FK General Discussion: What is Vampirism?

[switchbladeeyes]

In the Forever Knight universe, what exactly is vampirism? Is it biological? A state of mind? A state of spiritual downfall? Moral downfall? Some mix of these things? Something else?

It seems any hopes Nick could have of curing vampirism necessitate answering this question. Because how can you cure it if you don't know what it is?

Biology: As I recall, in "The Fix", Natalie references something unique about Nick's cells or his DNA or something that she sees as a tell-tale sign of his vampirism. And if that can be corrected, Nick won't be a vampire. The drug in "The Fix" worked at first, but did not work long-term. Is it because they just had not found the right biological cure, or is biology not the "source" of vampirism, but rather just a symptom of it? Natalie's approach in seasons 1 and 2 assumes that a cure will address Nick's biology.

State of Mind: I think this is such an interesting avenue that the show got into in season 3. There is definitely some kind of mind-body connection involved, but how it works is unclear. In "Hearts of Darkness," a traumatized young woman developed a split personality, totally unaware that one of her personalities was a vampire. As a practical matter, the personalities that don't know about the vampire, aren't vampires. We see her do things like eat food. We see the same thing with Nick in "Night in Question" when severe head trauma gave him amnesia. He didn't know he's a vampire so he didn't behave like one. It didn't stick in either event, however.

And then there's Janette. What's up with that? Did she want to be human enough (so she could be with WhatsHisFace and the kid) that she turned human? Was she well and truly human? Was it a state of mind?

State of Spiritual Downfall: That vampires are repelled by religious/spiritual objects is a long-standing aspect of the vampire legend. In the novel Dracula, as I read it, vampirism was unquestionably due to being in a state of spiritual downfall. Mina Harker, who was horribly wronged by Count Dracula, was also the only one to have some sympathy for him. I was struck that for her, tracking him down and killing him was not just because he was doing horrible things, but because if she and her allies could kill him, they could free his soul. Maybe this spiritual downfall angle is the same in FK.

Certainly, Nick sees himself in a state of spiritual downfall, but that seems to be because he sees himself through the lens of the religion that shaped him in his human life. Other vampires don't necessarily share this view. Who's right?

An interesting thing in FK is that vampires do not have to believe in a religion for that religion's objects to repel them. What's up with that? It is challenging to chalk up to "state of mind" when there's still an effect regardless of whether you believe in the religion.

State of Moral Downfall: Are vampires inherently morally "bad" or "evil"? Nick sees vampirism that way. We've seen him express it more than once. Which is interesting because he still chooses to associate on friendly terms with some other vampires. If he thinks they are evil, why is he associating with them?

Vampires certainly have impulses to perform evil deeds. I mean, they get off on murdering people. Yikes. But does the impulse alone make them "evil"? I'm sure we all agree that Nick has done some horrible, evil things (body count likely in the tens of thousands, at minimum!), but is the Nick that we know in the modern era an evil person?

Interestingly, the modern era gives vampires a practical way to avoid their murderous impulses. They don't have to murder humans to drink human blood. Though some of them still do. (I'm looking at you, LaCroix.) If you have a choice to do an evil thing or not do it, and you choose not to, doesn't that suggest you aren't inherently evil?

So what is vampirism? Thoughts? Theories? Any of the above resonate with you?

Comments

[switchbladeeyes]

I like biology and state of mind because they seem the most like they could involve achievable fixes within the show's universe. Perhaps a combination of biology and state of mind could overcome vampirism permanently with no possible relapse (unless you're brought over again, I suppose). That would be interesting.

With biology, the drug in "The Fix" was effective though not permanent. In season 1 , Nat's nutritional experiments have impacts on Nick's vampirism. Maybe they're just weakening him… but isn't that the point? To weaken the vampire?

State of mind might be my favorite though. We see in season 3 that it is highly, highly effective. The issue is making a state of mind permanent (and perhaps Janette achieved it, though I'm not convinced, and the "how" was not clear.)

