0

Throughout the show, it's being said numerous times that the older a vampire is, the stronger they get. And especially Godric, who is said to be the strongest vampire that exists.

However, Godric himself says:

It won't take long, at my age

Referring to how long it will take the sun to burn him. This contradicts the fact about being stronger, as it would be expected a strong vampire will take longer to be destroyed.

How can this inconsistency be explained, if at all?

7
  • 3
    "This contradicts the fact about being stronger, as it would be expected a strong vampire will take longer to be destroyed." That is your conjecture. I don't think this is stated anywhere in the show.
    – BCdotWEB
    Jun 2, 2022 at 13:24
  • @BCdotWEB just common sense, that something stronger is harder to destroy. Jun 2, 2022 at 13:41
  • @BCdotWEB I would say it is part of definition that stronger things are harder to destroy which takes longer.
    – LulY
    Jun 2, 2022 at 14:42
  • I would say this is simply an inconsistency or an (odd) constellation of rules one must not question as suggested by CGCampbell.
    – LulY
    Jun 2, 2022 at 15:44
  • 1
    @DarthLocke yes that is pretty much what the accepted answer says. Still wonder if there are references, that will make the question on topic. Jun 3, 2022 at 21:44

2 Answers 2

6

It is a known fact about vampires in the author's world.

It was never explained, in detail, in either the books upon which the series is based, or the series itself.

As vampires age, among other things, they grow more supernaturally stronger, physically. Yet they are also affected by UV radiation to a larger extent. It's one of the (many) rules of that universe and is not explained.

I would say it's not an inconsistency, but rather is treated as a consistent rule. The older a vampire is, the quicker the UV radiation burns them and they die. Throughout the written novels, this is true, as it is in the television series. It is a rule and is consistent in it's application.

An inconsistency would be if a young vampire burned quickly or an older one didn't. Then that would need an explanation.

3
  • 1
    If I understand it right you are saying that the plot is consistent in regard to the rules. But I think the OP means that the rules themselves contradict each other.
    – LulY
    Jun 2, 2022 at 15:40
  • @Igor is correct however since you say that's known fact in that world I accept it, I didn't read the books and don't remember the whole TV series, I'm re-watching after several years. Jun 2, 2022 at 18:09
  • 1
    @IgorstandswithUkraine Yep, that is exactly what I'm saying. This isn't Worldbuilding where we need come up with the science behind why something works. Or to figure out a ret-con to an inconsistency from an author/director post-first-movie (looking at you Lucas, again and again and again, or even Roddenberry) Within the True Blood Universe, that is the way things are and the author (and showrunner/writers) were consistent with this particular rule. (at least as far as I can recall)
    – CGCampbell
    Jun 3, 2022 at 9:45
-4

The more you stay as a Vampire, the longer you are dead. This is why sun effects less fresh Vampires and more old Vampires.

3
  • 1
    Sorry but this does not make much sense. Jun 2, 2022 at 14:38
  • No it is totally logical.
    – borayeris
    Jun 2, 2022 at 14:40
  • 3
    To you, maybe. If you can find reference to support your claim you are welcome to add it to your answer. Jun 2, 2022 at 14:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .