# Tried of vampires being goody two-shoes?



## murersr

Who here hates that vampires have been reduced to glittering vegans?


----------



## Gurkhal

You can count me in for this! I always envision vampires as fundamentally evil creatures, no matter what pretentions they might have.


----------



## Sparkie

There's a word for beings that feed off of the lifeblood of others...  Lawyers.  Oh, wait!  Sorry, wrong forum!


----------



## Chilari

Yes! I am so sick of seeing shelves of "paranormal romance" where the fainting, sighing protagonist gets herself a vampire boyfriend like it's edgy or dark anymore. It was kind of a bit lame when Buffy did it (though Buffy had plenty of redeeming features), but now it's positively dull. I want to see more stories that are true fantasy - set in worlds not our own at the least - in which evil bloodsucking creatures of the night (no, not lawyers, Sparkie) are a true, sinister threat, with, worst of all, the ability to seduce the target rather than having to chase them - and not falling in love with them but just to bite them and drain them dry. If there's an obsession involved, it should be with the one that got away, that resisted the almost magical ability to seduce or something else interrupted before the vamp could bite, and not have that obsession turn to love, but rather just be a hunter/prey situation, with a kill or be killed solution.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Let's dig deeper--_why_ are vampires nice now? My conjecture is that we're no longer afraid of whatever vampires represent. I'm fond of David Dvorkin's ideas on the subject:



> There was a time when night and the dark were feared and avoided. This wasn't entirely because of superstition. People wandering away from human settlement and manmade light were in genuine danger. Vampires were only one of the dangers hiding in the night.
> 
> But vampires weren't just creatures of the night, they were also its victims. They were exiles. They were being punished by being excluded from society and light and warmth. There was a religious aspect to this: they were deprived of the light created by God and of the sight of God's creation. So vampires, banished into the darkness, were being punished by never being able to see the day, God's glorious light, or the world created by God.
> 
> In modern urban life, however, nightlife doesn't equal danger or exile. Rather, it represents excitement, freedom, and limitless possibilities. At night, the familiar world of daytime changes into a place of enticing mysteries, new adventures, intriguing shadows, and, perhaps, erotic encounters. Who is more at home in this world than the vampire?
> 
> He has gone from being the ultimate predator to being the ultimate outlaw. The former figure was terrifying; the latter is fascinating. Instead of fleeing from him, we are drawn to him because we want to be like him.



(Of course, there's also the recurrent idea that vampires represent our fear of foreigners, homosexuals, and/or Democrats.)

P.S. If there's one thing I _really_ want to get away from, it's vampires as sex symbols. Good sex, bad sex, any sex--leave that to the living. (Can they even get it up when they're constantly in need of blood?)


----------



## wordwalker

At the risk of heresy: I think it's a valid concept and could produce a few good tales, if they really dug into what it means to be a killer who wants other things instead/ as well. Anne Rice had her vision, and early Laurel Hamilton could be downright chilling.

In fact, Bella supposedly lived in fear that a paper cut would make Edward go berserk...

BUT, the stories keep making it too easy, with the creature that's "supposed to be" dangerous really just a wish-fulfillment of the girl finding it can work. It's not too bad a concept, just attracts bad writing.

A *lot* of bad writing. And, it's irritating that this many hacks have set up shop on a concept just because it's actually the opposite of what they want, just so every one of them can get credit for inverting it-- way worse than what Stormtrooper Marksmanship does to the idea of armed combat.


----------



## MadMadys

I think I'm bored of vampires in general.  A bit played out for my taste for the time being.


Also, I understand the irony of me saying this with a vampire for an avatar so no need to point it out.


----------



## Steerpike

There are plenty of books with vampires as horrible, nasty, scary things, if you want to find them.


----------



## Wanara009

I generally don't like vampire. Granted, I'll be the first to throw myself to the ground and sing praise for Alucard of the Hellsing manga but that's about it. Maybe because I'm raised in a culture where the undead is not glamourous but either f ***ing funny or f***ing terrifying. Whenever I read about a paranormal romance involving vampire, I'm either picturing a hilarious scene that spoils the mood or wondering why the hero/ine isn't pissing in his/her pants right now.

Furthermore, I'm a science student. Whenever I read a paranormal romance, the only thing going through my mind is: "You won't be having children. If they do, enjoy your sterile and probably horrifically mutated baby, you sad sod." Also, it might be because I find 'true love' indistinguishable from brain damage but that's just me.


----------



## Jabrosky

People can write whatever they want, but I never cared for vampires. Sexy vampires even less, because I like my ladies live.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

murersr said:


> Who here hates that vampires have been reduced to glittering vegans?



Okay, so I recently watched all the Twilight movies, because I wanted to be able to talk about Twilight and actually know what I'm talking about? 

Two things:

1: I don't get why people hate on the sparkling thing. It's actually a pretty interesting idea, because it kinda ties in with how vampirism works in Twilight. (Their biologies are basically "frozen", or crystalized. Hence why they are cold to touch and extremely durable, etc.) It's not even much of an issue most of the time and when it is, Meyer uses it more as a plot device for why they can't show themselves in the daytime, rather than a way of going "Oh! Pretty sparkly vampires!" It's just this random, fairly unimportant detail that everyone went totally insane over for some reason.

2: The Cullen coven pretty much _are _vampire vegans, literally - their "don't eat people" philosophy is very extremist by vampire standards. Edward compares their life-style to a human surviving on nothing but tofu. (Only worse because actual vegans don't go crazy from bloodlust if they smell a steak.) It's not at all standard vampire behavior, even the reasonably "good" vampires do feed on humans. 

And don't get me started on the Volturi. Those guys are _monsters._ They eat entire families including children, for crying out loud. You want evil vampires? Well, there you go.

You don't have to like Twilight - dammit, _I _don't like Twilight - but please use better arguments than "it turned all vampires everywhere into lemonade-drinking nancies" because that just isn't true.


----------



## Steerpike

True, Anders. Not to mention that the paranormal vampire romance thing was around before Twilight. It was just never as popular as it was after Twilight (even considering Buffy and the paranormal vampire romances that pre-date Buffy). I think the problem most people have is less with the idea itself, but with the proliferation of it, to the extent that many people feel it has been done to death (though obviously there are a large number of people who do not). Also, aspiring writers are a pretty judgmental lot, particularly when it comes to success. If you want to see any successful literary trend trashed, look at the nearest forum full of aspiring writers 

Actually, if the energy spent complaining about vampire paranormal romance was put into finding books where vampires are horrific, a person could find plenty of them.


----------



## Mindfire

I hate the sparkling thing because it takes the vampire's greatest weakness and turns it into a minor annoyance, essentially making them unkillable, which is not only bloody cheating, but boring as well. What's the point of a vampire that can't be hunted down and killed? Oh right, teen girl wish fulfillment. No thanks. 

[rant]Vampires represent evil. (Their greatest weakness is the sun, i.e. the holy light of God.) And therefore by extension an unkillable and incurable vampire represents that evil is not just desirable, but impossible to defeat or overcome. This is (one of the reasons) why I hate Twilight. It's a dumb teen love letter to the final triumph of evil. [/rant]


----------



## danr62

Mindfire said:


> I hate the sparkling thing because it takes the vampire's greatest weakness and turns it into a minor annoyance, essentially making them unkillable, which is not only bloody cheating, but boring as well. What's the point of a vampire that can't be hunted down and killed? Oh right, teen girl wish fulfillment. No thanks.
> 
> [rant]Vampires represent evil. (Their greatest weakness is the sun, i.e. the holy light of God.) And therefore by extension an unkillable and incurable vampire represents that evil is not just desirable, but impossible to defeat or overcome. This is (one of the reasons) why I hate Twilight. It's a dumb teen love letter to the final triumph of evil. [/rant]



Twilight isn't about the triumph of evil, it's about a group of vampires who overcome their base, evil nature and choose to be good instead. It's kind of a redemption story if you think about it.

Every one of us has the potential for great evil. People can be monsters more horrific than anything you read in a book. Yet most of us are good because we follow the norms of society and choose to be good. The Cullens were from a society where the norms were to be evil, and chose to go against the grain.

I'm not a Twilight fan, although my wife is. I just think it goes deeper than "vampires are evil".


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I hate the sparkling thing because it takes the vampire's greatest weakness and turns it into a minor annoyance, essentially making them unkillable, which is not only bloody cheating, but boring as well. What's the point of a vampire that can't be hunted down and killed? Oh right, teen girl wish fulfillment. No thanks.



I'm guessing you haven't read it. They can be killed, and in fact one is in the first book.

EDIT: To echo was danr62 said - the triumph of evil statement is way off. I'm not sure how that could be the take-away, honestly.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Mindfire said:


> I hate the sparkling thing because it takes the vampire's greatest weakness and turns it into a minor annoyance, essentially making them unkillable,



Yeah, because a perfected apex predator having a devastatingly fatal weakness that provides its specific prey a fighting chance _makes so much more sense._ 

Also, vampires who can walk around in the sunlight without instantly bursting into flames has _never ever _been done before Twilight, ever. Well, except for Count Dracula, but it's not like _he _counts for anything, amiright?

Really, it's not the fact that they can survive sunlight most people are complaining about, but specifically that they sparkle. I just don't get it.



> which is not only bloody cheating, but boring as well. What's the point of a vampire that can't be hunted down and killed?



You and I clearly have different ideas of what counts as "boring." You know what I find boring? Being able to completely destroy an ancient, superhuman monster by walking up to the nearest window, throwing the curtains open and going: "It's a bit stuffy in here, don't you agree?"

