HOME | DD
Spearhafoc — Undeath #3 Page 15
#comics #frankenstein #gothic #horror #vampire #vampires #webcomic #webcomics #frankensteinsmonster
Published: 2018-12-17 17:44:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 442; Favourites: 5; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
apexsociety.thecomicseries.comAlso, episode 7 of What Mad Universe?!? is now available on Patreon early access. Conquest of the Monkey-King!
www.patreon.com/Spearhafoc
Related content
Comments: 21
Hmmm...does Dracula really give two shits about his underlings or is he using all the Vampires he recruited as a means to a end to achieve his own ongoing "project" and unfinished business since 1897? Since at first he was trying to take over England by himself during that time and now he's recruited a bunch of vampires to do it for him until they're no longer useful to him anymore perhaps?
Which makes me wonder that everything Dracula has promised to the other Vampires he's recruited was all a lie perhaps and everything he's doing is only making things worse for Vampirekind....
Meaning at this point since Ruvthen is considerably the weakest Vampire close to Varney and he already played his part, I guess this could mean since he was captured he's no longer useful to him anymore as if he was disposable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
This all presumes that Lord Ruthven's capture was not a part of Count Dracula's plan from the start; a reasonable assumption, though The Count is most definitely a subtle and devious individual (to say the least).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then again I kinda wonder how the hunters came to know where Ruvthen was in the first place like as if who put the word out....
Then again if Dracula really is using Vampire Hunters as 'weapons' against other Vampires then it's not very wise of him since it will eventually backlash on him despite his arrogance...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One imagines that the fame associated with a role as starring villain in any novel is more than enough to land you quite high up on the Vordenburger's Watch List (and it seems difficult to imagine such an organisation without a suitably-zealous Spy Service; if nothing else, the best way to survive a Vampire Hunt is to arrive fully loaded with the often highly specific Banes of the Vampire(s) in question, which absolutely demands good scouting, good intelligence work and rock-solid research as preconditions for a successful pursuit).
One suspects that next of kin or descendants or those descended from those nearest & dearest to a Vampire's victims would also take a keen interest in ferreting out or otherwise tracking one who cursed their ancestors with its* attentions if a role in popular fiction had kept that tragedy alive in the Family Tradition; Quincey Harker is the most obvious example (it might be interesting to see THE APEX SOCIETY take a slightly different tack to TOMB OF DRACULA, with Mr Harker the Younger becoming a lawyer rather a Vampire Hunter - but a lawyer who specifies in defending clients from charges based on the criminal offences one tends to rack up while defending oneself against a Supernatural Terror!**), but one would be surprised if there were no other such individuals at work in the Apex Society universe.
*Used as a gender-nonspecific term rather than a dehumanising one.
**One also imagines that the Harkers and their clique would tend to take a more legalistic, defensive approach to Vampires - arguing that Hunters should prioritise the search for a cure to the Vampire's supernatural affliction rather than the extermination of so many who were once victims themselves, as well as emphasising the importance of building a case grounded on Solid Evidence of Crimes Against Humanity before sending in the torches & pitchforks; I'm not certain they SHOULD be wholly separate from the Vordenburg Foundation, but they would almost certainly function as Devil's Advocate within that organisation (in the same way that the ORIGINAL Devil's Advocate acted as a voice of caution when the Catholic Church was debating a canonisation).
They would also be heavily, HEAVILY involved with all things pertaining to academic research, office work and administration because Bram Stoker's Vampire Hunters are mostly NERDS (one schoolteacher, a University professor, an MD & healthcare specialist, an articled solicitor, a keen amateur engineer ... and Quincey P. Morris, Party Jock).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
arguing that Hunters should prioritise the search for a cure to the Vampire's supernatural affliction rather than the extermination of so many who were once victims themselvesThen again especially given how diverse Vampirism is in the Apex Society universe entirely based on the fact that Vampirism is different in each form of media, some strains of Vampirism is curable while there's others that are not (which in this case is pretty much all the 19th century literary vampires), which for example in Lost Boys and Fright Night, their particular strain is curable only when the Master or "Head" Vampire is killed which then again I think both films implied that it can only cure those who are not fully turned into Vampires because they haven't made their first kill. Of course in "Near Dark" the particular strain from the film was curable via Blood Transfusions. Of course in "Vampire: The Masquerade" however, Vampirism is "curable" only when a Vampire reaches "Golconda" or basically "Humanity 10" or rather there was a Gehenna scenario called "Wormwood" where the Abrahamic God kills all the Kindred saving the ones inside a Cathedral and then turns them mortal at the end. Of course other films like "Daybreakers" "Blade" and such reduced Vampirism into a medical condition explained by science therefore curable in those films.
