Thursday, 30 January 2014

Werewolves vs Vampires - The Ultimate Supernatural Showdown

It is within our discriminatory nature to categorize and brands things - to differentiate between what is superior compared to the weak. This is relatively easy for the observed phenomena of this world, but what about the world beyond this mere reality? Should we not take importance in the perplexing, yet seemingly unanswerable questions on the supernatural?

Perhaps we should not merely brand these as unsolvable - moreover, through the knowledge that we've attained in this field, correct sides in the debates of classical questions, such as the superiority of werewolves vs vampires, can be evident as if in clear daylight.

Today, I will tackle the classic werewolves vs vampires argument. Who is superior? Who is better? We believe it is the werewolf.

Why do the supernatural exist? It's simple. To instill fear, the greater frightening portion of human experience,  in us piffling mortals. And why is this question important, you might ask? Because we believe that the differentiation between quality supernatural creatures versus others is dominated by the amount of fear that they incite in our minds.

Werewolves have been recorded in history for far longer. Numerous historical references of lycanthropy exist, dating back to Indo-European mythologies, being cited during classical antiquity, and still, the werewolf remains, to this day, a popular element of spooky culture.

Compared to that of the werewolf, the vampire (on the other hand) first appears only during the middle ages. During that period of time, the equivalent of witch hunt trials were conducted against werewolves, once again proving that the werewolf is something to dread. 

While indeed, others might have the concession that vampires were recorded in ancient history, the significant thing to bear in mind is that of the distinction of "the vampire" between other blood-seeking creatures. In fact, these people carry a fallacious mental baggage with their contemporary notion of the vampire - they forcibly connect their current knowledge to these ancient monsters, during an era where people had no conception of a vampire yet.

Thus, with that being said, it is clear that the werewolf has instilled fear in more generations of people than the vampire has. There is, however, another way in which the werewolf succeeds more than vampires in instilling fear - and that is the enigmatic nature of the werewolf.

Before explaining this though, we must distinguish two terms, that are usually interchangeable in everyday language, though in actuality, are by far different from each other - horror, and terror. Both Stephen King and Ann Radcliffe have described the difference between the two, explaining how horror describes its "unambiguous atrocity", while terror is something even more sinister, lying in its obscurity and uncertainty.

Here lies a perfect quote by Stephen King: 

"The horror: the unnatural, spiders the size of bears, the dead waking up and walking around, it's when the lights go out and something with claws grabs you by the arm. And the [...] worse one: Terror, when you come home and notice everything you own had been taken away and replaced by an exact substitute. It's when the lights go out and you feel something behind you, you hear it, you feel its breath against your ear, but when you turn around, there's nothing there..."

It is without a doubt that lack of knowledge instills probably the greatest fear. The vampire is so clearly defined in its characteristics, from that pale skin, its vampiric fangs, to its absolute pure love of anything sanguine. The vampire is also beautifully defined in Bram Stoker's Dracula, just as how Mary Shelley defined Frankenstein. But can anyone think of a classic novel pertaining to that of a werewolf? Frankly, there isn't any. And that my friends, is where we all discover just what makes the werewolf so utterly terrifying: his ambiguous and elusive nature.

Another resulting consequence of the explicit descriptions of the vampire is that we know more than ever about the weaknesses of this nocturnal creature. Garlic, a stake in the heart, and sunlight are its primary weaknesses, while the only weakness that the werewolf has is the silver bullet. If, perchance, the vampire and the werewolf were to engage in an all out duel to the death, the werewolf clearly has the advantage due to the sheer number of vulnerabilities that the vampire has over the werewolf's. Furthermore, the exploitation of the werewolf's weakness is particularly difficult to conduct, as modern bullets are composed of lead or lead alloys.

A potential counterargument is that the werewolf can only become a werewolf once per month. Thus, the vampire has the advantage as the vampire can harness his true powers and destroy the werewolf during any night that he wishes. However, as long as the werewolf is adequately sensible enough, and because the vampire has numerous weaknesses, the werewolf could simply keep garlic or have a stake nearby to drive the vampire off.

Our last argument is more of a hypothetical model of sorts on the contagiousness of lycanthropy versus vampirism. Of course, if the werewolf and the vampire did exist, who would have the numbers in their favor? Again, we think it is the werewolf. The vampire's only method of transmission is to bite their fangs in one's neck, whereas the werewolf can simply scratch the victim. As it is particularly biologically awkward to bite someone on the neck, especially as the victim is resistant, it is relatively easy for the werewolf to use its extended appendages to scratch. Thus, the function for the spread of lycanthropy versus time increases possibly exponentially more than vampirism. Eventually, werewolves would outnumber vampires, and...

 ~ vampires would ultimately have to admit defeat. ~