Deciding to KILL someone, three someones, so you can live is something he could not control?
Do you live in a world where there is NOTHING you would not do to live?
So a bad evil person says "here is a gun, kill three people or I will kill you". Do you go kill those people so you can live?
**spoilers for Laura's story if you haven't read it below**
The nature of many vampire stories is that when many people are turned that first time they feed they are turned into something unholy and ungodly. Like an animal they are living off instinct until that "bloodrage" is gone. It is more of an instinct to them to find food and the need for it is overwhelming and all consuming. Once they have starved themselves enough sometimes that bloodrage comes back and it sounds a lot like what happened to Clark.
It is obvious in her fic that after he was able to control it and saw what he had become he tried to find ways to stop and in fact did.
It is one of the central ideas and stories in the vampire myth. You have the truly evil vampire that exist to kill people. They see no problem in killing people because they view killing as an instinct of survival much like killing a gazelle is to a lion.
Then you have the flip side of the coin of the tortured soul. The one who hasn't chosen this path and was made a vampire and who is now living with the consequences and trying to find a way to help other in the same situation not fall into the same situation as they faced. It sounds to me like Clark and his friend are on that path of trying to find ways for those who don't wish to kill to live with out having to.
Again it is all apart of the myth. If you believe that Clark was clear headed and knew exactly what he was doing when he killed and wasn't acting out of instinct then there is cause to be disturbed. It is a part of what you believe about vampires and what you know. It doesn't justify a death and that is why they are a tortured soul... but there isn't a black heart there as you seem to be implying. That he is a cold blooded killer seeking to kill more.
Besides she also mentions a boy that he saved from a fire. How many lives has he saved just like that? If we are talking of ethics... what is more ethical:
For three people to have died before he could control his need to feed and then for him to have gone on to save the lives of hundreds of people who wouldn't have survived with out him?
Or for those 3 people to have lived and he and 100's of other to have died because of that?
What is the greater good? It is an interesting debate and not one that I would enjoy answering because there are no easy answers.
All I know is that you are looking at a repentive Clark in this story who is just trying to make up for some of the wrongs he has committed. All in all it is a story... and as I think a good disclaimer for this story is:
**No real humans were hurt during the making of this story. **
Also I want to say your discussions are valid. There have always been the argument of good vs evil and what crosses it and what doesn't. How much sympathy can you find for a killer? Can they repent? It is the beauty of the vampire myth and their eternal struggle along those lines is what makes it such an interesting tale to me.
~Jojo, who has really ramble on about this to long.