Anyway, Twilight vamps can totes be killed, that's the whole reason they go to such lenghts to stay hidden. Aro, the head honcho evil vampire, specifically states that human technology had advanced to the point where they simply couldn't afford an outing.

(It doesn't help that they are _absurdly _flammable. You can seriously set these guys completely ablaze by throwing a zippo lighter at them.)

So yeah. Set their dwelling on fire, hit them with a rocket launcher, bomb their house, use ancient Native American magic to turn into a giant wolf and then bite their heads off, etc. It's doable.


----------



## Ireth

Interesting thread. My vampires pretty much run the gamut between "evil, soulless monsters who live to kill" and "those who don't want to eat humans", with several in between. The more they drink human blood, the more evil they get, as mandated by the goddess who cursed the first vampire. I do try to avoid the angst with regards to my hero, and he does have the potential for a love story, though it's with another vampire (and a male one, to boot) rather than with a human.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Actually, I had an idea for how vampires could work, which I'm thinking about using in a story at some point.

Basically, vampires have two "stages." If you are turned into a vampire while still alive, your body remains alive. You are a "living vampire", so to speak. These would be your eternally youthful, attractive and emotional "modern" type of vampires without a lot of serious drawbacks. They can be good or bad people, but they are ultimately people. 

However, if their bodies are killed, they rise in their second stage as "dead vampires" and their minds and bodies both start to degrade. These would be your monsterous evil undead Nosferatu kind of deal.


----------



## murersr

One of my goals for my book is to return the vampires to their rightful place. They are going to be hunger and hiding in the millions. The task is going to be so daunting that my heroines must go to desperate measures in order to secure the situation. Now has "vampires" become its own genre, it has become so saturated. Really watered-down material. So I must creative and to think outside the box. My plan is to explore the themes of desperation, guilt, and other uglier emotions.The focus will be the main leads and how the going to answer to the (former) citizens they were sworn to protect. Basically, they are going to face the music about waiting so long to deal with the growing problem. 

I would be lying if I said that I didn't get a thrill knowing my name is quite similiar to the author who started this mess (of vampires suddenly become glittering vegan romantic interest).


----------



## Steerpike

Meyer didn't start it. Vampire paranormal romance goes back nearly ten years before her that I've seen. I don't count Rice


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I'm guessing you haven't read it. They can be killed, and in fact one is in the first book.



What can they be killed by? If the answer is "other vampires" it doesn't count.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Yeah, because a perfected apex predator having a devastatingly fatal weakness that provides its specific prey a fighting chance makes so much more sense.



But vampires aren't evolved predators. They're more akin to demonic creatures or supernatural aberrations. How does something evolve if it's _dead_? 

I'll make an exception for Underworld, because they've banked enough cool points to get a free pass, plus they at least make an effort at scientific explanation. If the vampires in Underworld evolved resistance to sunlight, it would still be kind of a cheat, but it could be an interesting plot point.

Twilight however does not have enough cool points to get a free pass. As far as evolution goes, sparkling makes even LESS sense than severe UV vulnerability does. How can you explain or justify diamond skin? You can't. It's just a cheap handwave to make the romance doable and to elicit swooning from the tween female audience. The only "evolution" Edward's skin represents is the ultimate evolution of teen idol-itis.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Also, vampires who can walk around in the sunlight without instantly bursting into flames has never ever been done before Twilight, ever. Well, except for Count Dracula, but it's not like he counts for anything, amiright?



Now let me explain why I give Dracula a pass (although in some versions light does kill him). In the rare instances when a vampire is immune to sunlight, it's supposed to signify something special, unique, and (most importantly) badass. Like Blade, the Daywalker. The ultimate vampire killer. The creatures of the night tremble at his name. Likewise Dracula is not just a vampire, but the greatest of all vampires, so if he is immune to sunlight it is because of his greater power and importance. Twilight commits a double sin. Not only is the vampire's immunity to sunlight made into a casual fact, but it is decidedly NOT badass.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Really, it's not the fact that they can survive sunlight most people are complaining about, but specifically that they sparkle. I just don't get it.



Explained above.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> You and I clearly have different ideas of what counts as "boring." You know what I find boring? Being able to completely destroy an ancient, superhuman monster by walking up to the nearest window, throwing the curtains open and going: "It's a bit stuffy in here, don't you agree?"



It's not really that simple. Sunlight offers hope of surviving a vampire attack. It gives the humans a fighting chance. But it also creates a ticking clock. You have to _make it_ to sunrise for that hope to mean anything. Compare that to twilight. If vampires attack, the humans are screwed. What can they do except sit around and wait for the good vampires or shirtless werewolves to save them. Yawn. That may work for teen girls who have a white knight/helpless damsel complex, but not for me.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Anyway, Twilight vamps can totes be killed, that's the whole reason they go to such lenghts to stay hidden. Aro, the head honcho evil vampire, specifically states that human technology had advanced to the point where they simply couldn't afford an outing.
> 
> (It doesn't help that they are absurdly flammable. You can seriously set these guys completely ablaze by throwing a zippo lighter at them.)
> 
> So yeah. Set their dwelling on fire, hit them with a rocket launcher, bomb their house, use ancient Native American magic to turn into a giant wolf and then bite their heads off, etc. It's doable.



If this is true, then the writer makes unforgivably poor use of it. AFAIK, Bella does nothing except get fought over. Plus, the fandom seems to think their sparkling darlings are totally invincible.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> What can they be killed by? If the answer is "other vampires" it doesn't count.



Dismemberment and burning, by anyone. That's one that comes to mind. There may well be other ways I don't recall or weren't stated in the first book.

Again, your statements make it clear you're arguing from ignorance. If you're going to go into a detailed critique of any work, common sense advises to read it first.


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> Dismemberment and burning, by anyone. That's one that comes to mind. There may well be other ways I don't recall or weren't stated in the first book.
> 
> Again, your statements make it clear you're arguing from ignorance. If you're going to go into a detailed critique of any work, common sense advises to read it first.



Dismemberment and burning are all well and good, but that can only happen if another vampire (or several) make it so -- Meyers vamps are so ridiculously strong that, like diamonds, the only thing that can harm them is each other. Nothing but a vampire, or perhaps a Native American shapeshifter (the "werewolves" are not actually werewolves, as is revealed in the last book -- letdown, huh?) can rip another vampire to pieces, or even break its skin. (And yes, I have unfortunately read the whole series.)


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Dismemberment and burning, by anyone. That's one that comes to mind. There may well be other ways I don't recall or weren't stated in the first book.
> 
> Again, your statements make it clear you're arguing from ignorance. If you're going to go into a detailed critique of any work, common sense advises to read it first.



Dismemberment by _anyone_? So they can be hit by a truck and be totally fine, but I could cut off their head with a chainsaw? That's consistent. -_- And I can't bring myself to read it on account of I value my soul.

Another thing: Twilight's vampires have essentially lost their archetypal connection to the night. That probably contributes to the hate they get. They aren't dark (in any sense of the word) anymore. Meyer essentially took something badass and neutered it. It's like the Adam West Batman... if it was a soap opera.


----------



## Xaysai

The first actual novel I ever read was "The Vampire Lestat" which was the sequel to "Interview with a Vampire", and Anne Rice killed Vamps for me.

Thanks, Anne Rice.


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> Dismemberment and burning are all well and good, but that can only happen if another vampire (or several) make it so -- Meyers vamps are so ridiculously strong that, like diamonds, the only thing that can harm them is each other. Nothing but a vampire, or perhaps a Native American shapeshifter (the "werewolves" are not actually werewolves, as is revealed in the last book -- letdown, huh?) can rip another vampire to pieces, or even break its skin. (And yes, I have unfortunately read the whole series.)



I think that's generally true for hand-to-hand combat, where humans are not going to be able to do it, but I believe it is mentioned in the series that human technology can do it.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Dismemberment by _anyone_? So they can be hit by a truck and be totally fine, but I could cut off their head with a chainsaw? That's consistent. -_- And I can't bring myself to read it on account of I value my soul.



So why do you spend so much time trolling it? You're more obsessed with Twilight than any of the die-hard fans I know, who have mostly move on to other things. Get over it.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> So why do you spend so much time trolling it? You're more obsessed with Twilight than any of the die-hard fans I know, who have mostly move on to other things. Get over it.



Obsessed? My attitude toward Twilight is best described as "please, just go away already." It sounds like you're saying I should be barred from the discussion simply because my opinion of the work differs from yours. The question of why people dislike Twilight was raised. As someone who dislikes it, I answered and gave reasons why someone might hold that opinion. It's not like _I_ started this thread just to troll Twilight supporters. If I wanted to go out of my way to troll fans of the work, I'd just vandalize the wiki or something, or otherwise troll in an arena I _don't_ value or care about being banned from.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire, you're spending your time ranting about something you haven't even read. Think about that for a minute. And its not the first time. Opinions are better when informed, and I don't think there's anything wrong with wondering what's up when someone puts energy into running down a work they haven't taken the time to read. That's true simply as a general statement. I think most people who comment on writings familiarize themselves with the source material prior to doing so. You obviously have a bone to pick with anyone who liked the work, or the desire to hold yourself out as superior for your viewpoint, informed or not, or both. I have to wonder why that is.


----------



## Wanara009

Mindfire said:


> Obsessed? My attitude toward Twilight is best described as "please, just go away already." It sounds like you're saying I should be barred from the discussion simply because my opinion of the work differs from yours. The question of why people dislike Twilight was raised. As someone who dislikes it, I answered and gave reasons why someone might hold that opinion. It's not like _I_ started this thread just to troll Twilight supporters. If I wanted to go out of my way to troll fans of the work, I'd just vandalize the wiki or something, or otherwise troll in an arena I _don't_ value or care about being banned from.



