Immortality: Blessing or Curse? - What are the allegorical meanings of Zombies, Vampires, and Ghosts? by Enyjé Sandoz

This post (originally a Twitter thread: @enyjemai) brought to you by me watching ‘Wizards of Waverly Place’ (S2, EP. 29 - Wizards and Vampires vs. Zombies).

Before we start:

In an apocalypse, who’d win: Vampires or Zombies?

Immortality: Blessing or Curse?

Immortality is a curse, and impossible if one has a soul. Imagine the amount of loss one endures when immortal. Conversely, it might not register as a loss because if you don’t have a soul, you can’t feel. 

Thus, it’s not a loss, but a removal? A change? A shift?

Do immortal beings even recognize change? 

Do they actually experience change? 

Is time even a concept for them?

I don’t think immortality can occur if one has a soul because there’s no development/evolution.

If you lived through the same day every day, while you’re clearly still on earth, you’re not necessarily living. You'd be existing. At that point, you are stagnant despite everything else around you moving forward.

What are the allegorical meanings of Zombies, Vampires, and Ghosts?

Is a zombie a person without a soul, and a ghost a soul without its shell? But then, what would that make a vampire? It’s not a person or a ghost, but an essence collector?

Vampires are thieves, but they’re soulless, yet still have a shell, though non-sustainable on their own essence. Perhaps vampires are the refusal to become a zombie. Vampires need the essences of others, while zombies lack that, but instead of accepting their zombie-ness, they resort to thievery. This means vampires had to have souls at some point because they know the feeling but cannot regain it on their own inner resources, hence the need to steal. Whereas, zombies may have never had one to begin with or at some point lost it, and are just so far gone, they can't get it back.

Another thing, are zombies allegories for cannibals? While incredibly revolting, it checks out! For one, it is safe to assert that to be a cannibal, one has to be void of a soul. Compared to vampires, who suck the life force out (depicted by blood—the most vital component in being alive) but don’t actually feed on the flesh—the flesh being the mistaken identifier of what it means to be alive—the superficial means to be alive/living.

Zombies are so disconnected from their human essence, and/or they never knew what it was like, so they feed on the “physical”—once again, the superficial meaning to be human (which they try to regain), but not knowing that the true essence to be alive lies in the soul.

Closing Remarks:

If there were to be a zombie apocalypse, I bid all an adieu—not due to lack of survival skills, but because of rodents and other filthy creatures alike. 

Rodents and filthy creatures alike further prove that all creatures on Earth do not belong to God or a benevolent creator. You cannot convince me rodents are benevolent creatures because they literally thrive and survive on filth! They are vastly different than vultures—they have a bit more discretion for their mealtimes.

Moreover, this encompasses my theory: rodents are inherently evil. Even bunnies/rabbits, as cute as they are, they for sure have another side! After further research, I learned bunnies/rabbits were considered rodents until the 20th century. They are now considered to be lagomorphs because there are many anatomical differences between a lagomorph and a rodent. 

In my book, once a rodent, always a rodent.