Recipe of a Vampire
BtVS is a show about vampires. That much is obvious. They're in the title, after all. However, not much is said about what a vampire actually is in the show. There seems to be a mish-mash of common vampire mythology (the aversion to crosses and holy water) as well as some unconventional traits (the vamp-face). Given the largely unexplained background here, I feel compelled to write another Buffy essay to try to pin down my view of what a vampire is.
Is this the definitive view? No, of course not. As mentioned, the canonical mythology is so vague that I don't think anything can be presented as the "true interpretation". I welcome others to share their ideas and thoughts as well.
We're given the opportunity throughout the show to see a variety of vampires that we can take as case studies, so to speak. There are Angel and Spike, first and foremost, who became regulars at varying points. Drusilla is another important vampire we see quite a bit of. There is also Harmony, who we were able to see as a human. We also get to briefly see Willow as a vampire. So we do have several examples to look at when forming a theory here.
A general disclaimer here that I haven't watched AtS yet, so this analysis is based purely on BtVS TV canon. Feel free to let me know if anything I say is contradicted in AtS canon.
Let's start with some facts that are presented to us:
A vampire is a reanimated corpse. Yup. A vampire's physical form is a walking, talking dead body. That thought's enough to turn me off Spuffy smutfics for a short while (Okay, five minutes). It's a given that a vampire is a dead person. No living person can be a vampire.
A vampire is a reanimated corpse with a demon in it. The "demon" is referred to throughout the series. Presumably, this is the force through which the corpse is reanimated. Early explanations would lead us to believe that the demon is all we see when presented with a vampire, however later canon throws that into question.
A vampire is a reanimated corpse with a demon in it and without a soul. Vampires do not have souls. There are, by the end of the series, two exceptions to this. The implication is that the soul disappears when the person dies and can only be brought back through magical means.
Now let's explore these statements a bit more. On the surface, this would imply that a person dies, their soul disappears, a demon takes over and goes about causing murder and mayhem. Indeed, this is what Giles tells Buffy back in S1 of the series. There is nothing of the human left in the vampire because the human is dead. The demon may have the human's memories, but it's not the person.
But is this entirely accurate? Or did *shock! gasp!* Giles get it wrong?
Let's look at Harmony. We had the opportunity to see her character as a human first. She was a member of the Cordettes who was killed at graduation and turned into a vampire offscreen. She was, to be frank, a blonde ditz who was determined to be popular and latched onto whatever she thought might make her popular. Upon becoming a vampire, we see that she hadn't changed much. She latches onto Spike, who's a notorious vampire. In the following season, she attempts to form her own "gang" of vampires, and she directs them as if they were planning the Homecoming dance. Is this a demon who merely has the memories of a blonde ditz? Or is this the blonde ditz, herself?
For further food for thought there, in The Harsh Light of Day, we're introduced to vamp!Harmony. By the end of the episode, she's staked by Spike (While wearing the Gem of Amarra) and tossed aside. She states to the Scoobies that "being a vampire sucks". Why would a demon say that? That's the statement of a human, not a demon.
What about our other case studies? They all share remarkable consistencies with their human counterparts. Angel and Spike's development run smoothly from their times as humans to their vampire selves. If we were dealing with two separate entities, one being human!William and the other being vamp!Spike, we'd see a chasm of disconnect in terms of character development. We don't. vamp!Willow displays many traits that we later see in human!Willow. And Drusilla, who was driven insane by Angelus before she was turned, is still insane as a vampire. She also still has visions. If the human is gone upon being turned, Drusilla would most likely not exhibit either of these traits as she would be taken over by a demon, a completely separate entity.
Giles was wrong. The human is not gone when they're turned into a vampire. We see countless examples of this on the show. Was he lying or just mistaken? My theory, and this is pure speculation, is that Giles was just passing on the party line from the Council. The Watcher's Council has a vested interest in making sure vampires are not seen as being human in any way (Understandable given the Slayer's job). Giles, having been trained by the Council, would believe that, himself. The fact that this belief is passed on to the Scoobies makes for interesting conflict later on in the series.
So what is a vampire, then, if there's some human left in it?
My theory is that there are a couple aspects to a vampire. Each part is necessary for the whole.
One, you have the remnant of humanity. This is the "base" that the vampire is built on, so to speak. When a person is killed, everything else that makes a vampire is planted on top of this underlying humanity. Thus, you have vampires who resemble their human selves.
Two, you have the "demon". I don't think of the demon as a separate entity so much as a corrupting force. This is the part of a vampire that leads it to seek out immoral activites. It revels in bloodlust and killing. This is the supernatural force the "makes" a vampire and drives it to do evil. Take a dead human and corrupt their morality and you get a ruthless killing machine. Ergo, vampire.