Must agree with Mindfire. Twilight is like SCP-1055. The more people knows about it, the stronger it get no matter how you think of it. If you're bored with vampire as seen in the mainstream media, look toward the horror. There's still some decent undead there.

Anyhow, the decay of vampire started long before Meyer. In fact, I personally think that the decay of all mythological creatures started with we invent "Paranormal Romance" genre. Today human teenager romance vampire. Tomorrow? Maybe Godzilla...

Yeah... Have fun with the image guys ;P When will the madness END?!


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Mindfire, you're spending your time ranting about something you haven't even read. Think about that for a minute. And its not the first time. Opinions are better when informed, and I don't think there's anything wrong with wondering what's up when someone puts energy into running down a work they haven't taken the time to read. That's true simply as a general statement. I think most people who comment on writings familiarize themselves with the source material prior to doing so. You obviously have a bone to pick with anyone who liked the work, or the desire to hold yourself out as superior for your viewpoint, informed or not, or both. I have to wonder why that is.



Let's just say I was exposed to extremely devout fans of it, so now my knee-jerk reaction is "kill it with fire." I'd be perfectly happy if I never heard of it again.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Let's just say I was exposed to extremely devout fans of it, so now my knee-jerk reaction is "kill it with fire." I'd be perfectly happy if I never heard of it again.



Injecting yourself into conversations about it runs contrary to that stated desire.


----------



## murersr

Steerpike said:


> Meyer didn't start it. Vampire paranormal romance goes back nearly ten years before her that I've seen. I don't count Rice



So who do you think started it? I remember when I was in middle school, I read a book (I think it was a Goosebump series, not sure) It was about a girl who had a vampire living up in her attic. He drank all the clique - ish cheerleaders that were preventing her from being on the cheerleading squad. I remember reading this and being very scared. The story wasn't written "to swoon my teenage heart", it was written to scare me. And it did. 

Why do you think the current has vampires as heroes? And do you think it is possible to reverse the trend?


----------



## Steerpike

murersr said:


> So who do you think started it? I remember when I was in middle school, I read a book (I think it was a Goosebump series, not sure) It was about a girl who had a vampire living up in her attic. He drank all the clique - ish cheerleaders that were preventing her from being on the cheerleading squad. I remember reading this and being very scared. The story wasn't written "to swoon my teenage heart", it was written to scare me. And it did.
> 
> Why do you think the current has vampires as heroes? And do you think it is possible to reverse the trend?



Buffy was probably the first very popular implementation of it. Tanya Huff wrote her blood books before Buffy (first one was published in 1991), and the elements are there as well (I like Huff, but I prefer her military science fiction). I believe there was at least one work predating Huff, but I don't know it.

But with Buffy, things get very popular. Two TV shows that do well, novels, graphic novels, and so on. Twilight comes 7 or 8 years later, well after the whole vampire/human romance has been done by Buffy and Angel, Buffy and Spike, Angel and Cordelia (sort of), and so on. A lot of the criticisms people make of Edward and Bella could be applied to Angel and Buffy, but I don't think the criticisms amount to much, to be honest.

There were and are books about horrific, terrifying vampires being written during this time period. These aren't likely to become the cultural phenomena of things like Buffy and Twilight, so if that's what you mean by reverse the trend, then I'd say no. But there is an audience for those books (I'm one of them), and I think if they're done well there is a good market out there.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Injecting yourself into conversations about it runs contrary to that stated desire.



I was asked for my opinion, albeit indirectly. No one else was exactly jumping to the fore to provide an argument. I couldn't let my side of the issue go unrepresented. For the most part, I was trying to stay away from personal ranting and present a more analytical take on why Twilight might not be some people's cup of tea. Again, I'm not the one who started the thread. But that doesn't mean Twilight doesn't deserve a sound thrashing.

And what's this Buffy I keep hearing about?


----------



## danr62

Buffy the Vampire Slayer? I only ever saw the movie, and maybe one or two episodes of the show while channel flipping or something.


----------



## Mindfire

danr62 said:


> Buffy the Vampire Slayer? I only ever saw the movie, and maybe one or two episodes of the show while channel flipping or something.



Yeah but what _is_ it? I never watched any of it.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I was asked for my opinion, albeit indirectly. No one else was exactly jumping to the fore to provide an argument. I couldn't let my side of the issue go unrepresented. For the most part, I was trying to stay away from personal ranting and present a more analytical take on why Twilight might not be some people's cup of tea. Again, I'm not the one who started the thread. But that doesn't mean Twilight doesn't deserve a sound thrashing.
> 
> And what's this Buffy I keep hearing about?



Your post was better before you edited it.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Yeah but what _is_ it? I never watched any of it.



That shouldn't prevent you from commenting on it, however. I think that's been established. Google is you friend. If you type in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you'll be able to see what it is in no time.


----------



## murersr

Steerpike said:


> Buffy was probably the first very popular implementation of it. Tanya Huff wrote her blood books before Buffy (first one was published in 1991), and the elements are there as well (I like Huff, but I prefer her military science fiction). I believe there was at least one work predating Huff, but I don't know it.
> 
> But with Buffy, things get very popular. Two TV shows that do well, novels, graphic novels, and so on. Twilight comes 7 or 8 years later, well after the whole vampire/human romance has been done by Buffy and Angel, Buffy and Spike, Angel and Cordelia (sort of), and so on. A lot of the criticisms people make of Edward and Bella could be applied to Angel and Buffy, but I don't think the criticisms amount to much, to be honest.
> 
> There were and are books about horrific, terrifying vampires being written during this time period. These aren't likely to become the cultural phenomena of things like Buffy and Twilight, so if that's what you mean by reverse the trend, then I'd say no. But there is an audience for those books (I'm one of them), and I think if they're done well there is a good market out there.



I forgot about Buffy.  Hmmm.., but you know what? Buffy was a much stronger character and she had a job to do - kill vampires. In my opinion, Bella was not.

So where do you think "True Blood" fits in? The terrifying vampires or teenager vampires? How could they ("True Blood") be that terrifying with those small fangs. My cat has scary fangs! 

To you as a fan of terrifying vampires, how important is transformation( eyes turning a different shade and/or glowing, forehead and checkbone change like the "Buffy" series). Is tradition still important to you as a reader? Would you be offended if vampires didn't take center stage?

My book is a combination of all the genres that I have dabbled in, most of which came from the vampire story. I wrote several chapers, but I couldn't handle the stress of trying to deal with vampires politics and/or courtly life- hierachy. I wanted to make it simple, but it swelled into this monstrous thing which eventually led me to stashing all the drafts away.


----------



## murersr

Wanara009 said:


> Anyhow, the decay of vampire started long before Meyer. In fact, I personally think that the decay of all mythological creatures started with we invent "Paranormal Romance" genre. Today human teenager romance vampire. Tomorrow? Maybe Godzilla...
> 
> Yeah... Have fun with the image guys ;P When will the madness END?!



Wasn't Bram Stroker's Dracula a "paranormal romance"? But, you are right. There is a decay in the horror genre, just like everything is else in our modern lives. Everything has to be easier.  We as writers have an obligations to our readers to give characters proper respect. No matter how saintly or sinister the character, we should always give them intelligence and complexity.


----------



## Fakefaux

You're all thinking too modern. The romanticization of vampires starts with the Victorians, but it really got going in 1927.

Vampires in Slavic folklore were monsters, pure and simple. There was very little that was romantic or sexual about them. They were a manifestation of human fears of disease and unexplained death in the night. Then the Victorians get a hold of them. They gave us Carmilla, Count Ruthven, Dracula, the first vampires of modern literature, and almost all of them are sexual in nature. Carmilla is a lesbian, Ruthven and Dracula both target young woman. Of course, they were still monstrous. Dracula was hairy and ugly, with a bald head, unibrow, a big mustache, pointed ears, claws, the works. His story is less about a mysterious stranger coming to sweep you off your feet and is more about one of those swarthy foreign types coming to steal our womenfolk! He's sexual, but in a horrible way.

Skip forward about thirty years, to 1927. A stage production of Dracula is on Broadway, starring Bela Lugosi. Lugosi completely rejects the idea of Dracula as a gruesome foreign rapist. He plays him as suave, handsome, seductive. The play is a big hit, Lugosi gets the role in the film version, and voila. Vampires post-Lugosi are, at first, still monsters, but now they are _sexy_ monsters, and it's only a matter of time from that point before writers start trying to make them into Byronic heroes; tortured souls, the bad boy, the dark brooding guy nobody understands.

Where we are today is simply a natural progression from the Victorian interpretation of what was, at the time, a relatively obscure Slavic folklore figure.


----------



## Steerpike

murersr said:


> I forgot about Buffy.  Hmmm.., but you know what? Buffy was a much stronger character and she had a job to do - kill vampires. In my opinion, Bella was not.
> 
> So where do you think "True Blood" fits in? The terrifying vampires or teenager vampires? How could they ("True Blood") be that terrifying with those small fangs. My cat has scary fangs!
> 
> To you as a fan of terrifying vampires, how important is transformation( eyes turning a different shade and/or glowing, forehead and checkbone change like the "Buffy" series). Is tradition still important to you as a reader? Would you be offended if vampires didn't take center stage?
> 
> My book is a combination of all the genres that I have dabbled in, most of which came from the vampire story. I wrote several chapers, but I couldn't handle the stress of trying to deal with vampires politics and/or courtly life- hierachy. I wanted to make it simple, but it swelled into this monstrous thing which eventually led me to stashing all the drafts away.



Buffy is stronger in more ways than one. Unlike Bella, she's not entirely human. Bella isn't as passive as people make her out, however. She drives the plot in the book. If it were up to Edward, there wouldn't be a story. He'd have stayed away from her, and that would be the end of it. But she pursues things in an attempt to find out about him, and she pursues the plot line with the native american tribe as well. She even sets up the final confrontation with the evil vampire by rushing off to try to save her mom when he claims to have her. She's not that bad. The only reason I didn't read the rest of the book in the series is that it really isn't my kind of story.

I haven't seen True Blood, so I can't comment on that.

In terms of frightening vampires, I could go either way on whether the transformation of the vampire is described in details. You can make it scary that way, but some writers are quite good at making things scary by hinting at things and keeping details hidden. I'm also open to changing up the traditions. I like a good, traditional vampire story but I'm not going to limit myself to them.

Simon Clark did good scary vampires in his novel Vampyrrhic, and they aren't the traditional Dracula-style vampires. I also thought Tim Lebbon's novelization of 30 Days of Night treated scary vampires well. I didn't like the movie, and I haven't read the graphic novels, so I can't comment on how well those work.

As for vampire court politics and that sort of thing, I think it can be done well and it makes sense if vampires have an old civilization that operates in the shadows of human society. But I'm just as happy to see them as feral, blood-thirsty monsters with no discernible society. I guess what it comes down to for me is that I'm open to just about anything if the author does a good job with it.


----------



## Steerpike

Fakefaux said:


> Where we are today is simply a natural progression from the Victorian interpretation of what was, at the time, a relatively obscure Slavic folklore figure.



That makes sense. In terms of old movies, I thought Nosferatu was as good an implementation of the vampires I like as any.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> That shouldn't prevent you from commenting on it, however. I think that's been established. Google is you friend. If you type in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you'll be able to see what it is in no time.



Touche'. 

And unlike Twilight, which has left a negative impact on me, Buffy has left virtually no impact. The most I can say about it is it looks like pointless teenage bubblegum, like that Sabrina show.


----------



## Jamber

Steerpike said:


> Buffy is stronger in more ways than one. Unlike Bella, she's not entirely human. Bella isn't as passive as people make her out, however. She drives the plot in the book.



Hello from someone new to the forum. I just wanted to say I tend to think that people who dislike Bella's passivity do so because the way she drives the plot is so much geared to putting herself in situations where she has to be rescued. There's an essential (irksome—to me) passivity to that.

I feel I'm putting a toe in some turbulent water, but I hope it's okay to inject my thought here (as a brand new member).


----------



## Steerpike

Jamber said:


> Hello from someone new to the forum. I just wanted to say I tend to think that people who dislike Bella's passivity do so because the way she drives the plot is so much geared to putting herself in situations where she has to be rescued. There's an essential (irksome—to me) passivity to that.
> 
> I feel I'm putting a toe in some turbulent water, but I hope it's okay to inject my thought here (as a brand new member).



Yeah, she does do that. I think it is a consequence of Meyer making the vampires, good or bad, so powerful. Bella is basically in no position to go up against them. So, while she drives the plot forward and, in my view, forces the resolutions, she's not necessarily the one bringing them about (at least not in the first book, which is the one I read; at the end, even though she forced the plot point relating to the confrontation with the vampire she thinks has her mother, she has to be saved). On the other hand, she knows she can't go up against any of them and live, and yet she sets out alone to try to help her mother anyway, which takes a certain bravery.

Welcome to the forums, Jamber!


----------



## Jamber

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, she does do that. I think it is a consequence of Meyer making the vampires, good or bad, so powerful. Bella is basically in no position to go up against them. So, while she drives the plot forward and, in my view, forces the resolutions, she's not necessarily the one bringing them about (at least not in the first book, which is the one I read; at the end, even though she forced the plot point relating to the confrontation with the vampire she thinks has her mother, she has to be saved). On the other hand, she knows she can't go up against any of them and live, and yet she sets out alone to try to help her mother anyway, which takes a certain bravery.
> 
> Welcome to the forums, Jamber!



Thank you Steerpike! Yes, I agree it's largely to do with the ultra-powerful vampires, though it could be argued that the vampires are that way to allow an extreme romantic/heroic rescue narrative to play out...

I have other qualms with Twilight (though like you Steerpike I only read the first one), and that's the drug culture parallels (the pallor, the secretive behaviour, the inculcation, the penetration).

Sorry, none of that is on topic...


----------



## ThinkerX

Might benefit to look at this from another angle:

Glen Cook's 'Black Company' and sequels - no vampires, though nasty characters abound.

Kate Elliots 'Crown of Stars' - no vampires, though an assortment of mythological creatures do make an appearace, some of them very nasty.  Her 'Cold Fire' series does feature a much feared 'Zombie Plague' - but this is a literal plague.

Eriksons 'Malazan' series - I've not read the full set...but from what I have read, lots of evil creatures, including shapeshifters.  I don't recollect any straight up vampires...but I could be wrong.

Fiests 'Riftwar' series - Vampires make an appearance in only one book - out of 15+.  This book is arguably the worst in the series (it was based off a video game).  

Lackey's 'Valdemar' series and related works - no vampires I can recollect offhand.

Kerr's 'Deverry' series - no vampires, though some evil mages do ingest human blood as part of their ceremonies.

King's 'Dark Tower' series - has vampires of various sorts coming out of the wood work in the last few books...but none of them really stand out.  

LeGuin's 'Earthsea' - no vampires.

Leibers 'Ffafhrd and Grey Mouser' - these two clash with everything from intelligent rats to back ally thugs to demigods - but as best I can recollect, don't ever run into a vampire.

Logstons 'Shadow' series and related works - lots of romance between elfs, humans, and others...but no vampires.

Norton's 'Witch World' - many unusual beings, many contributing authors.  One collection set there featured a vampire who was 'cured' shortly after arriving on that world.  Apart from that, no vampires.

Tolkiens 'Lord of the Rings' - grand daddy of modern fantasy.  Lots of mythological creatures, including some real nasties...but nothing you could properly label a 'vampire'.

I could have gone on with this list.  Each of the ones I listed was something that sold very well at some point in the not too distant past. Very few of them featured vampires at all, when they did, it was either a marginal addition or a particularly poor book in the series (with King being about the only real exception, and his series is more of a crossover than straight fantasy).  
Except as monstrous one-offs, vampires were not all that common among the 'golden age' authors such as Carter, DeCamp, and Simak.

(I admit to being uncertain about Erikson and Robert Jordan).

No, with a few exceptions, where I see vampires these days is almost exclusively 'urban fantasy' - and much of what I do see isn't all that good.


----------



## Ireth

I disagree about Tolkien's works having no vampires -- there is at least one mentioned by name in the Silmarillion. Thuringwethil, a servant of Morgoth in the Elder Days, took the shape of a monstrous bat who feasted on blood, and she was explicitly called a vampire. She was later killed, and her skin used as a disguise for Luthien Tinuviel to infiltrate Morgoth's lair alongside her lover Beren, who was disguised as a werewolf. Also, when Sauron was bested in battle by the great hound Huan, he fled in the shape of a vampire (probably one similar to Thuringwethil).


----------



## ThinkerX

> I disagree about Tolkien's works having no vampires -- there is at least one mentioned by name in the Silmarillion. Thuringwethil, a servant of Morgoth in the Elder Days, took the shape of a monstrous bat who feasted on blood, and she was explicitly called a vampire. She was later killed, and her skin used as a disguise for Luthien Tinuviel to infiltrate Morgoth's lair alongside her lover Beren, who was disguised as a werewolf. Also, when Sauron was bested in battle by the great hound Huan, he fled in the shape of a vampire (probably one similar to Thuringwethil).



I stand corrected...though I am much less familiar with the Silmariallion than the Hobbit and LOTR.  From what you've said, these 'vampires' were essentially near demi-gods in their own right, though, not transformed mortals.  Still, you did catch me on that.


----------



## Mindfire

Ireth said:


> I disagree about Tolkien's works having no vampires -- there is at least one mentioned by name in the Silmarillion. Thuringwethil, a servant of Morgoth in the Elder Days, took the shape of a monstrous bat who feasted on blood, and she was explicitly called a vampire. She was later killed, and her skin used as a disguise for Luthien Tinuviel to infiltrate Morgoth's lair alongside her lover Beren, who was disguised as a werewolf. Also, when Sauron was bested in battle by the great hound Huan, he fled in the shape of a vampire (probably one similar to Thuringwethil).



Verily, you have won many nerd points this day.


----------



## Masronyx

Ah yes, the _Vampire.  I can remember becoming somewhat fascinated with the undead; somewhere between reading In the Forests of the Night by Amelia Atwater-Rhodes when I was 14 and my grandfather's death 3 years later. I enjoy Ms. Atwater-Rhodes version of vampires a lot more than Ms. Stephanie Meyers' "version".  

But in retrospect, vampires are creatures that feed on living blood. They can be the epitome of evil, caricatures of the Devil, long lost Gods/Goddesses of an ancient cult, tortured beings hell bent on redemption, or just...sparkly...things. 

I hate Twilight. Meyer ruined it. But I still like vampires as characters. I think they are malleable and mold able like elves and dwarves. Two of my worlds have vampires:  one is a half vampire mortal woman who unleashes/awakens old blood magic and wars in her ancient paternal lineage; and the other is a Victorian era like world where a mortician and his older grave digging assistant dig up a newly changed vampire girl/woman who cannot speak. With religious themes and hidden lineages galore. 

And the usual chaos ensues in both stories._


----------



## DTowne

I'm suprised no one here has mentioned the vampires of Jeanne Kalogridis's diary of the family dracul trilogy. To me they seem the perfect balance of monster and sexual, not to mention their myriad of powers and weaknesses.


