Is Gilda really a monster in comparison to the typical vampires that we know? Typical vampires have the characteristics of only taking blood and then killing their victims. Yes, Gilda also takes blood from people but is she seen as this murderous vampire? I believe that taking blood from others is a wrong thing to do. However, there really isn't another, better way to go about getting the blood. All the other options have disadvantages and are out of the question. Other than taking blood, Gilda is not a typical "evil" vampire. Taking blood from others is not a hobby for her, this is what she needs to survive. It's not like she does it to hurt people either; she only takes as much blood as she needs and would never take so much that it would kill the person. In a way, I think she knows that taking blood from others is wrong and therefore she tries to make it right by giving more than she takes. To cancel it out, she puts good ideas in the people's minds of whose blood she takes. She tries to make things right and give good advice. Gilda uses her power of reading people's minds to help and not harm. Someone in class also mentioned that humans kill in order to get the things we need but we never give anything back in return. This poses the question, are humans really any better than Gilda?
These first two chapters have been a real challenge to read. However, it introduces us to new things that we never would have thought of. We are so used to things that society sees as normal or typical and now we are introduced to the unordinary. When we think vampire, we think fangs, Dracula, bats, coffins, and murder. When would we ever thought of a female African American vampire that doesn't kill and does good actions?
-Bethany Davis (Post #2)
No comments:
Post a Comment