When you think about it, it's possible other vampires have regained humanity using their minds to permanently revert back to human, but this is unknown to other vampires because (1) any vampire that had made such a change would have every reason to keep it a secret, (2) the odds of a vampire encountering such a former vampire would be teeny considering they're just another human on a planet full of humans, and (3) their secret would die with them within a mortal lifetime.

Maybe it's a biological mechanism to turn someone into a vampire, but state of mind can overcome it. I'll need to think on this some more, but I like it.

I don't like a state of spiritual or moral downfall.

On the moral front, modern Nick is not a "bad person." He definitely once was a bad person and still often sees himself that way, but in the show's modern era, he just isn't.

Interestingly, within the universe, we know that even LaCroix (of ALL people) doesn't see spiritual or moral downfall as inherent to vampirism. Remember that "Sons of Belial" exorcism when he told Nick that Nick had goodness in him and god in him? (I mean, holy shit, can you believe LaCroix said those things?)

And maybe LaCroix's observations were true considering the exorcism succeeded. If those things are true—that Nick has "goodness" and "god" within him even as a vampire— then a state of moral or spiritual downfall is not where Nick's problem lies. I think that Nick believing that to do be the case may be part of the state of mind he's got to adjust if he's ever to cure himself.

[thefruitbat]

Phew... difficult question. Never really thought about it, because in my mind vampirism was something contagious, like a kind of virus, as Natalie puts it. Or maybe even something like in Anne Rice's vampire lore, a piece of something demonic, that makes the human body mutate and have all the vampire traits and abilities.

There's a hypothesis (don't recall how it's called in English), that says that a religious object can hurt/repell vampires, because other people believe in the holy aspects of said object. That it's not the object itself, but the belief itself, that makes the object a weapon against vampires.
This, along with the "evil is a state of mind - as is vampirism" could lead to Nick being able to tolerate the proximity and even touch of a cross. When he meets Joan of Arc his hand bursts into flame even though he doesn't touch the big cross in the church, and in the episode, where he holds the golden cross on the necklace at the end, he can hold it in his hand for quite some time with minimal damage to his skin.

I'd disregard the "the vampire has a split personality and thus can forget she's a vampire" episode, because... come on... just nope. Even Nick had reactions to food and sunlight when he forgot who he was after being shot in the head. But yeah, good ol' Plot Reasons. ;)

It's not surprising to me that Lacroix said that Nick has goodness in him. After all, he's been trying to get Nick back on the "dark side" and always bemoans that Nick cares way too much for mortals.
Maybe he didn't really believe that Nick was possessed by a demon in SOB, but he could have thought that he needs to encourage Nick, so he can "fight the demon" with this mindset. I bet he would have said about anything to save Nick - like he always did, no matter how Nick ended up in a dire situation.

[switchbladeeyes]

There's a hypothesis (don't recall how it's called in English), that says that a religious object can hurt/repell vampires, because other people believe in the holy aspects of said object. That it's not the object itself, but the belief itself, that makes the object a weapon against vampires.

Interesting! It also seems to hold over time. I'm thinking of Divia trapped in the Egyptian tomb. I'm assuming the applicable religion and attendant believers died out long ago, but she couldn't escape until the grave robbers broke the religious symbol on the sarcophagus

I'd disregard the "the vampire has a split personality and thus can forget she's a vampire" episode, because... come on... just nope.

LOL! Fair enough, but I shall not disregard because state of mind is my favorite theory! I gotta take what I can get.

Maybe he didn't really believe that Nick was possessed by a demon in SOB, but he could have thought that he needs to encourage Nick, so he can "fight the demon" with this mindset. I bet he would have said about anything to save Nick

Save Nick from what though?

[thefruitbat]

Saving Nick from himself - his own conviction that there are demons and that he is indeed possessed. Since Lacroix didn't believe in possession, he surely thought that Nick was imagining it, so he told him what he needed to hear to convince himself that he is capable of overcoming this evil spirit. Lacroix would tell him everything he needed to hear.

[calliope24]

Saving Nick from himself - his own conviction that there are demons and that he is indeed possessed. Since Lacroix didn't believe in possession, he surely thought that Nick was imagining it, so he told him what he needed to hear to convince himself that he is capable of overcoming this evil spirit. Lacroix would tell him everything he needed to hear.

