I appreciated the elaboration on vampire lore by Sandor, the monk (Andrew Keir). One reviewer on IMDb scoffed at the idea that the undead have to be willingly allowed into a person’s abode, but this fits the parallel of vampires to evil itself, which first affects a person’s mindset (ideology) and THEN their behavior or lifestyle. In short, evil cannot overtake a person unless s/he willingly allows it.
shareWhat if the vampire attacks you in the street?
shareApplying this to the parallel: It explains why it's necessary to don your spiritual "armor."
shareWhere does spiritual armour feature in the vampire story?
Can you not just wear your spiritual armour at home? Then it wouldn't matter who or what you willingly let into your home.
People act according to what they think/believe. In other words, ideology determines action and lifestyle, which explains the proverb “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.” This can be summed up as “Be careful what you think for your thoughts run your life.” Guarding one’s heart (mind) from negative, unproductive thoughts/ideologies is a key piece of the spiritual armor noted.
You’re right that even in the security of one’s home a person would need this “armor” to some degree. A monk living on a mountain monastery seeking to escape worldly temptations would still have to deal with the temptations of his own flesh and thought life. How much more so when the individual goes out into society and is exposed to unhealthy ideologies, lifestyles and the social pressure to conform? Where is a college student more likely to fall prey to drunkenness, drugs, sexual promiscuity and the consequences thereof — at home or on South Padre Island where all the hedonism is occurring?
(I’m not saying, by the way, that it’s necessarily wrong to celebrate on Spring Break or go to South Padre Island. As in anything, wisdom and moderation apply).
Relating this to the vampirism in this movie and others: Vampirism is symbolic of evil, which first affects a person’s mindset/thought life (ideology) and THEN their behavior or lifestyle. As such, evil cannot overtake a person unless s/he first willingly allows it. This explains why the undead have to be willingly allowed into a person’s abode.
So instead of Keir's vampirism lore being analogous to admitting "ideology" and paying the price for it. This is simply a meandering and specious load of nonsense about stuff you don't like.
shareIt has nothing to do with stuff I personally don't like (such as liver or a certain style of music) and everything to do with intrinsically negative & destructive behaviors and thought patterns, which is what I mean by "evil."
shareExactly. It's like when we were in school and they were doing those anti-drug classes. But we wondered what you're supposed to do if you're just walking down the street minding your own business, and then ten guys jump you and force a pill down your throat. Inquiring minds want to know!
shareVampires are a metaphor for the rich, the 1%.
They're dependent us, they drain us in order to live. But we have mixed feelings about being used that way, even if we resent it we find them fascinating and glamorous, and some people want nothing more than to be used by them, or to become one of them. Even if it costs us our souls.
It's an interesting metaphor, but it's too obviously extreme Left-wing and assumes that money itself is evil, which it isn't. It's the LOVE of money -- greed -- that is evil, not money itself. It's okay for a person to have money, but it's not good for money to have you.
Also, someone can be totally poor and be guilty of the love of money. Being poverty-stricken is no more a virtue than being rich is a vice. I've seen poor people rip-off struggling people without a second thought. Also, a goodhearted well-to-do individual might give a homeless person a generous amount of money, but he wastes it on booze or drugs. One is wise and the other a fool.
we find them fascinating and glamorous
Money isnt evil in itself, and being rich doesn't make a person evil. But a great many of the methods people use to get rich or stay rich involves the exploitation of other people, and could fairly be called "evil". Enough to extend a metaphor, anyway.
As far as glamorizing vampirism, that comes and goes. Stoker's book-Dracula wasnt glamorous, but the 1930s movie version was. And the glamorization of vampires hit an all-time high in recent years, with that trashy "Twilight" mess and everything it influenced. When it was The Shit, it wasn't just the Gothy girls who wanted a vampire boyfriend, so did their boring suburban mothers and grandmas!
Well said. But I'm not so sure the 1931 version of "Dracula" genuinely glamorized vampires. I get the surface charisma of Lugosi as Drac but, beyond that, vampirism as depicted in the movie strikes me as an abysmal, dreadful existence. Does sleeping in a dark, cold coffin during the sunlit hours every day and then sucking people's blood at night to survive -- and killing 'em -- sound like fun? (I haven't seen it for a long time so I'll have to revisit it).
shareFYI Lugosi's Dracula was considered to be quite the hottie back in the day! When he first played the role in stage, women were fainting or disgracing themselves in the audiences, although I must say that "Twilight" must have set an all-time high for getting women to disgrace themselves.
As for vampirism being a dreadful existence... well, this sort of Vampire Fever never seems to strike people who have sense. Funny about that.
The top 25 having more than the bottom 3 billion is evil.
shareuh, oh, the green-eyed monster is rearing it's head.
shareIf you don't think greed is involved in that statistic then you're hopeless.
shareThe top 25 having more than the bottom 3 billion is evil
It's not slander. It's a statistical certainty. You're using ideology to defend a situation which, with a modest rearrangement of wealth, would lighten the suffering and misery of many and greatly reduce.the conditions under which many of the evils of this world thrive. While havjng a negligible adverse impact on the wellbeing of those that can fund it.
25 on one side. And billions on the other. The scales are tipped outrageously on one side.
Nobody ever said that greedy people couldn't be "hard working". Or vice versa
But camel through the eye of a needle and all that.
You're making a blanket statement that maligns industrious, productive people in general as "evil." That's slander. The root of slander is envy/jealousy and its purpose is to poison people's minds against the individual or group in question.
Who said anything about "ideology." I only care about what's right, balanced, effective and factual.
Speaking of ideology, your perspective rewards idleness, stifles individual freedom, glorifies (worships) "the government" and penalizes personal ingenuity & diligence. Your Marxist model has been proven erroneous over and over, look no further than the USSR and Cuba.
Why is it that people constantly try to escape communistic countries and go to Western democracies with free enterprise, e.g. East Germany back in the day? How come it's never the other way around? If the American system is so "evil" why are there constant hordes moving to the USA from all over the earth, legally and (more so) illegally?
While having a negligible adverse impact on the wellbeing of those that can fund it.
You're goofy.
share