# Why doesn't anyone write about more corpse-like and uncanny vampires?



## Peregrine (Nov 11, 2017)

Not everybody has the identical type of vampire, but there is conformity when people write vampires.

Do vampires always need to be portrayed as living humans?

I am not saying that they must have corpse-like vampires, they absolutely don't have to.

I have never ever seen a book that speaks of corpse-like vampires.

NOTE: Corpse-like doesn't necessarily mean zombie-like, a undead can be less decomposed than a zombie. For example it could look like Jafer Flowers or Othor from Game of Thrones.

Does any fiction book have such vampires?

My vampires are uncanny, psychopathic (uncapable of emotions due to undeath), vampires that look more like corpses than living humans, similar to vampires before 19th century, but not identical to it. No fangs and no Edward Cullen's with bad makeup.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 11, 2017)

Because corpse-like vampires aren't as viable as hot love interests? Really the only reason I can come up with. 

Then again, i haven't ever written about vampires.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Nov 11, 2017)

This is an intriguing idea. It would be interesting to see vampires regress to what they originally were--life-draining monsters--and see if it would be perceived as a 'dramatic new twist' on the idea.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Nov 11, 2017)

I'm sick to death of Twilight [no pun intended]. It's said that what you dislike or despise is really inside of you. In this case, it's a bit of a frightening thought, that there's an abusive monster and a horrendously written series not even worthy enough to be called 'literature'...That's all I'm going to say, because otherwise I could rant for pages about how bad it is.

Back to the vampire topic at hand, I only really know about the Dracula novel, but what I do know is that Dracula was not affected by sunlight, was really hairy for whatever reason, and could climb up walls like Spiderman [I'm not sure about the validity of that last one, since I haven't actually read the book.]


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 11, 2017)

Many writers seem to know about Dracula, this is the source the image of vampires till modern days, but writers seem completely unaware and oblivious of vampires before 19th century, the corpse-like vampires of oral tradition and European folklore.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Nov 11, 2017)

I've never really thought about it, to be honest.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 11, 2017)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> I'm sick to death of Twilight [no pun intended]. It's said that what you dislike or despise is really inside of you. In this case, it's a bit of a frightening thought, that there's an abusive monster and a horrendously written series not even worthy enough to be called 'literature'...That's all I'm going to say, because otherwise I could rant for pages about how bad it is.
> 
> Back to the vampire topic at hand, I only really know about the Dracula novel, but what I do know is that Dracula was not affected by sunlight, was really hairy for whatever reason, and could climb up walls like Spiderman [I'm not sure about the validity of that last one, since I haven't actually read the book.]



Its so bad, that and Vampire Diaries, that I don't even see the physical difference between a vampire and a ordinary human.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 11, 2017)

Before they became elegant, superhuman and undead version of elves in some stories nowadays, original vampires before 19th century were uncanny. They were blood-drinking mythical creatures after all, if that creature drinks blood then it should be uncomfortable to be around that creature. Many vampires nowadays lack the uncanny aspect.

Still I am not sure whether naming them vampires is a good idea, my creature fits the definition of a vampire (1. is undead, 2. is blood-sucker) but vampires became very cliché in contemporary culture such as having fangs, looking like Edward Cullen and not reflecting shadow. I just want to alienate myself from the whole garbage of vampire fiction that potrays vampires in this way nowadays.

Just click vampire in google image and you will get the image of a Edward Cullen type of vampire with stupid fangs.


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2017)

The thing with the modern vampire - starting with Dracula - is that the vampire is a _character_, not a creature. The more corpse-like and necrotic they get, the less they function as characters.

Although the character himself didn't change, the perspective of the original Dracula kind of shifted from character to creature more and more as the story went on - and that's become the defining trait of the vampire. Are they characters? Or creatures? The same character goes back and forth. And if they fall into "creature-ness," can they come back?

IF you take the vampire back to being completely a blood-drinking creature, and not a character, in my opinion it's a completely different thing, and kind of boring to work with as a writer.