Then again the whole concept of the "Vampire Cure" didn't really come to much later in the 1980s which you'll notice it played a huge role throughout majority of the Vampire films made during that time like Fright Night (although it's strongly implied that Evil Ed stayed as a Vampire even after Jerry Dandridge was killed probably because Ed made his kill while Amy reverted back to human because she didn't make her first kill), Lost Boys and Near Dark which matter of fact this was actually the original premise of Vampire: The Masquerade from all the way back in 1st edition which played heavily into the themes from those films (since throughout the book told the tale of a Elder Vampire embracing a Neonate until he had enough of her and staked her became human again due to having high humanity) before it progressively trended into edgelord territory in each edition.
Unfortunately in "Bram Stoker's Dracula", I think the Thralls crumble to dust after Dracula is killed so it's too late for them although Mina gets turned back human but I don't think she was fully a vampire though.
Although personally I prefer Vampirism not curable but rather they have to deal with their own vampirism or at least become antiheroes especially since the whole "curable vampirism" concept found in the 1980s films especially "Lost Boys and Near Dark" it defiantly alludes to the metaphor that patriarchal normalcy being restored since it's another thing to consider that those films were also products of Reagenite conservatism as well hence why I kinda find it problematic especially if you read Nina Auerbach's "Our Vampires, Ourselves".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not especially keen on the idea of Vampirism as incurable - if it's a purely biological condition then there is likely to be the serious possibility of, if not a Full Cure, then at least a medical treatment able to ameliorate the disease; if the condition is of a more occult nature then it is almost certainly the result of a Curse and curses CAN be broken (as folklore & mythology attest).
Any universe in which curses can only be inflicted and endured without remission or release is a touch to unbalanced for my taste, though one must admit that "Vampirism as an unbreakable curse" certainly suits a Horror setting more elegantly than any other (though it arguably strengthens the case for a more uncompromising brand of Vampire Hunter if Vampires quite simply cannot be cured of their homicidal tendencies and can suppress them only unreliably).
As for the original novel by Mr Bram Stoker, my understanding is that DRACULA-type vampires can only be spared a rather awful transfiguration if the one who afflicted them is destroyed before the subject dies (Death being apparently irreversible, even when the corpse becomes one of the Un-dead); we don't get the chance to see whether the destruction of Count Dracula would have resulted in the complete collapse of his "Brides" by virtue of Professor Van Helsing deciding to remove them from the strategic equation prior to the return of their Maker (I believe the novel infers that something of the sort might happen, but given Mr Stoker went back-and-forth on whether the Count's destruction would also trigger the collapse of Castle Dracula before eventually deciding it would NOT this may be mere optimism on the part of Our Heroes).
Interestingly we never see the Count deal with "thralls" per se - he uses his powers of mesmerism once or twice to get his way, but The "Weird Sisters" appear to be his dependants, rather than his slaves (capable of subverting & defying his instructions should they feel moved to) and poor Renfield, while highly impressionable*, is very clearly a Wild Card rather than a true pawn.
It would seem that the Count generally favours intimidation, misdirection, subversion and paid labour over psychic compulsion ... except when it comes to dealing with animals or when his own existence is on the line (perhaps his "Mind Tricks" work best when the subject is not prepared to consciously resist them? i.e. not expecting them or flat out sleepwalking).
*i.e. Mentally Ill and, in particular, terrified by his own advanced age and obsessed with cheating death through his own perverse regimen.