While I absolutely agree that Lacroix did not believe Nick was possessed when Nick claimed to be at the Raven, I think he had some doubts that it could be true after Nick morphed on the table at Vanderwals. At any rate, I think he was not willing to take a chance on losing Nick if it could possibly be true. I do love that scene.

BTW, does anyone else think that Vanderwal initially thought that they were a couple and that LaCroix had led Nick into that "lifestyle" creating the turmoil and allowing the devil into Nick? I absolutely read the scene that way.

[switchbladeeyes]

BTW, does anyone else think that Vanderwal initially thought that they were a couple and that LaCroix had led Nick into that "lifestyle" creating the turmoil and allowing the devil into Nick? I absolutely read the scene that way.

Ooh, fascinating take! I'm going to have to rewatch that moment through that interpretative lens.

[thefruitbat]

Yes, it can be totally be read that way. And even if I wasn't with the unnamed faction... there are quite a few scenes in the series which make me doubt the completely platonic relationship between them. The way Lacroix behaves around Nick, it's no wonder Vanderwal would assume that they're a couple.

[switchbladeeyes]

But why "save" Nick from thinking he's possessed by a demon?

Nick behaving like a vampire is exactly what LC wants. If Nick wants to chalk it up to being possessed by a demon, it seems like it should be a big "so what" from LC's perspective. If going to an exorcism is gonna shift Nick's mindset and knock him off the vampire trajectory, why would LC do that?

For me, the moment when LC decides to give into Nick's demands to take him to the exorcist is one of the most unexpected things I've seen from him on the show.

I wonder if LC even knows why he did it.

I do think that once he's at the exorcism, he becomes convinced. At which point, he believed he was trying to save Nick from an actual demon.

But why take him in the first place?

You could be right though and LC was trying to save Nick from the belief in a demon. In the Raven, he can see that Nick is greatly distressed, and while that may not have much of a motive for him to help Nick in the past, we're at the part of the show where we see their relationship changing quite a bit. It's not the only moment that LC undercuts his own agenda for Nick's benefit (covering for him in the immediately preceding episode, NiQ, being another such moment).

The show always keeping us on our toes and guessing!

[thefruitbat]

Yes, Lacroix wants Nick to come back to his "family" and embrace what he is, but he becomes more and more unhinged, making him a liability. If he loses control completely, he could endanger the Community.
I'm sure Lacroix wants him give in into his vampiric nature, but not like this. (And also doesn't want to have to deal with the Enforcers. :D )

[calliope24]

Good to see you back posting topics!

So, I have to lean heavily on the biological cause to vampirism. Although FK canon is all over the place regarding what actually takes place, or needs to take place to bring a person across, the one consistent thing is that the individual is bitten by a vampire.

It's unclear as to whether actively receiving vampire blood is required--we have several examples of each--LaCroix actively gives Nicholas blood when bringing him across, but Nick doesn't with any of his fledglings that we can see. Nor does LaCroix with the Jack the Ripper character in Bad Blood. We also see LaCroix bring back an apparently very dead Alexandria in Fatal Mistake, yet couldn't/wouldn't do the same for Alyssa Von Lintz in Dead of Night. I do notice that it's not LaCroix that Alexandria is hunting. Smart girl.

The length of time between 'dead' and arising as a vampire also seems to vary widely. Does this allow for the 'choice' that Nick feels he had the opportunity to make, or is there another explanation?

Anyway, Natalie identifies 'extra nucleotides' in Nick's blood in The Fix. And I think she refers to it as the vampire virus at least once. I'm going to go with the principal cause being a physical one with a transmission between the two individuals.

I do think there is a lot to be said about state of mind given the information we have from the third season. The most convincing is the Ellen/Monica/Jacquline situation is HoD. Although Monica does say that Monica's indiscretions led her to a vampire, which I take to mean a biting did occur. I've never interacted with anyone with a dissociative personality disorder, but I've heard its very profound. And we see 'her' eat, but not break any of the other vampire rules.

As far as Nick in Night in Question, although Natalie claims that they were 'so close', they weren't really close at all. Nick eats, but says the food was awful. Nick also eats in 1966, so apparently they CAN eat, it's just an awful experience for them. The fact that he is a vampire immediately slides into his subconscious as soon as he falls asleep, and although he doesn't know he's a vampire, he came close to combusting when he went out in the daylight.

I still don't know what to make of the Janette situation, other than it being a plot device to set up LK. She seemed to think she had returned to mortality, and there were some indications that it was true--the most relevant for me is that she did react as a mortal both times when she was shot, but how she got there really made little to no sense.

I see the spiritual and moral downfall theories as closely allied, maybe because we are seeing this world largely through Nick's experiences and to him they are closely related. As you mentioned, given Nick's era and status in society, the Catholic Church would have been all encompassing for him. He really can't see through any other lens, idt, even when he tries to as in his comment in the flashback in SoB "If there's a God, he hasn't shown himself to me." He so strongly believes that vampirism is a 'fall from grace' that it makes it a huge part of it for Nick whether he wants it to be or not.

Even LaCroix, who was a pagan in his mortal life, would have spent nearly 2 thousand years in a world where the Church was paramount. It's hard not to be absorbed into a mentality by it. We do have examples of vampires being affected by religious symbols that are not their own--Nick reacts to a menorah in PotM at the shiva, and the Vietnamese vampire in CRCH reacts to the cross, even though he is almost certainly been raised as a Buddhist. It does give credence to the idea that religion/spirituality has some place here in our theory. For Nick, that's an absolute.

As far as a cure, Klytaimestra had a great take on it in her wonderful story Five Years Later:Conversation with a Vampire.

https://archiveofourown.org/works/191612?show_comments=true&view_full_work=true#comments


It's a long story, so I'll recap the relevant part. In it, a very compelling (almost) OC tells Nick that there are many cures, or combinations of interventions that can lead to a cure, and that each vampire has to find his own way. As an example he says that the acupuncture cure was one that would work, with certain prayers being said.

For my part, I do think that there is most likely a physical cure to be found although not in the 1990s and not by Natalie, given her education and resources.

Another great topic, thanks!

[switchbladeeyes]

The mechanics of bringing someone over is definitely one of the more maddening canon inconsistencies. It certainly seems like something biologically happens with the bite and I also lean toward at least some biology being involved (but... maybe it's not biology but passing on spiritual or moral corruption... ahhhh, too many theories).

I thought NiQ was close, but the problem was the solution was unreliable. I probably should give it a rewatch because I don't remember Nick saying the food was awful, but I do recall him chowing down on an apple without evidencing a negative reaction to it (not just in vampire terms, but as a human might react if food tasted bad). His sun reaction and hunger for blood come back when his memories start creeping back. For NiQ to have worked longer-term, I think he'd have to never get his memories back (assuming state of mind is the key to vampirism), but that's not really a great outcome for Nick. I was rewatching bits of HoD the other day as I contemplated the "state of mind" angle, and when Nat comments in the episode on the powers of the mind and that maybe there's something there for Nick seeing how Ellen functioned as a human, Nick seems kind of put off by it because Ellen "wasn't whole." If Nick had suffered long-term amnesia, he would likewise not have been whole.

Janette seems to have stumbled onto the answer while still having her whole mental self intact, but we're stuck with not knowing "how" (because even she didn't know).

Also, re: Ellen breaking vampire rules, when Tracy questions Vachon and Vachon's all, well, maybe she's the vampire, Tracy says she can't be because Tracy saw Ellen in the daylight. So not just food for Ellen, but also sunlight sans combustion.

Thanks for the fic rec! I've bookmarked it because that will take a while to finish. Sounds fascinating though!

[calliope24]

Also, re: Ellen breaking vampire rules, when Tracy questions Vachon and Vachon's all, well, maybe she's the vampire, Tracy says she can't be because Tracy saw Ellen in the daylight. So not just food for Ellen, but also sunlight sans combustion.

Did Monica know about Jacqueline? I want to say she did, but I haven't seen it in awhile. That is how true dissociative personality disorder works--one personality might know about the others, while another is completely innocent of all the other personalities. Which makes me wonder if 'she' could only go out in the daylight as innocent Ellen, or could Monica go out as well, even knowing that Jacqueline can't? Interesting stuff.

I do have yet another fic rec for you. This one is quite short, I find it to be very powerful and at least touches on some of the topics you are considering.

https://users.lmi.net/akr/fk/fiction/byothers/nemoubli.txt

[switchbladeeyes]

It’s not 100% clear, but as I understood it, Ellen and Monica knew about one another (or Ellen at least knew something was off about herself while Monica knew entirely about Ellen), but neither knew about Jacqueline. Jacqueline knew about them both.

[switchbladeeyes]

Thanks for that excellent rec! It's so thought provoking. I hadn't considered the ramifications of Nick knowing about vampires if he ever became human. Of course, it would put him in danger. LaCroix making him forget would be a last act of protection. Not giving Nick a choice about it is a very vampire thing to do.

At the very end, even though Nick experiences great distress as he is conscious of all his memories (that he could only have if he'd known he'd been a vampire) slip away from him, is the ultimate place this will lead such a bad outcome? When you think about it, in a moment, he's not going to be conscious of what has happened. He's going to stand up and go home and look forward to seeing Natalie at dawn, unbothered by what he has lost because he won't remember that he lost anything at all.

Thanks again!

[calliope24]

Thanks for that excellent rec! It's so thought provoking. I hadn't considered the ramifications of Nick knowing about vampires if he ever became human. Of course, it would put him in danger. LaCroix making him forget would be a last act of protection. Not giving Nick a choice about it is a very vampire thing to do.

It is a good one!

It wasn't clear to me whether LaCroix had erased Nick's memory, or if it was due to some natural process of him regaining his humanity. The fact that the memories were fading as opposed to just disappearing made me wonder. Clearly he had just made Natalie forget entirely.


At the very end, even though Nick experiences great distress as he is conscious of all his memories (that he could only have if he'd known he'd been a vampire) slip away from him, is the ultimate place this will lead such a bad outcome? When you think about it, in a moment, he's not going to be conscious of what has happened. He's going to stand up and go home and look forward to seeing Natalie at dawn, unbothered by what he has lost because he won't remember that he lost anything at all.

But I think that would also meet the definition of Nick not feeling 'whole' even though he wasn't conscious of his past. I do wonder if Nick were given a choice of humanity, but with the known caveat that he would lose all his memories, including those of his mortal family, would he agree? Maybe, but I'm not certain.

[greerwatson]

"We do have examples of vampires being affected by religious symbols that are not their own"

I agree; but more convincing than your two examples (since they'd be recognized as familiar religious symbols, albeit from other belief systems) is the way Nick reacted to the obsidian knife in "Blackwing", since the episode doesn't suggest he's familiar with its religious role. It suggests that other people's beliefs can imbue a symbol with power to hurt vampires.

Not my favourite aspect of the multi-dimensional "what is a vampire?" question; but I know the spiritual/religious thing is popular with many fans.

[switchbladeeyes]

Oh, yeah, that's a good example. I have only the haziest recollection of the episode, having skipped it when I rewatched S3, but I do remember Nick getting zapped when he touched one of the knives.

Not my favourite aspect of the multi-dimensional "what is a vampire?" question;

What is your favorite aspect then? :-)

[greerwatson]

I prefer the scientific approach—though I'd like to see it tackled rather more systematically than almost anything they showed of Natalie's studies (except in "The Fix").

[calliope24]

I agree; but more convincing than your two examples (since they'd be recognized as familiar religious symbols, albeit from other belief systems) is the way Nick reacted to the obsidian knife in "Blackwing", since the episode doesn't suggest he's familiar with its religious role. It suggests that other people's beliefs can imbue a symbol with power to hurt vampires.

That is a much better example, for the reason you stated. Blackwing is not an episode I've watched very often. I'll have to take a look at the scene.