I don't write about vampires, or particularly like most vampire media, but I totally get the potential.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 12, 2017)

Huge Anne Rice fan here. The point was that the monster had a conscious. Wants and needs. He was capable of love even though he was a monster, like Beauty and The Beast. Turning them back into zombie like monsters is sort of boring. I agree with Devor on that. What is the point? Why not just invent your own scary monster? Even the zombie trope is getting old. Writers are trying to make zombies more human, with human like needs and wants. A great movie I saw recently was Warm Bodies which was hilarious  and spun the typical dead zombie trope on it's rotting head. 






I think people are savvy now. They want more than old monster stereotypes.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 12, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Huge Anne Rice fan here. The point was that the monster had a conscious. Wants and needs. He was capable of love even though he was a monster, like Beauty and The Beast. Turning them back into zombie like monsters is sort of boring. I agree with Devor on that. What is the point? Why not just invent your own scary monster? Even the zombie trope is getting old. Writers are trying to make zombies more human, with human like needs and wants. A great movie I saw recently was Warm Bodies which was hilarious  and spun the typical dead zombie trope on it's rotting head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I am not writing vampire-focused fiction, vampires are just a part of my overall worldbuilding.
I don't agree that its boring, if we are talking outside the subject of vampire-focused fiction.
Vampires in my setting are just episodic characters.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 12, 2017)

Anyway, I am renaming vampires into something else, so THREAD CLOSED. No further discussions here please.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 12, 2017)

There are such vampires in modern horror literature. British author Simon Clark wrote some that way, as a specific counter to the current idea of vampires as romantic figures. There are others. But I tend to see them firmly within horror. If you’re reading fantasy, or particularly urban fantasy, you’re going to get the more stereotypical sexy vampires.


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 12, 2017)

Does anyone remember the old Marvel comic Dracula? That pre-dates Anne Rice by a decade or so. I've always considered the work by Gerry Conway and Gene Colan to be the definitive re-make of Bram Stoker's (and then Bela Lugosi's) Dracula. Rice was a latecomer. I distinctly remember reading that first Rice novel and wondering if she hadn't been inspired by Conway & Colan.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 12, 2017)

I haven't included vampires in any of my stories yet, but they exist in my setting. On the surface they have the potential to be pretty much the same as the stereotypical modern day sexy vampire, but there are difference under the hood.

To begin with, the vampire is an incorporeal eather based parasite that transfers from one host body to another and which can multiply by division. The parasite inserts itself between the physical body and the soul of its victim, and it feeds by consuming its victim's soul. Because of this the soul is destroyed and the victim dies. The vampire parasite is able to keep the body animated through its innate magical abilities though, and it can use the body to move around.
However, since the victim's body is dead it will eventually start to compose. The magic of the vampire can counteract this, but it will need the blood of a living being as a reagent. Ideally the blood should be from the same species as the victim but it's not necessary.

The longer the vampire stays with a victim the better control it gets over it, which is why they're reluctant to leave once they've settled in. If they're forced to leave for another host they may very well hop from one potential victim to another until it finds a body it's comfortable with. All visited bodies will have their souls damaged though, and most likely beyond the point where it can be healed.

The vampires multiply by division. This means that the parasite splits into two identical copies, where one of them inhabits a new victim. Worth pointing out is that each copy includes the memories of the initial parasite. In this way, all vampires can trace their memories back to the initial source-vampire.

Finally, it should be mentioned that intact souls are required for any kind of afterlife or rebirth. If the soul suffers too much damage there is no chance for it to move on to a new existence after the body dies. This means that being caught by a vampire doesn't just kill you, it removes you from existence completely.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 12, 2017)

The Mythcreants podcast recently had an interesting episode on the history of vampires : 142 – Vampires.

According to one of the podcasters who studied the topic, vampires in literature started out sexy, then came a period when they were more monster-like, then a return to sexiness. One of the earliest representations, Polidori's "The Vampyre" from 1819, was based on the poet Lord Byron, who was both charismatic and monstrous, according to those who knew him, heh.  This pretty much set the standard for the vampire in literature.

Before that, vampire-like creatures existed for thousands of years, but I wonder if they can properly be called vampires. I think the shift from monster-like to human-like, from horrifying to cool, intriguing, or friendly, is interesting. It's happened with lots of mythical creatures, from dragons to fairies and, more recently, from extraterrestrials to AI robots. I always love looking at the shift from superstition to science-based perceptions, full-swing in the 19th C., and how this affected literature. Still happening now, of course. (Invading, monstrous E.T.'s to, well, E.T., heh.) 

You can do whatever you like with these creations. Can un-scientific monstrous creatures still capture audiences who know how biology and physics work? Yes. The examples abound. We have huge holes in our conception of the world, black voids in our understanding, and we evolved to be naturally fearful of creepy crawlies! The unknown is scary, still.

I wonder if that, incidentally, is why frequent exposure to certain creature tropes tends toward the creation of less monstrous portrayals of those creatures—seen it a thousand times before, no longer very scary, so go with the friendly version. But...who knows. In all these things, execution makes a huge difference.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 12, 2017)

FifthView said:


> [...]
> I wonder if that, incidentally, is why frequent exposure to certain creature tropes tends toward the creation of less monstrous portrayals of those creatures—seen it a thousand times before, no longer very scary, so go with the friendly version. But...who knows. In all these things, execution makes a huge difference.


Isn't there a saying that goes something along the lines of _Familiarity breeds contempt_? I'm thinking that might be sort of applicable here. Contempt may not be the correct word for the situation, but the meaning of the saying remains. When we get familiar with something the mystery and wonder goes away, and now that we understand what's happening we're no longer scared, but annoyed.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 12, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> There are such vampires in modern horror literature. British author Simon Clark wrote some that way, as a specific counter to the current idea of vampires as romantic figures. There are others. But I tend to see them firmly within horror. If you’re reading fantasy, or particularly urban fantasy, you’re going to get the more stereotypical sexy vampires.



I think you've hit upon something here. The animal like vampire tend to be more useful in a horror setting, where people are facing off against creatures that are like forces of nature. They can't be reasoned with. They run on pure instinct, so giving them personalities runs counter to what horror tends to want. 

The more modern take of sexy vampire stories many aren't really horror stories. They tend to fall into more romance with horror elements, so characterization is necessary, and animalistic creatures aren't as useful.

IMHO there's room for both types. It just depends on what you want to do with them.


----------



## Devor (Nov 12, 2017)

I don't read, watch or write a lot of horror.... but I think if I did, I would still prefer the character-like vampire. A lot of horror tends to rely on gruesomeness and the jump scare, and there are a great many ways to achieve that same affect. A corpse-like vampire is certainly one of them, and there are places where it can be the right fit. But still, the vampire as a character offers so much more possibility for psychological horror than a jump scare.

Right now I'm watching an anime called King's Game (I'm on an anime kick that may never end), where people are receiving orders by text message and face gruesome deaths if they don't obey. Some of the orders are getting personal and intense, and that's a major source of where the horror comes from. I know that's not a vampire, but I think a _character_ with gruesome powers can make the horror personal in a way that a monster can't.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 12, 2017)

Devor said:


> I don't read, watch or write a lot of horror.... but I think if I did, I would still prefer the character-like vampire. A lot of horror tends to rely on gruesomeness and the jump scare, and there are a great many ways to achieve that same affect. A corpse-like vampire is certainly one of them, and there are places where it can be the right fit. But still, the vampire as a character offers so much more possibility for psychological horror than a jump scare.
> 
> Right now I'm watching an anime called King's Game (I'm on an anime kick that may never end), where people are receiving orders by text message and face gruesome deaths if they don't obey. Some of the orders are getting personal and intense, and that's a major source of where the horror comes from. I know that's not a vampire, but I think a _character_ with gruesome powers can make the horror personal in a way that a monster can't.



i kinda want to watch that just from your description

honestly it's about time i got into anime...