----------



## Masronyx

DTowne said:


> I'm suprised no one here has mentioned the vampires of Jeanne Kalogridis's diary of the family dracul trilogy. To me they seem the perfect balance of monster and sexual, not to mention their myriad of powers and weaknesses.



Ooh!!! I always take up reading suggestions! I've heard about the series, but never had time to look them up. She also writes historical fiction too. SWEET!!


----------



## DTowne

Her Dracul books are still my favorites but her historical fictions good too especially The Borgia bride and the burning times. Those are the two I'd highly recommend.


----------



## OGone

Ouch, there are some handbags in this thread  

I've never read Twilight, I've watched the first film with my, at the time, girlfriend and I'm just going to go ahead and say I enjoyed it. She read the books and said they were a guilty pleasure, poorly written but worth reading. Meyer's the epitome of choosing a target audience and writing at them, she achieved success because she created a perfect story catering to teenage girls (and some young women's) fantasies. On the contrary I watch the modern tv series interpretation of Spartacus. I'm still technically a teenage male. Do I feel like I garner any philosophical intelligence from watching it, nope... but it does have lots of blood and boobs which I can safely say I enjoy in small doses.

Do I take digs at Twilight? Hell yeah, I'd love to see Wesley Snipes cut the Cullens up. Do I hate Twilight? No, not at all. If anything we (I'm guessing people on this forum are writers/aspiring writers) should commend Stephenie Meyer because she encouraged a lot of people to read and appreciate books who otherwise wouldn't, similar to what Harry Potter achieved. This increases their likelihood they'll read other stuff. A lot of people read them and enjoyed them, what's wrong with that?

I don't care about mainstream vampires, they're easily avoided if they're not your thing.  I'm not much of fan of vampires in general (I'd say I'm a fan of the first two Blade movies and comics, that's about it) but I went ahead and wrote about vampires for the contest on this forum. Actually come to think of it, I did watch "Fight Night" recently, with Colin Farrell, David Tenant and vampires. It was pretty entertaining whilst still appealing to a mainstream audience. That film, although I wouldn't say a horror film, included vampires in their traditional sense: pure evil. Them depictions still exist in movies and literature, they're not completely dead just swamped under plenty of knock-offs trying to emulate Twilight's success.

Twilight never did anything _bad_ neither was it anything wildly different because goody two-shoes vampires have existed for a while. These are not the only ones around tho and most of their mediums include equally as antagonistic vampires, Twilight included. 

Twilight is a book like any other, it's an entertainment source. Read it or don't read it and if you don't like it that's fine, it's hardly damaging society. If you want to hate on something that is, switch on MTV and watch fifteen minutes of Jersey/Geordie Shore then question if people who read Twilight are the problem. Hell, hate on 50 Shades of Grey - that was just crudely, and I mean _crudely_, written porn and it saddens me to say I can actually speak from experience on that one.


----------



## BenGoram

I'm not going to get into the merits and flaws of Twilight (OK, I don't really think it has any merits), but the backlash bothers me almost as much. Writers and fans get very hung up on what vampires _should_ be like and what the "real" characteristics of vampires are, without really knowing the history of vampire literature. Forgive me if this is common knowledge here, but the first sympathetic vampire was Sir Francis Varney, who predated Dracula by half a century. Dracula and his predecessors could walk in the sun with impunity (though Dracula had limited powers during the day). It wasn't until Nosferatu in 1922 that a vampire died from sunlight. Yes, in most folklore vampires were unsympathetic and weren't even suave villains like Dracula, Ruthven, or Carmilla. BUT is it so bad that modern writers try to take on a more nuanced view of these creatures? Read English literature from more than a century ago and you will often find demonization of every race and nationality. You wouldn't advocate painting an entire ethnicity with one brush, so why expect it for supernatural creatures?

On the other hand, goody two-shoes vampires who are morally superior to all the humans in a story do bug me. A "good" vampire should still be constantly struggling with his addiction and not just in an angsty way. A writer needs to work hard to make a character sympathetic if he occasionally kills people.



DTowne said:


> I'm suprised no one here has mentioned the vampires of Jeanne Kalogridis's diary of the family dracul trilogy. To me they seem the perfect balance of monster and sexual, not to mention their myriad of powers and weaknesses.



I LOVED Diaries of the Family Dracul. It really shaped my views on vampires. And even though there are "good" vampires, they're still tragic and monstrous.


----------



## Nihal

I've read the Twilight books.

I feel it's hard to separate her "vampires" concept from the impression left by her characters. The vampires' traits may not be so bad, including the sparkling (what is just plain weird). However, I hated the characters. The MCs stalker vs passive mindless girl relationship just didn't work as a romance for me, no matter how hard the writer tried to sell the idea. It's like if she often tried to convince the readers that oranges are blue but her own writing betrayed her showing clearly that oranges are, in fact, orange.

I kept reading because I wanted to know what would happen next, like when you see something weird and just can't look away. I hoped the later books would redeem her characters, improve the story and further develop her mythological creatures. But no, the characters felt awkward and unnatural the most of the time and I think my opinion about "good vampires" and this kind of paranormal romance is, unfortunately, biased now.

Bottom line: I avoid this kind of story if I don't know the writer. It could be good, but often "attract" bad writers.


----------



## Steerpike

BenGoram said:


> I'm not going to get into the merits and flaws of Twilight (OK, I don't really think it has any merits), but the backlash bothers me almost as much.



The people who thrive on hating it are far worse than the fans. As I've said here and elsewhere, I think it was mediocre writing (not terrible, certainly not great), but Meyer obviously did a remarkable job of connecting with readers in telling her story. The hate for Twilight is so over the top and all out of proportion that it in my view it boils down to cases of extreme hipsterism or, when coming from writers, a lot of jealousy. I'm talking about the disproportionate level of hatred you'll see, not cases of an individual simply disliking the book as they might any other. I didn't care for it, but even so it has some merits in my personal view, and given the reaction of readers around the world it seems self-evident that it has a lot of merit to others. It is easier, of course, to simply say it has none and dismiss the idea than to actually try to figure out why it works.


----------



## Steerpike

Nihal said:


> I kept reading because I wanted to know what would happen next...



If you can accomplish this in your writing, you've succeeded. You can talk about technique and style all day long, but the bottom line is, if you can get the reader to want to turn the next page like that, you've already positioned yourself well above the pack.


----------



## Nihal

Steerpike said:


> If you can accomplish this in your writing, you've succeeded. You can talk about technique and style all day long, but the bottom line is, if you can get the reader to want to turn the next page like that, you've already positioned yourself well above the pack.



Yes, I know, that's why I recognize her writing has some merit. I think this + her ability to reunite all the common insecurities of females in one character making her average readers empathize with Bella are the main reasons her books became so popular.

However, even if I kept reading, her books left a foul aftertaste. I know won't pick anything else she writes, if they weren't borrowed I don't think I would even finish the trilogy. When a writer does it in the right way I go to great lengths to finish the read, E.G.: Hunt down and import their untranslated books.


----------



## Steerpike

Nihal said:


> However, even if I kept reading her books left a foul aftertaste, I know won't pick anything else she writes.



I only read the first book. It wasn't my thing, so I didn't get further into the series. Actually, though, _The Host _wasn't bad. I liked that one a lot more than _Twilight_. 

I don't think you have to like Bella to like the story. My daughter read through all four books in marathon sessions, and at the time she wasn't reading much at all. Her comment to me about Bella was "Bella is an idiot." But that didn't stop her enjoying the books. They very effectively got her interested in reading a bit more.


----------



## Nihal

Truth to be told, I rarely empathize with main characters. Sometimes I like a sidekick or a villain, but usually the story is what keeps me hooked. I developed a morbid curiosity about Twilight - it was before the hating trend had taken it's full proportion -, wanting to see if the writer would manage to salvage the story.



*ahem* Anyway, going a little back to the topic: I like it when the author recreates a well know (or not) creature. I think nowadays the type of vampire that still stirs my curiosity are the monstrous ones. I don't mean evil neither sexy, I mean the beast-like vampires, not glamorous at all.


----------



## OGone

Steerpike said:


> The people who thrive on hating it are far worse than the fans. As I've said here and elsewhere, I think it was mediocre writing (not terrible, certainly not great), but Meyer obviously did a remarkable job of connecting with readers in telling her story. The hate for Twilight is so over the top and all out of proportion that it in my view it boils down to cases of extreme hipsterism or, when coming from writers, a lot of jealousy. I'm talking about the disproportionate level of hatred you'll see, not cases of an individual simply disliking the book as they might any other. I didn't care for it, but even so it has some merits in my personal view, and given the reaction of readers around the world it seems self-evident that it has a lot of merit to others. It is easier, of course, to simply say it has none and dismiss the idea than to actually try to figure out why it works.



A lot of the hate on Twilight is bandwagoning. There's an internet sensation in bashing the books and you're cool if you do so (on the other hand, you're gay if you like Twilight). I wouldn't even say extreme hipsterism, it's the opposite. The hipster view would be not caring that much about Twilight but not developing an obsessive hate either.

If you like football, consider Manchester United. Probably the most supported clubs in the world and it is equally as hated because of this. Twilight is the Manchester United of literature 

Twilight is like marmite. Love it or hate it. If you say "ehh, it's just out there, who cares what everyone else is talking about/hating on" you're a fricking hipster.

I'm a hipster


----------



## Steerpike

OGone said:


> The hipster view would be not caring that much about Twilight but not developing an obsessive hate either.