Can a vampire do good things? Spike is a vampire that causes a lot of controversy in that some people believe he "breaks" canon. Considering that he is canon, I don't see much worth in that argument. If he doesn't fit with one's view of Buffy's vampire mythology, then that view must be modified to fit the new facts.
Spike, in a soulless and chipped state, does do acts that are morally good. Is this against the nature of vampires? I don't think so.
While the demon in a vampire may lead it to act in immoral ways, it's merely an influence. A very strong influence that most vampires probably aren't compelled to fight against. But it can be fought against. Or, in some cases, a vampire can be forced to fight against in. In Spike's case, we have the chip.
The chip effectively puts a rein on his demonic impulses, forcing him to not follow them. His only avenue for violent behavior is in fighting other demons, which leads him to fight on the Scoobies' side at times. We also see that sufficient motivation can compel Spike to do acts that are morally good. In S4, this motivation is generally monetary. Later, his obsession (and eventual love) for Buffy causes him to do good acts. Is this going against the nature of what a vampire is? Not really. It's showing a rare case of a vampire who literally can't give in to his demon and is having to adapt without it.
Could any other chipped vampire follow Spike's same path and start doing good things? Hard to say. Given that there's some of their human counterpart in each vampire, each vampire is unique. When Spike's demon is neutralized, his human side comes more into play as a result. Given the nature of his human counterpart, we're left with a vampire who eventually seeks his own redemption. Most other vampires may not be inclined to do so just on the basis of their human personality (Harmony, for instance, would probably never seek her own redemption).
What it comes down to is vampires cannot be taken as a homogenous group. They are as varied and different as individual humans.
Now, there is another factor to be considered when looking at vampires, but we're looking this time at something that they lack: a soul.
I considered making this next part a separate essay, but it seems necessary to at least dip into it for the purposes of this one. I'll probably go more in depth into the soul at a later date. For now, though.
What the hell is a soul anyway?
Here's the thing: nobody knows. It's never stated on the show what it is. People have different theories based off what's shown on the series or their own personal beliefs. I'm going to present my take on the soul.
It's a moral compass.
Yep, that's about it.
With the soul, we have two individuals to look at: Angel and Spike.
As a vampire without a soul, Angel is prone to stalker-like behavior and warped mind games with his prey. With a soul, he's still prone to stalker-like behavior. It seems apparent that the soul acts as a conscience. A vampire with a soul has a demon inside him telling him to cause destruction and death, but he also has a soul that tells him that it's not a nice thing to do. It doesn't force him to act good, but it does tell him what good is so that he can follow it if so inclined. Thus, we see the similarities between souled!Angel and soulless!Angel in terms of behavior. They're, in essence, the same person. souled!Angel just has the benefit of a conscious to guilt him into doing the right thing.
With Spike, we have a more complicated example as we see him without a soul for the most part. Spike, sans soul, does good things without any real awareness as to why they're good. His reasoning stops at "Because Buffy would like it". In a way, he tries to use Buffy as a moral compass for a time in an effort to be with her. Of course, this doesn't work very well in S6 when Buffy's dealing with her own issues.
It is only when Spike gets his soul back that he has a full understanding of morality and of his past actions. From that point, his motivation to do good goes beyond Buffy. Indeed, his self-sacrifice at the end is done after receiving an affirmation of love from her in an effort to show that Spike realizes that saving the world is important because it's the right thing to do. That is his redemption that the soul gives him.
So while a vampire may have some of their human counterpart's personality in them, they are lacking any sort of moral awareness. And the vast majority of vampires are fine with that. They have no desire to change. Spike is the rare exception in the opportunity the chip provided for him to gradually change himself as much as possible without a soul (And then to go out and get a soul to fully redeem himself). For Angel's part, the soul is a punishment forced upon him so that he would live with the guilt of all his crimes. Moral of that story: Don't piss off the gypsies.
In my opinion, a vampire is a fusion of the human's personality and the immoral demon, combined with a complete lack of moral guidelines. It is with this mix that we see such a variety of vampires on the show, ranging from the animalistic "fledglings" to Drusilla to vamp!Willow. Each one unique based on their own history. We're also shown the importance of a soul in the Buffyverse in terms of a character's ability to do good.
I know that other people have different opinions. After all, my interpretation gives vampires more of a moral gray area by recognizing that a properly motivated vampire can do good things, which go against the more black and white belief that vampires are pure evil. However, I think there's enough examples in canon to give some credence to the idea that vampires have more to them than that.