By the way, wholly agree that THE APEX SOCIETY/UNDEAD setting is populated with too many variations on the vampire for any blanket cure to be a realistic possibility; still, I do think there is at least some room for various strains of Vampirism to be cured, rather than merely exterminated (especially those that are grounded in a biological contagion, rather than a consciously-inflicted curse).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if the condition is of a more occult nature then it is almost certainly the result of a Curse and curses CAN be broken (as folklore & mythology attest). Any universe in which curses can only be inflicted and endured without remission or release is a touch to unbalanced for my taste, though one must admit that "Vampirism as an unbreakable curse" certainly suits a Horror setting more elegantly than any other (though it arguably strengthens the case for a more uncompromising brand of Vampire Hunter if Vampires quite simply cannot be cured of their homicidal tendencies and can suppress them only unreliably).However here's the thing, regarding Vampirism as a curse is more of a manner of perspective since first of all, Varney's condition is very much a curse in a sense because it's his is much more to do with the fact that the universe wants him alive to pay for his crimes hence why the Full Moon keeps reviving him the same as Ruvthen although the latter rivals in his bloodlust and enjoys inflicting pain and suffering especially on his female victims however.
However Dracula's and Carmilla's Vampirism however is not a curse however since they're fully occult and arcane origin that is part of the alchemical pursuits of immortality pretty much hence there's nothing to "cure" about those at all if they're not objectively a disease or a curse in the first place especially regarding Dracula and Carmilla have the most powerful strains of vampirism compared to others.
This isn't like Vampire: the Masquerade and Vampire: The Requiem where Vampirism in those games are objectively a curse especially the former is more a biblical one (The Curse of Caine) while the latter is more of a copy and paste job from the last game.
Point is, I think you should stop blanketing Vampirism as a whole as a 'curse' that needs to be either "destroyed" or "cured" since you're kinda ironically missing the point of this comic if you're paying attention closely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Please forgive me forgetting to add this in my reply to the appropriate message, but I did note that you said the deaths of Carmilla's beloveds were not linked to her condition, but to her passions - yet would her passions be so very lethal if she were NOT a Vampire?
Excesses of Desire tend to be much less dangerous when the expression of that Desire does not revolve around bloodletting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Update: I've recently read Carmilla I think can you tell you that Carmilla's vampirism alone (or her lack of control of) is what causing her lovers deaths since develops a passion for them that is overridden by her bloodlust or rather her romantic passions and bloodlust are one that she has difficult controlling over.
Whilst Ruthven is the one with actual murderous intent in the first place who actually thrives on cruelty and inflicting pain and suffering on others who is the direct opposite of Carmilla who always had altruistic intent that always ends with death with others framing her as a monster like General Spielsdorf for example.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I certainly agree with the idea that Carmilla would not be a multiple murderer were she not a vampire, but I still believe her to be a Monster - no matter her apparently genuine affection for Miss Laura, Countess Karnstein is entirely aware of her condition and entirely willing to go on killing others so that she can continue to exist (having long since outlived her mortal lifetime).
A reluctant Monster is still a Monster, especially when it's YOUR adopted daughter who happens to be her latest victim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then again, it's heavily implied that Carmilla's main intention is turn her lovers into vampires (hence her cryptic gothic poetry such as "we shall die as one" and "you shall be mine" and such) the same way she got turned into one which is how much uncontrollable passions she has for them with her bloodlust combined that always results in their deaths hence seen as a monster by General Spielsdorf and such.
Of course unlike Ruthven who deliberately manipulates women into falling in love with him before outright tearing their throat out of course and tosses them like trash as if Ruthven represents everything Carmilla wishes not to become...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I certainly agree that Carmilla wants to either (A) join her victim in final death or (B) "bring them over" into a Vampiric state, but in all honesty - going by the original novella at least - it's somewhat difficult to tell if this is how Countess Karnstein feels about ALL her victims or if this is peculiar to Miss Laura; we know that she has been targeting other victims, it seems likely her usual method is to infiltrate their household as a guest (or at least that she keeps her headquarters in the house of local gentry, from which she can slip out to target poorer households at will), but we don't get the same intimate Point of View for the Vampire Carmilla's other victims so we cannot be certain if her approaches to Miss Laura are wholly typical of her methodology.
Certainly Baron Vordenburg implies that Carmilla's attitude to Miss Laura is somewhat unusual (most of her victims being targeted and struck down within a much shorter span of time) and given he serves as the Author's mouthpiece, it seems reasonable to suppose this was indeed the case.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then again I highly doubt Carmilla is suicidal if that's what you're implying but rather what she actually means by "we should die together as lovers may so we may live together" is just gothic poetry of her planning turning Laura into a vampire (hence what she means by "dying" since Vampires are after all undead) as in the mental image in my head of Carmilla cuddling Vampire Laura in their coffin full of blood and they can "live together" as in well Carmilla and Laura are companions for centuries to come.
