I think the simple explanation for this inversion is in the peak oil interpretation: the humans of Daybreakers are analogous to environmentalists, while the vampires are capitalists, industrialists, and especially mindless consumers. The “good guys” retain their humanity, and the parasitic overclass are still vampires, but the overclass also includes so-called “normal” humans contributing to the peak oil problem. As in reality, the people who have sworn off petroleum are outnumbered by the people who have not.

Andie (Molly Ringwald) is a poor girl, but loves a rich boy. She spurns her friend Duckie (also not rich), who is madly in love with her. The rich boy, on the other hand, not only has other rich friends who are openly hostile to Andie, but is emotionally distant as well. Andie, feeling as if she has lost the rich boy’s affections, finds comfort in Duckie and attends the prom with him. But the rich boy realises instead of shunning Andie, he should vouch for her. Ultimately, with Duckie’s consent, Andie and the rich boy kiss and make up.

It’s Portrait of a Lady, except the vampire turns out to be Prince Charming in the end. Or it’s Twilight & New Moon, except the girl’s friend (who is NOT a werewolf) finally concedes that she belongs with the vampire leading man. This leading man, in Duckie’s words, is “not like the others.” A “good vampire”?

I don’t want to imply that the emotionally withholding (but ultimately “good”) leading man archetype is always based on vampire / human romance. I want to imply that vampire / human romance, by virtue of its hierarchical relationship, is always based on the archetype of the emotionally withholding man. This is such a fundamental staple of romance fiction it’s no wonder it appears in vampire lit as well. Off the top of my head, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights, Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind, and Mr. Big from Sex and the City all fit this model.