Point taken 

With respect to the bandwagoning point - yes, and I saw the same thing on writing forums with respect to Harry Potter, though to a lesser degree, and also with respect to The Da Vinci Code, to a much lesser degree. It seems to occur anytime there is a huge hit in the literary world. A lot of the time, the people making the most vocal criticisms haven't even read the work, which tells you something else a bit irrational is going on.


----------



## DTowne

BenGoram said:


> I LOVED Diaries of the Family Dracul. It really shaped my views on vampires. And even though there are "good" vampires, they're still tragic and monstrous.



Perfectly put. She did an amazing job of making them human and relatable yet still vile creatures. After reading that trilogy I had always hoped she'd write more in that genre rather than strictly historical fiction, good as she is with them as well.


----------



## BenGoram

I think there are a lot of different criticisms of Twilight, some more valid than others. There's no reason to get upset because "she's making vampires twee" etc. (And this is coming from someone who takes vampire mythos VERY seriously.) But I've heard concerns from parents about the messages the books send to young girls. (My mother-in-law was a Junior High School librarian who had to pull the fourth book from her shelves because of how graphic and disturbing the sex was.) Had these books been aimed at adults like other paranormal romance, I doubt there would be such a backlash.



DTowne said:


> After reading that trilogy I had always hoped she'd write more in that genre rather than strictly historical fiction, good as she is with them as well.



Me too. She did mention recently working on (or hoping to work on) a sequel of sorts.


----------



## Steerpike

You must be thinking of something else, BenGoram. There's no sex in Twilight. Stephanie Meyer is Mormon and had the whole "wait until we're married" thing going. The first sex is in one of the later books in the series on their night of their wedding. I think that's a fairly conservative approach.Not graphic, from what I understand. Apparently the scene of Bella giving birth in the later book bothered some people.

If you peruse the stuff on the teen shelves - sex, drugs, pregnancy, suicide, murder, and so on - the Twilight series is pretty tame.


----------



## BenGoram

Steerpike said:


> You must be thinking of something else, BenGoram. There's no sex in Twilight. Stephanie Meyer is Mormon and had the whole "wait until we're married" thing going. The first sex is in one of the later books in the series on their night of their wedding. I think that's a fairly conservative approach.Not graphic, from what I understand. Apparently the scene of Bella giving birth in the later book bothered some people.



Yes, I meant in the fourth book. Anyway, it may be that I'm out of touch with what teens are exposed to. Regardless, that wasn't really the topic of this thread, so I won't derail it further.

But more on topic, I'm generally not in favor of books that portray little to no downside to vampirism as a condition. But that's just a personal preference.


----------



## Steerpike

BenGoram said:


> But more on topic, I'm generally not in favor of books that portray little to no downside to vampirism as a condition. But that's just a personal preference.



Yeah. I like vampires that are more monstrous and dangerous, personally. Along the lines of 30 Days of Night, maybe (not the movie, but the novelization or graphic novels). Not a glamorous thing to be.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Steerpike said:


> You must be thinking of something else, BenGoram. There's no sex in Twilight. Stephanie Meyer is Mormon and had the whole "wait until we're married" thing going.



To be fair, it was not for lack of Bella trying, but rather Edward being old-fashioned about it and wanting to wait. (As well as not wanting to accidentally kill Bella.)

It went kinda like this:

*Bella:* Let's have sex.
*Edward:* We can't, I'd hurt you.
*Bella:* So, turn me into a vampire first.
*Edward:* Yeah, how about no?
*Bella:* Pretty _please _turn me into a vampire?
*Edward:* Only if you marry me.
*Bella:* Okay, but turn me into a vampire after our wedding night.
*Edward:* Deal. ...Wait, what were we talking about again?



BenGoram said:


> But more on topic, I'm generally not in favor of books that portray little to no downside to vampirism as a condition. But that's just a personal preference.



While I'm usually light on the downsides myself, I do think there should be something unappealing about vampirism that might make a human hesitate to become one.

In one of my stories, vampires are basically necromancers who tried to cheat death by becoming something that isn't quite alive, reasoning that if you're not technically alive, you can't die. The problem is that being alive but still not alive does funny things to your mind, so all of them ended up extremely eccentric at best and pretty insane at worst.

In my current project it depends on wether you are alive or not. Being a vampire with a living body is mostly great, but if you die things start going downhill fast.


----------



## Mindfire

I've given up ragging on Twilight for two reasons:

1. I'm just tired of it. Trolling the fans has lost its luster, and what's more, it's finally starting to fade away into relative obscurity and I don't want to jinx that by resurrecting it even in the form of mockery.

2. It's become apparent to me that the Twilight _clones_ are what we should really be concerned about.


----------



## Steerpike

At least you were willing to admit you were trolling. That's an important first step


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> At least you were willing to admit you were trolling. That's an important first step



Did I ever claim to be doing anything else? If I did, that was probably part of the trolling.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Did I ever claim to be doing anything else? If I did, that was probably part of the trolling.



Heh. :goodjob:


----------



## Tamwen

One of the best shows that showed how awful vampirism can be has always been Being Human, in my opinion. Yeah, the main vampire (Mitchell) is quite lovely and snarky and rather sweet, but drinking blood is a horrific addiction that you basically cannot get rid of. Drinking blood from anything other than a living, breathing human being (that will ultimately die when you feed) will do next to nothing to stop the ever-escalating cravings, and putting it off and putting it off results in your breaking point becoming horrifically dramatic and gory. And if you sincerely want to stop, it becomes emotionally draining on top of it all, because you (rightly, to be frank) consider yourself a monster with no redemption, because in this world, the idea of the Friendly Neighborhood Vampire is impossible and ludicrous.

All in all, Being Human is highly recommended for people who want sexy vampires without the stupid sparkly skin and lack of flaws. Because FRENCH THE LLAMA Aidan Turner is lovely but terribly heartbreaking in that show.

The British version, though. Not the American version.


----------



## The_Everlasting

I can't thank the few authors that have ruined the vampire reputation forever. It's reasons like this that make me worry about what I'm writing only because yes...there are vampires in it. There are also demons and virtually every dark creature that can be imagined- and they're not _nice. Thankfully I know I'm not writing this for anyone else besides myself. I'd like to think that my story and my characters could change the minds of people who are "tired of vampires" but if it doesn't I'm alright with that too. I agree- it's everywhere and they have been reduced to either some floundering teen love story or some middle aged woman's wet dream._


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

The_Everlasting said:


> I can't thank the few authors that have ruined the vampire reputation forever. It's reasons like this that make me worry about what I'm writing only because yes...there are vampires in it. There are also demons and virtually every dark creature that can be imagined- and they're not nice. Thankfully I know I'm not writing this for anyone else besides myself. I'd like to think that my story and my characters could change the minds of people who are "tired of vampires" but if it doesn't I'm alright with that too. I agree- it's everywhere and they have been reduced to either some floundering teen love story or some middle aged woman's wet dream.



Honestly, I wouldn't worry much about this.... Write vamps as you'd want to read them and you're golden.


----------



## Lucas

murersr said:


> Who here hates that vampires have been reduced to glittering vegans?



That is what is doomed to happen with everything that turns popular. 

Teen girls love baddies, but only if baddies are redeemable. Teen girls also have an ability to see things in characters which aren't really there.


----------



## The_Everlasting

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't worry much about this.... Write vamps as you'd want to read them and you're golden.



Thank you I really appreciate that. Now if I could only get myself together to get the damn thing finished!


----------



## Mask

Have become rather sick of the over powered nature of vampires, myself. Especially when they take away their weaknesses to crucifixes and sunlight, and everything else. Dracula, the original vampire, was killed by a sword--and he was meant to be ridiculously powerful.


----------



## chaos-in-spades

Honestly, I am more interested in using the topic of vampires as a metaphor, i.e. overindulgence, lust, violence... All of those delightful sins and darker desires that our consciences and inhibitions repress. The "perfection" you see in so-called "vampire literature" nowadays is just frustrating.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Mask said:


> Have become rather sick of the over powered nature of vampires, myself. Especially when they take away their weaknesses to crucifixes and sunlight, and everything else. Dracula, the original vampire, was killed by a sword--and he was meant to be ridiculously powerful.



Seconding this so hard. If there's one thing I _really_ can't stand about the Twilight vamps, it's that they're practically unkillable by everything other than werewolves and other vampires.



chaos-in-spades said:


> Honestly, I am more interested in using the topic of vampires as a metaphor, i.e. overindulgence, lust, violence... All of those delightful sins and darker desires that our consciences and inhibitions repress. The "perfection" you see in so-called "vampire literature" nowadays is just frustrating.



Personally, this is why I like my vampires not totally evil. I dunno about violence, but I like lust, and it's kind of frustrating to see it associated with evil all the time. (Though I went the direct route and wrote a series about heroic succubi instead.)


----------



## chaos-in-spades

Feo Takahari said:


> Personally, this is why I like my vampires not totally evil. I dunno about violence, but I like lust, and it's kind of frustrating to see it associated with evil all the time. (Though I went the direct route and wrote a series about heroic succubi instead.)



I have considered writing a novel about vampires with this is mind. (Mind you, this was a few years ago, when I was a young teen, so I believe I wouldn't have been able to tap into the kind of depth I would of liked to). It's why I give credit I give to J.K. Rowling for using Remus Lupin's werewolf gene as a metaphor for AIDs. You can treat vampirism as an affliction and not as a moral alignment. I would prefer to read about a vampire who is a "creature of the night" due to the darker urges he/she possesses, and not because he/she is necessarily evil. It gives more character depth. Like Louie, and yes, to a certain extent, Edward, as they both struggle against their nature; however, the difference is that Louie has more redeemable and *human* qualities than Edward has, who is made out to be more *inhuman*, similar to a god, by Bella. 