----------



## valiant12 (Nov 13, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Writers are trying to make zombies more human, with human like needs and wants. A great movie I saw recently was Warm Bodies which was hilarious and spun the typical dead zombie trope on it's rotting head.



I think this is an awfull idea. Subverting a  trope for subvering's sake.  
By definition zombies are mindless undead cannibals and vampires don't sparkle.. 
By making them less stupid and monsterios this remove the horor of one day the whole city/country/the world become overrun with decaying shambling corpses.
It also remove the power fantasy of surviving in a postapocaliptick world, loting and killing mindless monstrosities.


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 13, 2017)

OK, I'm among those who instinctively won't read vampire books. Or zombie books. I wish to speak up in favor of subversion for its own sake.

Or, rather, subversion for the sake of art. Take apart a trope just to see what happens. We writers love to toy with ideas, and every once in while--or even twice in a while--this can lead to story ideas. It's brainstorming. So I would say to the OP, go ahead and storm that brain. See what you get. If it clicks for you, write it!


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 13, 2017)

valiant12 said:


> By making them less stupid and monsterios this remove the horor of one day the whole city/country/the world become overrun with decaying shambling corpses.
> It also remove the power fantasy of surviving in a postapocaliptick world, loting and killing mindless monstrosities.



Why? How? Why is the traditional mindless zombie trope the only vessel for creating horror? There are infinite ways of creating horror. Subverting the zombie trope or the vampire trope does not "remove the power of fantasy" it simply asks the writer to push up their sleeves and create something new. Don't copy old ideas simply because they are there. Do something new.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Nov 13, 2017)

I had a dream about Castlevania Symphony of the Night last night [perhaps from reading this thread?] I've noticed that Alucard is pretty much a vampire only in name [apart from turning into a bat and a wolf and sleeping in a coffin]. He can eat, drink, doesn't drink blood, can go out in daylight, can wield holy weapons/amulets, can go inside a chapel [that is admittedly inside Dracula's castle]...and [in Dawn of Sorrow, at least] he doesn't seem to have fangs. Sure, he's 'only' half vampire, but still.


----------



## Devor (Nov 13, 2017)

Typically the horror with zombies is that it feels inevitable that sooner or later we're all descending into creaturehood (to continue with language from my previous posts).  I haven't seen Warm Bodies, and have only heard a little about it, but I didn't get the impression that it upends that fear completely. Also, it's paranormal romance, and comedy, not horror.

In the original "I, Legend" book, the main character doesn't realize that the zombie-like monsters are sentient and aware, and telling legends about the man who comes and burns them in their sleep.  These creatures aren't really zombies - they're poisoned people, there's no corpses, they're not after brains - but they fit the same role in story. The point of the story is the subversion.

For me, if I were writing "zombies," it's not about the creature but the role they play in the story. In fact, I have notes for a zombie story - sort of, it's really a time travel story involving a "zombie apocalypse" as the possible future - and if I sat down and really ironed out the details, they could very well be closer to the I, Legend version, and not use the word zombie at all........... but people would still call them zombies, because let's be real, it's a future where everyone is devolving into creaturehood, and that's a zombie apocalypse.

I get it. Vampires don't sparkle. I thought the sparkling was lame, too, to be honest. But people like what they like, for reasons that are more or less all their own, and I don't have to like it too in order to "get it." And it's too easy to get caught up on these surface definitions and lose sight of what's actually happening in the story and important for making it work.

Scary monsters are scary, but so are best friends who turn into lethal human predators and use your relationship with them against you. Vampires do that. Stupid corpse monsters can't.

And when it comes to zombies, what's scarier? Knowing that your dead corpse will go walk around killing people, or knowing that you'll still be kind of awake while you're doing it?  I mean, think about that for a second. A secondary character, POV:  A zombie who's fading in and out of a dim consciousness, struggling to get control of a zombie body that's gradually in decay and wants to operate on instinct...

^Because that's what Warm Bodies is, isn't it?

See, I would wager to guess that the problem here isn't the way that vampires and zombies are portrayed, but that they're being used in romance instead of horror.  And in that case, we're back to the statement above: People like what they like, and for the most part you've got to get over it.

That said, I did have issues with the way that the romance in Twilight is portrayed, and the question of whether it was a healthy romance to idolize, but that's a somewhat different topic.


----------



## Chessie2 (Nov 13, 2017)

I hate vampires. They're disgusting. 

Now, werewolves? I'm totally in.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Nov 13, 2017)

^Me, too.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 13, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> There are infinite ways of creating horror.


 
I don't know if this is true. Infinite is quite a number.



Devor said:


> Scary monsters are scary, but so are best friends who turn into lethal human predators and use your relationship with them against you.


 
Yeah, I had been thinking of mentioning serial killers. If normal humans — ahem, special-use case of "normal" — can be terrifying, then a human-like vampire can also be terrifying.

I've been thinking of two very general approaches to horror with respect to vampires. These will apply to other things used for horror, but for the sake of this particular topic....

What they _do_ can be horrifying. This is like the horror a human serial killer can inspire.

Example: The vampire that attacks those criminal, degenerate human types for our viewing pleasure versus the vampire shown entering a nursery, lifting the bawling toddler, and sucking its blood from its thigh as the kid continues to scream, the screams slowly quieting until the sweet young thing is dead and hanging limply in the vampire's hands.

What they _are_ can be horrifying. This is "body-horror" I think, although some other formal term might exist.

In this approach, it's not that they suck blood, nor exactly who they attack or why they are attacking a particular victim, but it's in what their bodies are, how their bodies look, the various functions of the parts of their bodies. I don't know, but seeing a vampire attack one of those low-life degenerate humans—let's say, a wife beater, child beater, overweight ****** who is obviously unwashed and generally a scumbag—can still be terrifying if the vampire has worms and flies crawling out of his skin at the time of his feasting. Maybe. Execution is key. That same scene could perhaps be comedic if handled differently.

I suppose there's a third, a blend of the two. Things like some killer clowns work with both body horror and the first sort. _Alien_ is like this, also. It's not only that the alien is a monstrous creature with acid for blood, but also that it tries to lay its eggs inside you. [Edit: Well, some do that, the queens? The others do scary things also.]

Perhaps putting all the weight on one or the other of those two approaches might be quite risky. I _think_ that simple body horror for vampires is riskier than focusing on the horrifying things they do. If horror is your objective, at least. So X vampire has grayer, undead skin unlike sparkly vampire. Big deal. Again, however, execution matters, and the nature of the vampire's body could be used to create the horror even if he doesn't do much vampire stuff that is different from what other vampires do.

I think there's a special consideration for vampires in a secondary world fantasy novel. An awfully lot in that milieu could be strange and horrifying, and some of the body horror and horrific activity of the vampire might get lost in that background music, or muted, as compared to the vampire that appears on present-day Earth.

Edit: And of course, one type of human serial killer plays on that "what he is" side of things too, because most people don't fully understand those psychotic, dead-heart realities, and those serial killers can seem non-human.


----------



## valiant12 (Nov 13, 2017)

Devor said:


> I get it. Vampires don't sparkle


This was supose to be a joke.




Devor said:


> That said, I did have issues with the way that the romance in Twilight is portrayed, and the question of whether it was a healthy romance to idolize, but that's a somewhat different topic.





Devor said:


> See, I would wager to guess that the problem here isn't the way that vampires and zombies are portrayed, but that they're being used in romance instead of horror.



I haven't read twilight. From what I remember from Dracula, the titular vampire is like a metaphor for a psychopath.  If remember corecly he even gave a small speach how his ansestors are the best race ever.  Since all modern vampires are influenced by Dracula , most of them have a psychopathic personality. I know that some people have difrent interpretations, but I like this one. Also most vampires are undeath. Vampire romances are like a combination of necrofilia and fetishising the worst criminals in human history. Why people like them ?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 13, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> I hate vampires. They're disgusting.
> 
> Now, werewolves? I'm totally in.