Yes Vordenberg was originally the author's mouthpiece because Sheridan Le Fanu written the book with homophobic intent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that and because sooner or later every Horror author who intends to let their Mere Mortals survive the novel has to clue them into the Ins & Outs of the Creature somehow (Abraham Van Helsing remains the most entertainingly unsubtle example of the authorial mouthpiece, since he even shares his creator's christian name & hair colour!).
I most definitely agree that your interpretation of that "we should die together" is quite plausible; whether or not Carmilla actually MEANT what she said is an interesting question. Another is whether or not she has used that line before with some other girl or young woman, which raises the further question of whether Countess Karnstein falls in love with all her victims, tries to convince herself she has fallen in love with her victims (and justifies their deaths as a form of self-sacrifice on her behalf) or is simply using carefully-honed pick up lines ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thing is Carmilla falls in love with all of her unintended victims due to her uncontrolled passions and she tries to turn them all into vampires (as in she yearns for a companion to accompany in her long immortal existence due to loneliness especially loneliness as a immortal being can be quite painful for some) but she always fails which always results in their death hence the outside world sees her as a monster....
Or either that, she also tries to "expand" the Karnstein clan into vampires hence also explaining why majority of her lovers have Karnstein blood in them or maybe she's unaware of it but her vampirism is though since it's well known that vampires especially in folklore haunt family members which could be a feature of her.
Then again in short, Carmilla pretty much wants the same thing that Manor and Harr and Wampyr and Malia have although maybe not exactly as a married couple (since the girls are teenagers) but more like eternal BFFs and lovers perhaps as the way I see it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well these are both possibilities, but the novella doesn't really give us very much to go on so it's hard to say how much of this is true; it's certainly a fairly convincing Fan Theory though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then again the original novel was written with homophobic intent hence it makes sense to counter what the original novel tries to find horrifying that is via a LGTBQ+ positive lens....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I am certainly disagreeing with your interpretation of it, at least one certain points, which I readily acknowledge - I would also like to point out that, at least so far as THE APEX SOCIETY version of Carmilla is concerned her condition is explicitly a Curse because the people she Loves (or becomes deeply infatuated by) KEEP DYING sooner rather than later (and all because of HER).
I would also like to admit that it is impossible for me imagine Vampirism as anything less than a curse - though unfortunately it is often the sort of curse which afflicts those surrounding the subject rather more severely than the Vampire him or herself.
It strikes me that we might be once more on the brink of a major debate in defence of our dearly-cherished, but purely subjective opinions; one would not like to risk becoming disagreeable and will therefore do my best to drop the point without further argument.
May I ask what you like to discuss when not talking Vampires?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well for Carmilla's case, the death of her lovers has really nothing to do with her condition itself but rather herself in general since she can't control her romantic impulses and gets carried away when feeding on them since nobody has taught her how to control it basically but her version of vampirism alone is not a curse though but rather arcane in origin like Dracula's.
Lastly I would say that Vampires are literary devices that serve narrative intent of the author who writes them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
An entirely fair point; my opinions often differ from yours - vive le difference! - but most certainly not on that point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Of course there's a high possibility that Dracula will eventually turn on almost every Vampire he's recruited when the time's right whenever they're all no longer useful to him anymore (or more likely rather send them into a suicide mission or a battle that they will most likely die) to make way for his thralls that have no free will of their own but only extensions of their master which Dracula considers much more reliable and less stressful to deal with and also to ensure that he remains a absolute tyrant and no other force will be able to usurp or oppose him at all especially considering his history as Vlad Tepes when he forced all the Boyers to build his castle for him and overworked them to death and put the rest of the survivors to death as well.
Especially you can tell in page 16 in 2# when one of his recruits died, all he said was "Good Good" like he didn't show any type of concern at all as long they're doing his dirty work of course.
Since Altruism especially benefiting vampirekind as a whole may not be in Dracula's best interests after all since he only sees them as minions to be used and disposed of just like Demons and Monsters you fight in Castlevania.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0