Week #2 Post

For this weeks post I think I will choose to focus on the discussion that took place in class today regarding whether one would/should classify Gilda as "evil", good, or a "monster".

Personally, I feel that the classification of a "monster" for Gilda herself is completely inappropriate. I see this because as we also discussed, the vampires in the Gilda Stories are most certainly different from the stereotypical blood-drinking, people-killing vampires that we all know. In saying so, one could classify the "typical" vampire as a monster as they take lives each night. In comparison, Gilda simply takes only the amount of blood needed and in return supplies a generous vision for her "victims". This also can relate to the comparison to "humans doing the same thing". Vampires NEED blood to survive, and it seems as if Gilda would not agree to taking blood from humans if there was indeed another way. I feel that she has some sympathy in the matter or else she would find satisfaction in killing, like another character we know...Overall, taking blood IS wrong, but there seems to be no other way. Also, she provides a means of happiness to her "victims" which seems as she is trying to give back for taking the blood, which is good.

The first two chapters of this book have opened a new knowledge to vampires, different from that we are used to knowing. Typically, we usually hear about the Witch Trials, etc. during the 19ths Century. This, I would say, goes hand in hand. Gilda is an African American vampire, clearly one significantly "un-excepted" in norm society during this time period, just as witchcraft was frowned upon. All in all, the first two chapters can be looked upon as the start to an opening of a new outlook on outcast-hood and I look forward as a new chapter approaches.


Courtney Bisher