Agreed. Werewolves>vampires. 

My WIP includes both zombies and were-creatures, so i'm interested to see how this discussion goes


----------



## Ban (Nov 13, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Agreed. Werewolves>vampires.
> 
> My WIP includes both zombies and were-creatures, so i'm interested to see how this discussion goes



But what about werewolf-vampires? Back in the very old day the distinction between the two was as blurry as could be. In my opinion this adds a certain mystery to the beast if pulled off right. Imagine a vampire suddenly turning into a beastly man-wolf. That would surprise me if I was in for some vamp fiction.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 13, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I don't know if this is true. Infinite is quite a number.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And this is why, with most zombie stories, it's not really about the zombies. From The Walking Dead to Shawn of the Dead the zombies are never the actual horror. In The Walking Dead the horror is the other humans, and in a comedy like Shawn of the Dead the zombies are a metaphor for the monotony of daily village life.

Simply throwing in a rotting dead guy who wants to eat brains doesn't necessarily make things scary (or interesting).

So in the case of the OP... you have decided to not use the modern interpretation of Vampires, which is all good. You have decided you want Vampires to be dark and dead and decaying... so what? What does that mean to your story? What does that mean to your plot? If it is simply to "have them there as monsters to be scary"... but any other monster would fill that role, then what is the point? If wolves or aliens or evil robots could serve the same purpose... then what is the point? How are you going to use the traditional view of Vampires in a new and interesting way? What does it serve to your story?


That is what I want to know. In I Am Legend the zombies fed the plot. The doctor was trying to figure out how to stop the spread of the disease. He was experimenting on them to try to find a cure. When he found out they were actually "in there", and they were telling stories about _him_, that was a pretty major plot moment that changed the way he made choices after that.

When using a monster, think about what it does to your plot. What is the best vehicle to address your theme? Your character arc?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 13, 2017)

Banten said:


> But what about werewolf-vampires? Back in the very old day the distinction between the two was as blurry as could be. In my opinion this adds a certain mystery to the beast if pulled off right. Imagine a vampire suddenly turning into a beastly man-wolf. That would surprise me if I was in for some vamp fiction.



IRL, both are arguably based on cases of rabies affecting humans. Makes sense why they'd be similar.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 13, 2017)

Devor said:


> But still, the vampire as a character offers so much more possibility for psychological horror than a jump scare.



Jump scares are not the only thing that a animalistic creature offers. I'm not a horror expert, but my impression is a lot of horror fans consider jump scares akin to the groin shot in a comedy. It's low hanging fruit. When applied with a skilled hand, it can be very effective, but when simply applied to everything without care, it turns into meh. 

I mean consider horror classics like The Thing, Alien and Jaws. They had way more to offer up than the simple jump scare. There was lots of psychological horror to be had in these movies and many others like them.



Devor said:


> In the original "I, Legend" book, the main character doesn't realize that the zombie-like monsters are sentient and aware, and telling legends about the man who comes and burns them in their sleep.



For clarity's sake, the creatures in the I am Legend book and original movie are more akin to vampires than zombies. In the book the MC protects himself with mirrors, garlic, and crucifixes. 



valiant12 said:


> By definition zombies are mindless undead cannibals



This isn't the correct definition. If you go back to the origins of the zombie, it originates from Haitian voodoo, where a zombie is simply someone who died and was brought back, but has no will of their own. They are slaves to whoever brought them back. They are not mindless, and they are not cannibals. 

That stuff got brought in in more modern times.  But really, there are no hard fast rules for what a zombie can and cannot be other than  being undead. Even then... Any way, there are contradictions all around. Look at the granddaddy of the modern zombie movie, Night of the Living Dead. The very first zombie we see on screen moves fast and is strong. They're strong enough to beat a man in a one-on-one struggle and fast enough to catch up to someone running away from it. Not only that, they're smart enough to stop and pick up a rock to smash a car window to get at the person inside.

