werewolf, werewolves and lycans

Who Complains More, Werewolf Marks or Vampire Marks?

I write content for this site, here, as well as for our sister sites vampires.com and darkness.com. The latter is such a big umbrella that almost anything falls under its purview. With this site and with vampires, I tend to devote the majority of our focus to the respective monsters in the site titles, as it should be. I’m not too strict with it, though, as we aim to provide a large body of work and too narrow a focus would be limiting. I try, then, to report on anything related to vampires and werewolves, respectively, as well as things that I think would be of interest to people who love vampires and werewolves. The vast majority of our readers seem to enjoy this approach. Every once in a blue moon, though, somebody will write in with a gripe. Like this one guy, Fred, who recently complained that we were covering STRANGER THINGS. (“T’ain’t no werewolf in Stranger Thangs!”) I’ve had this gig for four years now. In that time, I’ve had all of three complaints. Three. That’s for this site. How many people have complained about vampires.com not sticking more closely to vampires? None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Are you werewolf junkies just more picky? (I mean, obviously Fred is.) I don’t think that’s it.

The lines of definition for what constitutes a vampire are awfully thin. What’s the difference, for example, between a ghost and Dracula, who can disappear into thin air? Not much, if you really think about it. But the definition for a werewolf is a tad more rigid. A man who turns into a wolf or a wolf-like beast? Sure. What about creatures like the Michigan Dogman, which looks like a werewolf but probably never transforms into a human, was probably never human to begin with? Of course. But, like, do serial killers count? Are they not just werewolves without the fur? Is the fur a deal-breaker? Why’s it always gotta be about the fur, Fred?

The Evil Cheezman • August 4, 2019

Previous Post

Next Post