I swing back and forth, sometimes I'd rather have the molesters, somes I'd rather have the vampires. Depends on just how sour and curmudgeonly I feel when I honk on the "quote" button.TigerEyes wrote:All this apocolypical talk, you make it sound like Eli is the worst. He's only a 12 year old vampire struggling to survive on blood, that was all. He never wanted this, he went through [deleted], and he didn't want people to become vampires. Granted, the idea of dead friends and family members is horrible and none of us would want it, but neither did Eli. note that the last thing Eli did to get blood was from Tommy by getting him to donate his blood to Eli. It's likely to me that Eli is trying to change things for the better as well as not to leave dead bodies. Granted, Tommy is Oskar's friend, and wouldn't want to upset him. Vampire attack doesn't seem to haunting as the idea of a sexual predator walking among us, targeting their victims. I can be wrong.
Let's do a little math, shall we? Let's say that Eli eats three people a week, but doesn't kill them. Let's also say that even a fully grown man turned vampire will also only eat three people a week. Let's furthermore posit zero attrition and zero victim kill. At the end of the first week, there are now four vampires. At the end of the second, twelve. At the end of the third, thirty six. At the end of one month, a hundred and eight.
Wanna guess what state the world is going to be in at the end of the year? Lombano ain't joking when he talks about a vampire apocalypse. If the novel's premise concerning attrition is operative, it'd obviously not be quite so rapid, but the potential devastation ONE little twelve year old vampire could wreak is untenable.
And now, for something completely different: consider that some people might consider the vampire a kind of metaphor for child molester.
Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

