as ony also pointed out, razza-fraggin' know-it-all, are more at one with nature. They represent fiery, energetic life. They are an embodiment of energy and nature. Werewolves are a leaping backward. What lies in men's pasts? Primitive, austere, nature-driven life.

Scale Two: Personal Preference. Winner: It's all a matter of choice, but logic seems to dictate werewolves.

Tony addressed history in his post, giving the category to vampires, as they have a traceable lineage and a distinguished founding father of sorts. I disagree with his reasoning on this one, though. To me, the fact that the concept of werewolves cannot be traced back to any set date, but probably originated in prehistoric times makes them all the more fascinating and respectable. It is they who have the longer, stronger heritage. Then again there's something to be said for definite origins, especially ones as engrossing as those of the vampire.

Scale Three: Historical Hysteria. Winner: Tie.

Many of the commenters were overwhlemed in their decision making by the allure and sensuality of vampirism. I cannot argue well with this. Vampires are almost always more beautiful than normal people. They have flawless, porcelain skin, blazing eyes, full, red lips. Their means of killing, as addressed before, is in itself sensual. Blood, on which they feed, is often associated with passion and desire. The neck, at which they strike, is one of the most famous pleasure centers on the body. Confident and assured, yet smooth and even occasionally gentle, vampires are undeniably sexy. All werewolves have going for them is big tongues and boundless endurance. That doesn't cut it in this image-driven society of ours. Yet mayhaps I am too hasty. I can't speak for all of you, but I find several things inherently sexy in werewolves. They're primitive and wild. The musky scent of a werewolf might be more arousing than the musty one of a vampire. Even those of you who don't like your partners hairy and drooling can appreciate the thriving, pulsing passion within a werewolf.

Scale Four: Sex Appeal. Winner: Tie.

I won't engage in another debate, but I'm going to say that werewolves and vampires are probably both fictional. They exist merely as characters in stories. Thus, we should evaluate the depth that can be achieved by both characters. Vampires, as previously addresed, represent death. They are limited by this. Vampires always have an aura of morbid depression about them. You can have three types of vampires. The badass hero, a la Blade, Spike, and Angel. You can have the depraved villain, a la Deacon Frost and Spike. Or lastly the charming anti-hero, a la Dracula or Spike. Vampires are always cultured to some degree, as they are usually very old. They're sad at their fate, or they revel in it. They seek redemption or they kill indiscriminately. One extreme or the other. However, because they are dead, and because they are always vampires, they have a small range of development. And they can't be used as comic relief themselves. Spike and Angel were funny, but that had nothing to do with the fact that they were vampires. Werewolves on the other hand are only werewolves part of the time. They can be independent characters. The fact that they are werewolves is only an aspect of the overaqll character. They can be bad, good, or undecided. They can be thankful, reluctant, or bitter regarding their "curse." They can be funny. And the humor can be directly related to the werewolves. For instance, a human acting like a dog is funny. A big monster acting like a little puppy is funny. Vampires are usually rich, as they have had a long time to accumulate wealth. Werewolves can be scruffy and poor or they can be refined and rich. These types are always cool. Rich vampires are still rich vampires, but a rich, cultured werewolf is something complex and fascinating. To see a normally calm, sophisticated character revert to primal savagery opens up many new explorable sub-plots and psychological issues.

Scale Five: Character Potential. Winner: Werewolves.

Tony also touched on cultural influence. He deducted points from the vampires because they inspired the neo-Goth movement. I disagree. Annoying as Goths are, anything that could move a whole sub-culture of teens is . . . well . . . slightly impressive. Both vampires and werewolves have been in good, decent, and terrible movies, books, and shows. But werewolves were immoratlized in a song by Warren Zevon, so:

Scale Six: Cultural Competition. Winner: Werewolves.

Okay, final test. This is the one you've all been waiting for. Who'd kick who's ass? . . . . . . . . . . . . I wouldn't touch this one with a ten foot wooden stake. Sorry to dissappoint you guys, but this is the one category that's even more nebulous than personal choice. The mythologies of both are so convoluted and ancient, with so many varying additions and side-notes, that this could never be decided. Both have super-human strength, granted. Both have heightened senses and hyper-speed. Both have fast reflexes and astounding agility. Both are nearly indestrucible. In some cases vampires have more magic. In others, werewolves are far stronger. No one will ever be able to win an argument on this subject, so let's do the only sensible thing open to us: I say let's join forces and kick some zombie ass!

Boo Yah!

Q . . . . E . . . . D!

Two final topics to cover on this blog post: Vampires in depth and a message to all haters of the film Underworld.

Firstly, I was too hasty in saying that vampires are never as scary as werewolves. As evidenced by the astoundingly terrifying works of Steve Niles (30 Days of Night) and other equally skilled writers, actors, and directors, vampires can be scary indeed. While I still assert that they have nowhere near the range of werewolves, they can in some cases instill as much fear.

Next, I have been holding my feelings about this for some time, but I must now say something to all those people out there who profess hatred of the film Underworld. Shut the fuck up! The movie was far from Oscar-worthy, we all know that. The acting was uneven, and, by some actors, atrocious. Many movies suffer in these ways. So what? Get over it! You claim the special effects were bad. There are worse movies with worse special effects. And they weren't that bad to begin with. Aside from the infamous head slice shot, and the facts that the werewolves were hairless, the special effects were pretty darn good. You say the plot was lacking. How so? A modern reworking of Romeo and Juliet, with monsters? How is that bad? The characters were developed enough. Despite the fact that it wasn't acted out well enough in some places, there was plenny of rich, moving pathos. One of Tony's major qualms with the film is in how it deviates from accpeted lore. Odd complaint, coming from a fan of Helsing, the least myth-based monster show I have ever seen. The Underworld might've been off in parts, but it was close. Helsing has aspects of it that are off the goddamn map, for Pete's sake. And finally, my rule for of (dis)likeability: If something is pompous and well-liked by the masses, it is infinitely more intolerable than if it is neglected or disparaged. Nobody really likes Underworld. Why not take the road less travelled *pauses here to wink at Steve* and praise the decent aspects of the movie? What's more, Underworld never professed greatness. The makers of it didn't hype it up or claim it was an epic. There are many bad movies out there, Titanic, for instance, that are hateable because they claim, and some cases achieve greatness. Underworld just wanted to be left alone.

So, to all you people who say it was terrible, or that it made you want to cry and shoot up heroin, get over it. Your false anger over Underworld, like the false anger over Bush getting re-elected or A Perfect Circle re-imagining a work of uber-overrated John Lennon, is cute for a week or two, and then it gets tiresome. Why not find something legitimate to be angry over, and try to change it! Or, if you prefer, here's a box of Kleenex and an syringe full of South Hadley High School's best. Go have a ball!

I eagerly await the bricks which will no doubt be thrown at me in the days to come.