I think the perfect writing trick for vampire fiction is comparing vampires to the shadow, the bad qualities within each human, and exposing them.

Heroic succubi sound awesome!


----------



## BenGoram

Mask said:


> Have become rather sick of the over powered nature of vampires, myself. Especially when they take away their weaknesses to crucifixes and sunlight, and everything else. Dracula, the original vampire, was killed by a sword--and he was meant to be ridiculously powerful.



Yes! I think if mortals don't have a chance against vampires then it makes the whole "masquerade" idea laughable. The whole world should be like Anno Dracula.

If you want the exact opposite of over-powered vampires, check out The Reformed Vampire Support Group by Catherine Jinks. I've been toying with the idea of powerless vampires in my world-building for a while now.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

That being said, I would say that the whole "I'm a bad-ass, all powerful vampire!  'Rawr!'  Come kill me with a stick!" thing drives me nuts.  Laurell K. Hamilton wrote the epitome of this in Circus of the Damned where she had a vampire so old he's supposed to be a Homo Erectus.  Powerful enough to cause earthquakes and be called "Earthshaker" or something like that.  So what does Hamilton do?  Has Anita kill him with a stick. *sigh*  Seriously?

Why is the sexy, brooding, Prince of Pain so popular?  'Cus sex sells.  Has for years.  Why do we love to rip on Twilight?  Because, at least in America, we _love_ to set popular things on pedestals just so we can tear them down.  Look at fan-boy hate on Nickleback.  Why was Twilight so popular?  Sex.  For 3 books, Meyers had readers writhing with the question "Is Bella gonna get some?"

My 2 cents to the Twilight rip...  MY problem with the Twilight books rests on many levels.  Yes, I have read all the books and seen all the movies - my wife/writing partner made me for market research reasons.  She, however, LOVES them and if I ever get her on these forums PLEASE feel free to tease her about it!  

But, I digress.  *e-hem*  Meyers' whole "no sex until marriage" nonsense stems from her Mormon objections to pre-marital sex in a lot of vampire fiction.  She set out to write the Twilight books as a knee-jerk moral reaction to "sin."  Yeah, ok, whatever.  But, shouldn't she at least have written a romantic hero who wasn't emotionally abusive?  What sort of message does that send to teenage girls, as sending a message is just what she sets out to do?  "It's ok if my boyfriend stalks me, breaks into my house to watch me sleep, alternately loves on and then rejects me, and then dumps me and disappears, leaving me in a months' long self-destructive depression.  It's romantic!"  *eyeroll*

Then there is the biology behind her vampires.  They sparkle in sunlight.  Okaaay... it's supposed to make them attractive to their natural prey, which seems to be young girls obsessed with shiny things.  Or maybe magpies.  Takes disbelief bungee jumping rather than merely suspending it, but ok.  However, you're talking about a predator population that lives among its prey - read wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.  Yeah, sparkling in sunshine helps them to hide in plain sight - NOT.  Interesting idea, but not well thought out.

Also, more biology.  They're supposedly living statues, basically?  They crack, but don't bleed.  Ok, I'll buy that.  I'll even buy that they drink blood to survive - sandstone absorbs liquid, so it's lame, but doable.  However, getting a mortal pregnant?  How does a body made of a stoney material with no circulation system produce enough semen-like fluid to inseminate someone?  And don't get me started on erection hydraulics...

And poor Renesmee!  Give her a magical, soul-mate bond at birth, them give her centuries to live while her lover only has a few decades.  Meyers never addresses that one.

We have vampires in our books - lots of them.  We also write urban fantasy.  Our vampires are not undead, just different - not sure if Meyers' are supposed to be undead, maybe just different like ours.  Our vampires are not indestructable, but they're not easy to kill, and they're immortal until they run into something big enough to kill them.  They are flesh and blood, they do bleed, and if you do enough damage they will die - take the head/take the heart = dead vampire.  Our vampires do breed, but only under special circumstances, and they can, rarely, breed with humans, though the resulting Dampyr are fairly weak, tragic creatures.  Imagine having a child of your immortal body, only to loose them to death in a few decades.  Our vampires can eat food, but they need living, humanoid blood every 3 - 4 days to survive.  They just don't need to drain a body to feed.  Have you ever tried to eat an entire 2 gallons or melted icecream in one go?  Human blood has a similar viscosity.  The stomach only holds so much, so it would take more than one vampire feeding at once to bleed a body dry.  Can a vampire tear your throat out?  Sure, but why be wasteful, not to mention an attention-whore?  Our vampires are very much wolves-in-sheep's-clothing, living in the shadows of mortal society.  All our preternaturals are.  In our world, not all the people you pass on the street are people at all - and they all have sound biologies to explain their survival and success, thank you.


----------



## Steerpike

aelowan said:


> Yeah, ok, whatever.  But, shouldn't she at least have written a romantic hero who wasn't emotionally abusive?  What sort of message does that send to teenage girls, as sending a message is just what she sets out to do?  "It's ok if my boyfriend stalks me, breaks into my house to watch me sleep, alternately loves on and then rejects me, and then dumps me and disappears, leaving me in a months' long self-destructive depression.  It's romantic!"  *eyeroll*



Teenage girls aren't morons. You could make the same criticisms of _Buffy_ and any number of other works. Is the idea supposed to be that you can't write characters that readers shouldn't emulate, or just that you can't write characters readers shouldn't emulate if you're writing for teens? I don't agree with either of those statements.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

I now know exactly how I'm going to go about making a really awesome vampire villain.

"Sparklings vampires aren't scary", says the internet? _Challenge accepted,_ says I.



Mask said:


> Have become rather sick of the over powered nature of vampires, myself. Especially when they take away their weaknesses to crucifixes and sunlight, and everything else. Dracula, the original vampire, was killed by a sword--and he was meant to be ridiculously powerful.



As I pointed out before, Dracula could walk around in sunlight just fine, though it reduced his powers. 

As for crucifixes and other Christian symbols, that had more to do with the motifs of the story, Dracula being basically a Satanic type character who essentially declared war on God. It makes perfect sense that he would be repulsed by holy symbols, being a creature born out of a complete rejection of God. On the other hand, someone like Edward Cullen being afraid of crosses would be kinda nonsensical because in his story, being a vampire has nothing to do with religion.

Anyway, swords can kill _anything_, if you get a good shot in. It's the universial weakness. I'm pretty sure that's some sort of rule.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Steerpike said:


> Teenage girls aren't morons. You could make the same criticisms of _Buffy_ and any number of other works. Is the idea supposed to be that you can't write characters that readers shouldn't emulate, or just that you can't write characters readers shouldn't emulate if you're writing for teens? I don't agree with either of those statements.



You're absolutely right.  Teenage girls aren't morons.  But they _are_ impressionable.  Having been one once, I can attest to this.  I can definately say that the fiction and non-fiction I read, as well as the movies and TV I watched and the music I listened to as a young adult helped to shape much of my adult paradigm towards sexuality and relationships.  That being said, my objection is with Meyers, who set out to be a "good" influence on young female readers.  Doesn't that give her some obligation to portray this relationship in a constructive light?  Instead of presenting a male protagonist who, while having predatory issues consistent with his natute, is loving and supportive, she presents what really is a fairly one-sided relationship where Bella is persuing love and affection from a reluctant and often abusive... I hesitate to call him a "partner," because at no point do they have a partner relationship, but "boyfriend" seems to be a little light and fluffy for the intensity of the relationship she wants to portray.  

On the other hand, Joss Whedon, creator of _Buffy_, just wanted a cute blonde cheerleader to kick vampire butt because in his experience at that point it was funny and incongruous with the current depictions of vampire slayers.  Making her angsty and morally ambiguous was just part of the fun. To quote the series, "She doesn't have issues, she has the subscription."  He at no point set out his characters to be any sort of role-model.  If anything, there is often a sense in the series of a "See this?  This is what NOT to do."

Meyers sets out to tell a morality story, but the message is skewed.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Anyway, swords can kill _anything_, if you get a good shot in. It's the universial weakness. I'm pretty sure that's some sort of rule.



heh heh... You know, I've been going through my various preternatural races in my head, and you're right.  There is nothing in my universe, at least, that can't eventually be killed by a sword.


----------



## Steerpike

aelowan said:


> Meyers sets out to tell a morality story, but the message is skewed.



I don't agree. However, if your argument pertains to the end result (i.e. the effect on the reader), then it doesn't matter what the intent of the author is. The reader that is affected by one is going to be as easily affected by the other. Personally, I feel the idea of the reader/viewer being adversely affected by either of these is far overblown. But to the extent that it isn't, I doubt any reader who would otherwise be negatively affected is going to fail to be negatively affected simply because the author's intent was different.


----------



## Mindfire

Feo Takahari said:


> Personally, this is why I like my vampires not totally evil. I dunno about violence, but I like lust, and it's kind of frustrating to see it associated with evil all the time. (Though I went the direct route and wrote a series about heroic succubi instead.)



How is lust not evil?


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> How is lust not evil?



How is it evil?


----------



## Mindfire

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I now know exactly how I'm going to go about making a really awesome vampire villain.
> 
> "Sparklings vampires aren't scary", says the internet? _Challenge accepted,_ says I.



Although, not technically a vampire, Ben 10: Alien Force has Michael Morningstar, a teenage heartthrob with superpowers that he charges by stealing the life essence of his fangirls. And when his powers are fully charged, he looks like this: 








But beneath that flawless exterior beats the heart of a psychopath, and the show's creator considers him to be Ben's most dangerous enemy.

