Welcome to Gaia! ::

Would you also consider that when a vampire creates an new breed he must leave a bit of himself behind. In your conclusion there is much the vampire takes, the blood the life the soul. If that body now can walk on it's own it could not entirely be an empty vassal could it. It would seem when a vampire creates another that new being traditionally takes on characteristics of it's creator. They also seem to not just be copies of the master vampire either. So does the vampire take a soul then return a little of it back along with a piece of himself?

Ah take it one step further if this where knocking on some kind of answer as to the workings of vampires. Why would it be that a free vampire must drink there masters blood?

I was actually wondering that myself. If a vampire absorbs their victim's "soul" and their victim's "life" into themselves, then how does a vampire create another vampire?

Many modern media portray vampires as having to feed some of their own blood to their victim in order to turn their victim into a new vampire. We know for a fact that, in Hellsing, this is not the case. In Hellsing, a vampire must drink the blood of a virgin of the opposite sex in order to turn their victim into a vampire. There is no mention of an exchange of blood as a requirement. In Dracula, Dracula (forcibly) feeds some of his blood to Mina, who subsequently begins to transform into a vampire. This offers an alternative way to become a vampire (and a possible loophole to the "virgin" requirement), but it does not mention an exchange of blood as a requirement.

Therefore, there is no reason for us to believe that there is an exchange of blood involved in creating new vampires.

Perhaps, in the process of making a new vampire, a vampire drains their victim's blood and absorbs their victim's "life," but leaves their victim's "soul" intact?


I can't really account for a new vampire's inheritance of its creator's characteristics. But then, who says that, in Hellsing, different "strains" of vampirism exist?

Recall that, in chapter 18 of Dracula, Van Helsing describes the characteristics (including strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and limitations) of all vampires all over the world in a very general way, as if all vampires all over the world share those same characteristics. Since all the (true) vampires we've seen in Hellsing are (presumably) of Dracula's bloodline, we have no way of knowing if different bloodlines exhibit different characteristics (even Millennium's artificial vampires exhibit many of those same characteristics, albeit to a lesser extent).




Exactly.




It isn't energy that Alucard loses, but life. In order to summon the souls of his victim's as familiars, he must separate their souls from himself. In the process of doing this, he separates their lives from his own. This leaves his own life vulnerable.

It's a difficult question, because we're looking at two different universes of thought on vampires.
For example, Stoker's Dracula certainly seems to feed on life, while Helsing vampires seem nutritionally connected to the blood: reference the blood bags that they suck like juice boxes. I find it hard to believe that parts of souls really get transferred in this manner while their bodies are still alive, so I think there's a limitation to the connection between life and blood, but it could be interpreted differently.

As for forming a vampire...though there isn't a mention of blood exchange in Helsing, I think that practically there has to be some kind of giving - even if the transferance is purely soul, without blood. Otherwise it seems like there would have to be a ghoul, which I would hypothesize to be a body with it's soul taken but with remnents of life mobilizing it.
Honestly, I find the stipulation about virginity a bit odd as well - what, does your soul change whan you orgasm or something?

Theory-wise, my favorite is in this other book, where it says vampires feed off psychic death.

It's obvious that Renfield was a sort of John the Baptist for Dracula, the Antichrist. However, Renfield's sanity is up to debate. It has been theorized that some of the people we call mad are not truly mad, but instead have some extra sensitivity or some extra faculty of observation, that there is a connection between madness an artistic talent, and that both states may have their roots in a greater capacity for perception of detail. I believe this is the case with Renfield. He is not a lunatic, but a psychic. He sensed Dracula from afar and Dracula took advantage of Renfield's "delusion" that he could prolong life by consuming life (a delusion which I consider to be part of a unique system of belief and no different than any other religion) to manipulate him.




Yes, blood is the medium through which vampires acquire life. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say that Dracula's brides, Mina, and Renfield acquire life from other sources. Dracula's brides are vampires and thus acquire life through blood (in the novel, they consume babies' blood and Harker's blood). Mina, however, was not a vampire (or rather, never became a vampire), and thus was free to consume normal food (however, as she neared the end of her transformation into a vampire, she stopped). Renfield was not a vampire either, and thus was free to consume normal food. However, he believed that normal food only sustains what life you have, and wanted instead to acquire more life (which he believed he could acquire simply by consuming it).

In Hellsing, Alucard seems to have been modified (built into "the ultimate undead") through many years of experimentation by the Hellsing family. It is never stated what techniques they used in their experimentation, but it is generally assumed that they performed a variety of magical and occult rituals (with good intentions, of course). In any case, we have no way of knowing how those techniques affected him (what "power" he acquired through them) because we do not know what he was capable of (in the Hellsing universe) before he was modified. If Dracula is any indication of that, then the Hellsing family has found a way to allow Alucard to cheat true death by sacrificing the souls he has absorbed in place of his own.

Lastly, in myths outside of Dracula and Hellsing, vampires have been known to take a variety of forms (reanimated corpses or parts of them, disembodied spirits, animals, fruits and vegetables) and to acquire life through a variety of bodily fluids (blood, breast milk, semen) from a variety of different organisms (humans, mammals, birds). However, we are not talking about myths outside of Dracula or Hellsing.