I'll close this essay out now (Because I think I just proved myself to be an overly-analytical, geeky fangirl with it). Please feel free to share your own thoughts.
Is this the definitive view? No, of course not. As mentioned, the canonical mythology is so vague that I don't think anything can be presented as the "true interpretation". I welcome others to share their ideas and thoughts as well.
We're given the opportunity throughout the show to see a variety of vampires that we can take as case studies, so to speak. There are Angel and Spike, first and foremost, who became regulars at varying points. Drusilla is another important vampire we see quite a bit of. There is also Harmony, who we were able to see as a human. We also get to briefly see Willow as a vampire. So we do have several examples to look at when forming a theory here.
A general disclaimer here that I haven't watched AtS yet, so this analysis is based purely on BtVS TV canon. Feel free to let me know if anything I say is contradicted in AtS canon.
Let's start with some facts that are presented to us:
A vampire is a reanimated corpse. Yup. A vampire's physical form is a walking, talking dead body. That thought's enough to turn me off Spuffy smutfics for a short while (Okay, five minutes). It's a given that a vampire is a dead person. No living person can be a vampire.
A vampire is a reanimated corpse with a demon in it. The "demon" is referred to throughout the series. Presumably, this is the force through which the corpse is reanimated. Early explanations would lead us to believe that the demon is all we see when presented with a vampire, however later canon throws that into question.
A vampire is a reanimated corpse with a demon in it and without a soul. Vampires do not have souls. There are, by the end of the series, two exceptions to this. The implication is that the soul disappears when the person dies and can only be brought back through magical means.
Now let's explore these statements a bit more. On the surface, this would imply that a person dies, their soul disappears, a demon takes over and goes about causing murder and mayhem. Indeed, this is what Giles tells Buffy back in S1 of the series. There is nothing of the human left in the vampire because the human is dead. The demon may have the human's memories, but it's not the person.
But is this entirely accurate? Or did *shock! gasp!* Giles get it wrong?
Let's look at Harmony. We had the opportunity to see her character as a human first. She was a member of the Cordettes who was killed at graduation and turned into a vampire offscreen. She was, to be frank, a blonde ditz who was determined to be popular and latched onto whatever she thought might make her popular. Upon becoming a vampire, we see that she hadn't changed much. She latches onto Spike, who's a notorious vampire. In the following season, she attempts to form her own "gang" of vampires, and she directs them as if they were planning the Homecoming dance. Is this a demon who merely has the memories of a blonde ditz? Or is this the blonde ditz, herself?
For further food for thought there, in The Harsh Light of Day, we're introduced to vamp!Harmony. By the end of the episode, she's staked by Spike (While wearing the Gem of Amarra) and tossed aside. She states to the Scoobies that "being a vampire sucks". Why would a demon say that? That's the statement of a human, not a demon.
What about our other case studies? They all share remarkable consistencies with their human counterparts. Angel and Spike's development run smoothly from their times as humans to their vampire selves. If we were dealing with two separate entities, one being human!William and the other being vamp!Spike, we'd see a chasm of disconnect in terms of character development. We don't. vamp!Willow displays many traits that we later see in human!Willow. And Drusilla, who was driven insane by Angelus before she was turned, is still insane as a vampire. She also still has visions. If the human is gone upon being turned, Drusilla would most likely not exhibit either of these traits as she would be taken over by a demon, a completely separate entity.
Giles was wrong. The human is not gone when they're turned into a vampire. We see countless examples of this on the show. Was he lying or just mistaken? My theory, and this is pure speculation, is that Giles was just passing on the party line from the Council. The Watcher's Council has a vested interest in making sure vampires are not seen as being human in any way (Understandable given the Slayer's job). Giles, having been trained by the Council, would believe that, himself. The fact that this belief is passed on to the Scoobies makes for interesting conflict later on in the series.
So what is a vampire, then, if there's some human left in it?
My theory is that there are a couple aspects to a vampire. Each part is necessary for the whole.
One, you have the remnant of humanity. This is the "base" that the vampire is built on, so to speak. When a person is killed, everything else that makes a vampire is planted on top of this underlying humanity. Thus, you have vampires who resemble their human selves.
Two, you have the "demon". I don't think of the demon as a separate entity so much as a corrupting force. This is the part of a vampire that leads it to seek out immoral activites. It revels in bloodlust and killing. This is the supernatural force the "makes" a vampire and drives it to do evil. Take a dead human and corrupt their morality and you get a ruthless killing machine. Ergo, vampire.
