Let’s take a break from today’s most popular monster conflict, vampires and werewolves, for just a moment. The dichotomy between vampires and zombies is something worth thinking about.
The disagreement about vampires and werewolves is a largely aesthetic one. Do you prefer guys who are slender, fair and pseudo-human or guys who are built, manly and pseudo-human? As zombies tend to be disfigured and limbless, comparing them with vampires provides for deeper philosophical findings.
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche built his theory on “master and slave morality” around the idea that there were two kinds of people: masters and slaves. This somewhat mirrors the notion that there are leaders and there are followers. Nietzsche argues that the masters, or people with superior abilities, should cast aside morals when dealing with the slaves (weak people) so that they can live up to their own promise.
How does this relate to vampires and zombies?
Take a look at today’s most popular vampire-based media. The obvious frontrunner is the “Twilight” book and film series. The book’s protagonist, Bella, spends most of the series as the significant other of Edward, a vampire. In HBO’s “True Blood,” protagonist Sookie spends most of the series with Bill, a vampire. And in the CW’s “The Vampire Diaries,” protagonist Elena falls for vampire Stefan.
In each of these series, the females put up with a lot of crap (vampire-werewolf wars, kidnappings and hauntings, among other things) to be with their vampire men. Why?
It’s because vampires are powerful beings. Any English professor worth her salt will explain Dracula’s overwhelming sway over human characters in Bram Stoker’s classic novel of the same name. Vampires appeal to people because of their ability to influence mere mortals.
And yet the most popular contributions to the vampire genre have human protagonists. This suggests that people don’t watch the movies and shows to feel powerful; they watch the shows because they want someone to lord over them. They want someone to keep them in line. They are followers, if you will.
On the other hand, zombie-based media is also generally seen from the human perspective. A zombie is unlike a vampire in that it’s not powerful in the least. There has never been a movie where one zombie terrorizes a city (exceptions: the tank from “Left 4 Dead” and the zombie with a gun in “Day of the Dead”). There need to be mobs of zombies to pose a threat, much like how there need to be mobs of “slaves” to pose a threat to a “master.”
The “masters” in zombie films and video games are the human survivors. They blast and slash their way through hundreds of zombies. Zombies are still humans, but it’s completely justified because they are zombified, lesser beings than the protagonists.
People play zombie games and watch zombie movies to feel powerful. The zombies might be undead but they don’t know how to use chainsaws. The person playing the game is in charge. They control the zombies’ fates.
Better yet, it’s entirely morally acceptable to rage on the zombie population. You could theoretically do the same thing in “Grand Theft Auto,” but those are actual computer-generated human beings. Parent groups don’t care if you kill zombies.
Another example is the recent bouts of zombies versus humans that take place on campus. The guns aren’t real, but I imagine the human team feels at least a little more in-charge when it’s wandering campus with semi-automatic Nerf guns.
Now vampire-lovers — don’t lose any daytime-sleep over this. And zombie-killers — remember that Nietzche’s ideas are still considered pretty radical. Ultimately, your personality type isn’t in the hands of German philosophy or monster movies. But before you see “Breaking Dawn” or watch a George Romero zombie flick, ask yourself why.