You're right about the Roman Catholic Church and their belief concerning the animal soul. You're also right in saying that vampires have acquired life from animals. It is never stated that Dracula can survive on animal blood, but it is possible, considering that they have life. I have theorized that the soul is something like a gas tank that contains life, which is then pumped throughout the body (through the blood) like fuel, animating it. Drinking blood is like filling up a gas tank in a car. It revitalizes the vampire, restoring its youth and its powers, but only temporarily. Absorbing a soul is like placing another gas tank in a car. It gives the vampire a greater capacity for life. However, as long as a vampire remains active, it can use up its life just like a car can use up its gas. It is in a vampire's best interest (to remain active and to avoid true death) to drink as much blood (life) and absorb as many souls as it possibly can.

You're wrong about Dracula stating that he does not have a soul. He does no such thing. It is never stated by any character in the novel that vampires do not have souls (not to my knowledge, at least). In fact, it is suggested that vampires do have souls. In Dracula, vampirism is a curse. It damns people to an eternal physical life but cuts them off from a spiritual one (which, according to Christian teachings, is what we all should be aspiring towards). As Mina says about Dracula in chapter 23, "That poor soul who has wrought all this misery is the saddest case of all. Just think what will be his joy when he, too, is destroyed in his worser part that his better part may have spiritual immortality." It is implied, throughout the novel, that killing a vampire is not murder, but mercy. It allows their souls to return to God.




Very interesting idea.




In Hellsing, a vampire can only create a familiar by releasing that soul from itself. This means that the vampire loses that soul's life. If a vampire releases all of the souls it has absorbed (as Alucard did), then it loses all of those lives (as Alucard did), leaving it with only its own (and thus vulnerable to true death).




A vampire cannot acquire a soul from a blood bag. They can, however, acquire life from a blood bag, because the blood in a blood bag remains alive for 42 days (or so) after being drawn from the body. After 42 days, the blood in a blood bag dies. After 42 days, the blood is a blood bag becomes useless.




Perhaps there is something special about a virgin's soul or their body that allows their soul to remain in their body even when a vampire drains them to the point of death (the point at which a vampire would usually absorb their soul). I have no doubt it has something to do with purity, especially considering that vampirism is a curse that seems designed to corrupt the pure (it forces them to take the lives of others in order to sustain their own). In any case, the virgin requirement (as far as I know) is uniquely Hellsing.




I doubt it, but I cannot say for sure.




I think vampirism is like a disease that infects souls. It begins with a corrupted soul (such as Dracula) and spreads when that corrupted soul corrupts other souls or leads them to corrupt themselves (such as Lucy or Mina).



It may be a closed stipulation, but it does explain very neatly why every person who dies from a vampire's bite does not become a vampire themselves. Otherwise, Transylvania, Dracula's hunting ground for hundreds of years, would have been swarming with vampires (unless Dracula took careful measure to prevent his victims from becoming vampires).

I'm not sure what you mean by that second part (particularly the difference between being cursed and being condemned).

Definitely one of my favorite quotes of all time. Such a shame that it was changed in the Symphony of the Night remake included in the Dracula X Chronicles on the PSP.




That's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure. You're right, of course. There must be a reason why a vampire becomes a vampire. A common reason is because they are so evil during life that they are denied entrance into Heaven and Hell after death. Another reason is because they simply refuse to die at all (this is the reason that Alucard became a vampire in Hellsing). After a vampire becomes a vampire, they are compelled to drink blood and to create more of their kind. They may choose corrupt souls or pure souls (however, in Hellsing, they are required to choose pure souls, such as virgins, if they wish to create new vampires). Although vampires have free will and can choose to do good, their souls are typically (and tragically) inevitably corrupted because of their very specialized diet. The best choice they can make is to seek an end to their curse (usually death).

Thank for pointing out the flaws in my theories. It really has been ages since I read Dracula. I think I read to many other vampire novels.

But, yeah. If we take science into the equation we'd come up with a whole different answer.

Ah, I used the wrong word again. sweatdrop What I mean is, if blood is taken from a human into a baggie, it seems like the life has to either go out immediately (just as much as when blood is drawn for ordinary use, and is then refreshed) or when a vampire drinks it the life can be drawn from the human - as it seems like it would in Dracula and more traditional versions, since the life-absorbtion seems pretty permanent.
Btw, where are you getting the "42 days" from, NoLifeKing?

As to the concept of purity, I'd agree with Gorenza for Helsing, and NoLifeKing for Dracula. Alucard is definitely presented as having been a victim/pure soul who was brought to vampirism by circumstances and actually wants to die, but Dracula is...like...Corruption of the World (a la Plague, as in Nosferatu).
You know, the "no-soul" thing sounds like a Buffy-ism. That part always bothered me. xp
And, though the virginal thing isn't associated with vampires too much, it's in other Western folk lore and stuff, like unicorns.

Which reminds me - though I know Kouta Hirano is taking most of his vampire lore from Western tradition, is there a Japanese/Eastern vampire concept? The closest thing I've heard of is blood-sucking trees. biggrin