Can a vampire do good things? Spike is a vampire that causes a lot of controversy in that some people believe he "breaks" canon. Considering that he is canon, I don't see much worth in that argument. If he doesn't fit with one's view of Buffy's vampire mythology, then that view must be modified to fit the new facts.
Spike, in a soulless and chipped state, does do acts that are morally good. Is this against the nature of vampires? I don't think so.
While the demon in a vampire may lead it to act in immoral ways, it's merely an influence. A very strong influence that most vampires probably aren't compelled to fight against. But it can be fought against. Or, in some cases, a vampire can be forced to fight against in. In Spike's case, we have the chip.
The chip effectively puts a rein on his demonic impulses, forcing him to not follow them. His only avenue for violent behavior is in fighting other demons, which leads him to fight on the Scoobies' side at times. We also see that sufficient motivation can compel Spike to do acts that are morally good. In S4, this motivation is generally monetary. Later, his obsession (and eventual love) for Buffy causes him to do good acts. Is this going against the nature of what a vampire is? Not really. It's showing a rare case of a vampire who literally can't give in to his demon and is having to adapt without it.
Could any other chipped vampire follow Spike's same path and start doing good things? Hard to say. Given that there's some of their human counterpart in each vampire, each vampire is unique. When Spike's demon is neutralized, his human side comes more into play as a result. Given the nature of his human counterpart, we're left with a vampire who eventually seeks his own redemption. Most other vampires may not be inclined to do so just on the basis of their human personality (Harmony, for instance, would probably never seek her own redemption).
What it comes down to is vampires cannot be taken as a homogenous group. They are as varied and different as individual humans.
Now, there is another factor to be considered when looking at vampires, but we're looking this time at something that they lack: a soul.
I considered making this next part a separate essay, but it seems necessary to at least dip into it for the purposes of this one. I'll probably go more in depth into the soul at a later date. For now, though.
What the hell is a soul anyway?
Here's the thing: nobody knows. It's never stated on the show what it is. People have different theories based off what's shown on the series or their own personal beliefs. I'm going to present my take on the soul.
It's a moral compass.
Yep, that's about it.
With the soul, we have two individuals to look at: Angel and Spike.
As a vampire without a soul, Angel is prone to stalker-like behavior and warped mind games with his prey. With a soul, he's still prone to stalker-like behavior. It seems apparent that the soul acts as a conscience. A vampire with a soul has a demon inside him telling him to cause destruction and death, but he also has a soul that tells him that it's not a nice thing to do. It doesn't force him to act good, but it does tell him what good is so that he can follow it if so inclined. Thus, we see the similarities between souled!Angel and soulless!Angel in terms of behavior. They're, in essence, the same person. souled!Angel just has the benefit of a conscious to guilt him into doing the right thing.
With Spike, we have a more complicated example as we see him without a soul for the most part. Spike, sans soul, does good things without any real awareness as to why they're good. His reasoning stops at "Because Buffy would like it". In a way, he tries to use Buffy as a moral compass for a time in an effort to be with her. Of course, this doesn't work very well in S6 when Buffy's dealing with her own issues.
It is only when Spike gets his soul back that he has a full understanding of morality and of his past actions. From that point, his motivation to do good goes beyond Buffy. Indeed, his self-sacrifice at the end is done after receiving an affirmation of love from her in an effort to show that Spike realizes that saving the world is important because it's the right thing to do. That is his redemption that the soul gives him.
So while a vampire may have some of their human counterpart's personality in them, they are lacking any sort of moral awareness. And the vast majority of vampires are fine with that. They have no desire to change. Spike is the rare exception in the opportunity the chip provided for him to gradually change himself as much as possible without a soul (And then to go out and get a soul to fully redeem himself). For Angel's part, the soul is a punishment forced upon him so that he would live with the guilt of all his crimes. Moral of that story: Don't piss off the gypsies.
In my opinion, a vampire is a fusion of the human's personality and the immoral demon, combined with a complete lack of moral guidelines. It is with this mix that we see such a variety of vampires on the show, ranging from the animalistic "fledglings" to Drusilla to vamp!Willow. Each one unique based on their own history. We're also shown the importance of a soul in the Buffyverse in terms of a character's ability to do good.
I know that other people have different opinions. After all, my interpretation gives vampires more of a moral gray area by recognizing that a properly motivated vampire can do good things, which go against the more black and white belief that vampires are pure evil. However, I think there's enough examples in canon to give some credence to the idea that vampires have more to them than that.
I'll close this essay out now (Because I think I just proved myself to be an overly-analytical, geeky fangirl with it). Please feel free to share your own thoughts.