Zombies have always been an ever evolving creature. I believe that's the case with all monsters. In Romero's Day of the Dead, part of the story revolves around zombies retaining intelligence.

For me, it's all about the right tool for the job, not one or the other. There's no right way to execute a concept, just what's right for the story one is trying to tell. Sometimes what's best for a story is a mindless force of nature. Other times, it's a malevolent, scheming entity, and still other times, it's a cute and cuddly creature of the night that may or may not sparkle, or run, or crave brains, or want to do your nails and cut your hair.


----------



## Devor (Nov 13, 2017)

Penpilot said:


> Jump scares are not the only thing that a animalistic creature offers. I'm not a horror expert, but my impression is a lot of horror fans consider jump scares akin to the groin shot in a comedy. It's low hanging fruit. When applied with a skilled hand, it can be very effective, but when simply applied to everything without care, it turns into meh.
> 
> I mean consider horror classics like The Thing, Alien and Jaws. They had way more to offer up than the simple jump scare. There was lots of psychological horror to be had in these movies and many others like them.



Fair enough. I didn't mean to diminish the horror genre into jump scares. And, also in the interest of fairness, a character-like vampire runs the risk of losing the mystery and awe of a monster and kind of devolving into a villain. Shifting the focus away from the use of vampires generally and towards writing good horror, there is still a lot to be said for the monster.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 13, 2017)

Dang, so many good arguments on each side! I'm literally struggling with my "thanks" button right now.

PenPilot and Fifthview have awesome points. Devor, you have some great stuff as well as far as the value of a horrible monster just for the sake of a horrible monster (which maybe brings us back to "Do all villains have to be sympathetic?" debate). I think my biggest concern is this:



Penpilot said:


> For me, it's all about the right tool for the job.



I'm writing a book where the theme is about dreams, and about how you can't just allow your dreams to be stolen from you. All to0 often in life people tell us we can't achieve something, or we will never be able to achieve what we want, and we just sit back and allow our dreams to be taken from us. In order to show this as a fantasy I developed my own sort of brain dead demon... an eater of dreams. They are called the Devourers. They are like black holes, totally devoid of life or hope or happiness. They simply exist to devour dreams. I created this beast because it served the purpose of the story. The theme.

When developing monsters think about what is the right tool for the job. Don't just use stuff that already exists because it seems scary.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 15, 2017)

Its ironic that I am Legend inspired later zombies in the media when I am Legend had vampires instead of zombies.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 16, 2017)

A vampire doesn't need fangs in order to be considered a vampire, someone could be non-mainstream for a change and make a vampire without fangs.

A human could just as easily bite neck with normal human teeth.


