Dear, Dr. Karl — may I call you that?
An article was brought to my attention earlier this week that both amused and gnawed at me: How long would it take a vampire to drain you of blood?
It’s not a bad read, but, well…hmm. It appears you’re omitting details to fit your revelations rather than follow logic to reach a fair conclusion. I won’t call these facts — that would require more evidence than I’m willing to provide — but I thought you might be interested in a more authoritative opinion.
First off: Santa Claus, Jesus Christ, Sherlock Holmes, and Dracula appear frequently as characters because they’re in the public domain and free to use. Just an FYI.
It’s true that a victim won’t fall immediately unconscious, but you’re neglecting the amount of blood a vampire needs to survive and how frequently they need it. Single pints (standard units of blood) are donated all the time at the Red Cross with few ever passing out; would it surprise you to know that a Vampire can subsist on as little as this each night? Sure, they may be a bit irritable and need much more if they’re healing from a grievous wound, but it’s enough. Ideally, three pints are more than adequate — three meals a night, if you prefer — and no one needs to die. If a Vampire chooses to feed once and get on with their evening, a victim could still survive this even if they pass out (and they certainly would).
As far as the time needed to “drain” the victim? Let’s substitute in the words “feed upon” and not squeeze out victims like tubes of toothpaste. It’s hilarious to assume Vampires rely only upon arterial pressure when they can SUCK YOUR BLOOD. Easy in-home experiment! Fill a pint glass with ice first and then add your favorite liquid candy (read: soda pop) to the brim, then see which way you can drink all of the liquid faster: pouring it down or sucking it out through a straw. Get it? Good…moving on.
Playing down the romantic angle for a moment, Vampires can mesmerize their victims. You knew that, right? What may look like willing submission doesn’t have to be, but a smart Vampire will find willing donors they can come back to. Bodies stacking up can be a problem, and anyone who watches “Forensic Files” knows how hard it is to disappear bodies in many places. Why bother? It’s not laziness, it’s efficiency.
“Being set on the pathway of becoming a Vampire” just because they were bitten? This is probably the biggest assumption and fallacy of these so-called exposés. If that were true, we’d be up to our armpits in bloodsucking undead by now. No, turning is an intentional thing, and it isn’t guaranteed, either. Like an elected procedure where the human body is being subjected to a massive trauma or change, things can go south in a hurry and all you’ll have left is a corpse to dispose of (see above).
Having shot down the “zombie theory” that being bitten turns a victim every time, this also kills the grade-school penny-doubling math-calc that wipes out the human race in thirty-four months. To be fair, Daybreakers was a fun movie about exactly that scenario (all except for the hilarious “cure” part), but the other factor missing is Vampires actively destroying one another competing for that blood bank. Did you think being turned made you instant friends? Nope, because Vampire are alpha predators, not pack-loving werewolves. In the same way killing off your food supply is bad for business, allowing other Vampires to roam your fiefdom is a signal to all that you’re either foolish or vulnerable.
In those films where all the monsters come out together, which one is usually in charge? Top answer: the Vampire.
That’s because Vampires are smart…VERY smart.
Remember that the next time you reveal “big lies about the bite” as far as Vampires are concerned.
They’ll be watching…and so will I.
Love your show!