----------



## Guy (Nov 17, 2017)

I like my vamps evil and nasty. Salem's Lot was, hands down, my favorite vampire novel. One thing I always found slightly annoying in a lot ov vampire characters was their lack of self-control; I found it quite infantile. The slightest whiff of blood and they either lose it or are bordering on it. I have my favorite foods and my lusts, but I'm not slaves to them. If Denise Milani showed up in a bikini to serve me a bacon cheeseburger, I'd greatly desire both of them, but I could behave myself. I'd expect more maturity from a creature with several centuries of experience behind it.
I have a plan to use vampires in a future story and, like many others, am sick to death of the sexy angsty vamp. I tried to make mine as loathsome as possible and took inspiration from blood-suckers or liquid feeders in the animal kingdom. In my world, they are creatures of pure id, total slaves to their desires. Vampires start out as larvae, a grotesque cross between a human and a lamprey eel – a long serpentine body, a giant, toothy suction cup for a mouth, and huge, lidless black eyes. Blood is not very nourishing, so they need to feed much and often, at least once a night. As they feed, they develop – spindly hands and bird-like feet on stick-like limbs. They gradually develop more, going from crawling to lurching, hunched bipedalism. The suction cup mouth is the last thing to go before they look fully human again. At this stage, they no longer feed on blood alone. A retractable spiky apparatus in their tongues pierces the victim and they vomit digestive juices into him, dissolving him from the inside out, and slurping up the goop. At this stage they no longer need to feed so often, only once or twice a month. They are still creatures of pure desire, though, so they feed, vomit it out, and feed again. They are not especially intelligent. Their minds are almost completely dominated by their desires. Still, they do possess a certain animal cunning. While they are incapable of long-term planning or strategy, they can still be quite clever. Moreover, due to their gigantic urge to gratify their every desire, they are very determined and have developed certain methods that are effective in satisfying their urges.
The only way to become a vampire in my world is to ingest a vampire’s blood. This is generally done through trickery or seduction. They can trick a victim into drinking by convincing them it’s a potion that will grant their fondest wish, they can slip it into their food or drink, or drip into a sleeping person’s mouth, though most of them aren’t smart enough for the latter two. Many are ensnared through seduction, as people easily giving in to their basest desires are the raw material for a creature like a vampire. Someone killing a vampire runs the risk of the blood splashing on their face and being accidentally ingested, so vampire hunting is a cross between combat and hazmat operations.
In the story I have planned, the protagonist is a warrior/witch who not only has to deal with a vampire infestation but save two people infected by them.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 17, 2017)

Tolkien had vampires in Middle-Earth along with werewolves. He liked vampires and werewolves and included vampires and werewolves just for the sake of having vampires and werewolves, the vampires are just giant bats who don't have humanoid form and the werewolves are not humans who shapeshift into wolves, but sapient wolves, its confusing to readers, isn't it?


----------



## ChasingSuns (Nov 18, 2017)

The Strain handles vamps a bit differently than what the majority have gotten used to seeing. They're brutal and creepy, and function like a hive mind. Pretty cool stuff.


----------



## noob of the north (Nov 18, 2017)

The Über-vamps(The Turok-Han) in season 7 of "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" were more like monsters and far less human-like than any previous vampire in that show(from what I can remember). I scare kinda easily, but the über-vamps were nasty. Strong and hard to kill too. Good luck with your project.


----------



## gia (Nov 18, 2017)

Peregrine said:


> Not everybody has the identical type of vampire, but there is conformity when people write vampires.
> 
> Do vampires always need to be portrayed as living humans?



Vampires live on blood...which is all about life, passion, and power. In esoteric studies getting someone's blood is a way of gaining power over them. So perhaps a new version of a vampire could be like shamans who stalk power....how would a vampire stalk power? Perhaps by going after powerful humans (celebrities! presidents! priests!). As we know power can be used to corrupt so really it then become a conversation about powerfully good against powerfully evil. Hmmm....sounds like a Marvel Comics movie.


----------



## Ewolf20 (Apr 11, 2019)

Chessie2 said:


> I hate vampires. They're disgusting.
> 
> Now, werewolves? I'm totally in.


i like werewolves (though other werebeast need some love) but i don't mind vampires but...and this might be unpopular but...FREAKING HATE ZOMBIES. I'm like the only person in the freaking universe that unconditionally hates them. so naturally, the idea of blood sucking zombies is a turn off. much prefer more cold calculating takes on vampires than just another dumb monster.


----------



## Mel Syreth (Apr 15, 2019)

I think it partially stems from their food and partially from the whole 'werewolves and vampires' comparison. The former needs flesh, which you can only acquire through means of gore and brutality. The latter needs blood only, which, while you can get your hands on the same way, is not the most practical method.


----------



## Darkfantasy (Apr 19, 2019)

At fourteen I became obsessed with Vampires. But not Dracula and Interview with a Vampire types. I used to love reading the European Folklore all about them - to me they are the real vampires. I wish someone would write about what they were like in their earliest form. 
I don't know why people felt the need to romanticise them.


----------