Now that I think about it, the show's creator also said that Mike Morningstar was "similar" to a vampire, and the character's first appearance on the show was in 2008, when Twilight was at the height of its popularity...


----------



## Mindfire

aelowan said:


> Instead of presenting a male protagonist who, while having predatory issues consistent with his natute, is loving and supportive, she presents what really is a fairly one-sided relationship where Bella is persuing love and affection from a reluctant and often abusive... I hesitate to call him a "partner," because at no point do they have a partner relationship, but "boyfriend" seems to be a little light and fluffy for the intensity of the relationship she wants to portray.



To be fair, Bella isn't a saint either. From what I've gathered, she's whiny, selfish, and emotionally manipulative.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> How is it evil?



By definition.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> By definition.



First definition that came online:



> *lust*
> [ lust ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sexual desire: the strong physical desire to have sex with somebody, usually without associated feelings of love or affection



Not seeing the word "evil" in there. I guess if you have your own personal definition, usually having a religious connotation, then you might define it as evil. But then there's the very answer to the question you posed - not everyone agrees with your definition.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> First definition that came online:
> 
> 
> 
> Not seeing the word "evil" in there. I guess if you have your own personal definition, usually having a religious connotation, then you might define it as evil. But then there's the very answer to the question you posed - not everyone agrees with your definition.



I dont take lust and simple attraction as being synonymous, much like the killing/murder dichotomy.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I dont take lust and simple attraction as being synonymous, much like the killing/murder dichotomy.



Like I said, it's definitional. So the answer to your question of "how is it not evil" is that not everyone adopts your viewpoint and definition of it


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Like I said, it's definitional. So the answer to your question of "how is it not evil" is that not everyone adopts your viewpoint and definition of it



It wouldn't call it definitional so much as semantic. I think the same word is being attached to very different concepts. No one here thinks that sexual attraction is inherently bad (the definition you're using), but I think everyone would agree that sexual attraction that in practice demeans or abuses someone else (the definition I'm using) is definitely a bad thing. What you are calling lust, I would call libido. What I am calling lust, honestly I'm not sure what other word you can use for it.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Mindfire said:


> It wouldn't call it definitional so much as semantic. I think the same word is being attached to very different concepts. No one here thinks that sexual attraction is inherently bad (the definition you're using), but I think everyone would agree that sexual attraction that in practice demeans or abuses someone else (the definition I'm using) is definitely a bad thing. What you are calling lust, I would call libido. What I am calling lust, honestly I'm not sure what other word you can use for it.



I would say the term you're looking for is "sexual predation."


----------



## Steerpike

aelowan said:


> I would say the term you're looking for is "sexual predation."



Yeah, I think that's closer to it. Lust in and of itself doesn't carry a connotation of demeaning or abusing. I think you have to go with something different to distinguish one sort from the other.


----------



## Feo Takahari

The lust derail's interesting, so I hope no one minds if I follow it for a while.

Lust interests me because, of all the seven deadly sins, it's the easiest to convert to "good". Wrath can be loosely matched to righteous fury, and pride to the drive to improve oneself, but lust directly corresponds to love in such a way that the two often can't be separated. Two people who long for each other are, in a sense, bound together, and I tend to be very positive towards that bond in my stories. (_Eternal_, my succubus story, is a direct response to the idea of lust as a sin--several of the characters create their own hell, literally or otherwise, by condemning themselves for feelings that aren't really hurting anyone.)


----------



## Jabrosky

Feo Takahari said:


> (_Eternal_, my succubus story, is a direct response to the idea of lust as a sin--several of the characters create their own hell, literally or otherwise, by condemning themselves for feelings that aren't really hurting anyone.)


I like this idea!


----------



## Mask

Anders Ã„mting said:


> As I pointed out before, Dracula could walk around in sunlight just fine, though it reduced his powers.


 I quite liked that aspect. He was able to mingle with human society and find prey, but was more vulnerable as he did so. Plus, it was only because he was the original vampire--other vampires in that setting couldn't survive in the sun.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> As for crucifixes and other Christian symbols, that had more to do with the motifs of the story, Dracula being basically a Satanic type character who essentially declared war on God. It makes perfect sense that he would be repulsed by holy symbols, being a creature born out of a complete rejection of God. On the other hand, someone like Edward Cullen being afraid of crosses would be kinda nonsensical because in his story, being a vampire has nothing to do with religion.


 I think Rosaries had the same effect in Vampire folklore. Prior to Christianity, it was mostly herbs and rituals, though (including, in some legends, eating vampire ash or blood with bread to ward them off). My feeling is that vampires, in exchange for their power, should take on weaknesses. Things they hate to look at which repels them is something I find interesting about the concept.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Anyway, swords can kill _anything_, if you get a good shot in. It's the universial weakness. I'm pretty sure that's some sort of rule.


 Unfortunately, not with Vampire novels of recent times. Twilight vampires are meant to have some kind of diamond-like consistency, I was told by a fan of the series. Apparently, Twilight vampires are invulnerable to swords, for that reason.

Ann Rice vampires can be cut, but are quoted as being able to move faster than the human eye can see--making any non-vampire-wielded weapon useless against them, seemingly.

I am uncertain if any vampires are killed by human action, in either of the mentioned novel series.



*With lust*, I've always associated it more with cheating, and a selfish willingness to put your sexual desires above ethics. Bram Stoker's Dracula popularized vampires as a creature of lust--hypnotising people and raping them, on multiple occasions within the novel. In recent times, that sexual nature has been slanted positively, emphasizing the youthful and seduction aspects.


----------



## wordwalker

Mask said:


> I am uncertain if any vampires are killed by human action, in either of the mentioned novel series.



As I remember _Dracula_, every vampire killed was asleep in his/her coffin-- Lucy, the "brides," and the Count himself (stuck with knives, not swords, just as the sun was setting and he hadn't quite roused himself).

I've always liked this approach to vampires, emphasizing their raw power and balancing it with crosses (or other talismans if you're writing secularly) and probably daylight (although I know it was only the movie _Nosferatu_ that made it official that sunlight burned them). Make it a battle of wits, whether you can get the cross up in time to live out the night, then track him down by day; the notion of _fighting_ vampires fairly is better left to Buffy and other comic-book levels of hero power.

By my definition,



> Fantasy, even dark fantasy, means a showdown where the villain has a deadly, nasty "gun," and you've got a powerful "gun" of your own.
> 
> Horror means the villain has a deadly, nasty "gun," and you've got a set of antlers.


----------



## Mask

Whoops, meant Twilight and the Ann Rice novels, with that comment. Seems I'm more effected by my illness than I realized.

Wasn't Lucy awake before they staked her? I was rather sure she was. Though, I am forgetful of the details. The vampire brides were slain in their sleep, I recall--but I thought Dracula was actually awake and resisting when he was fatally wounded?

I do agree very much with your ideal of vampires having great strength and weakness, as well as it being more interesting if vampires cannot be fought directly. Sun weakness has been associated with vampires long before film. There are legends about tricking vampires into staying out until the sunrise, so as to destroy them.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

My thing is, how can a predator with a highly intelligent and lethal prey population suvive through the millenia as a viable species if they can be killed by sticks or rendered helpless by the rotation of the earth?  I've always considered such things to be a authorial cop-out.  It just makes it too easy, giving us squishy little mortals such major advantages over a pinacle predator.


----------



## Mask

Well, think of it this way. They can't be killed by guns. There's also no reason they couldn't use swords or guns. That is a really big advantage in their favour.

In good vampire fiction, they don't really stake the vampire while they're awake, ready, and resisting. It's generally when they've tracked them down and gone to a lot of effort to stake them in their sleep.  Driving a stake in someone while they're fighting you, especially if you need to shove it specifically in the heart, and super especially if they're extra strong and fast--is incredibly hard.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Of course you can kill them with guns.  There is a phrase to bear in mind when thinking about ballistics - "In like a penny, out like a pizza."  A shotgun at close range or a high enough caliber round turns a vampire's (or human's, for that matter) head into a fine pink mist.  Ok, maybe that was a little graphic, but my parents are medical people. *shrug*

I've heard it said (by Sherrilyn Kenyon, I think) that you drive a stake through something's heart, everything dies.  But I don't think that's true.  Not enough tissue damage.  A human can survive a perforation of the heart.  I know, I know, the source of the wooden stake derives from Christ's cross, but I don't buy into the religious aspects.  Vampires cross-culturally pre-date most currently practiced religions, so why would a pre-Christian vampire be bothered by a cross or the "light of God?"  Laurell K. Hamilton actually does a fair job addressing this with her vampires, claiming that it's not the denomination that's important, it's having faith in the power behind the object.  But, that only works if you're treating vampires are undead, damned, or whatever.  We have Anglican and Catholic vampires in our series, so we're not utilizing the religious aspect at all.  

But, you're right, trying to stab a super-fast, super-strong being in the chest with a stick is very hard.  Especially since you would need a mallet while you're at it - the sternum sits in front of the heart, and it's a solid bone plate.  Try driving a stick through that with one hand.


----------



## Mindfire

aelowan said:


> My thing is, how can a predator with a highly intelligent and lethal prey population suvive through the millenia as a viable species if they can be killed by sticks or rendered helpless by the rotation of the earth?  I've always considered such things to be a authorial cop-out.  It just makes it too easy, giving us squishy little mortals such major advantages over a pinacle predator.



1. We squishy mortals need massive advantages, otherwise vampires take over the world. Cause and effect and whatnot. So unless you want to tell a story where vampires are the master race, they need weaknesses.

2. Vampires aren't really a "species" that's "evolved". They're either the result of an infectious disease, a supernatural aberration, mutants, or the spawn of Satan, depending on which version you use.


----------



## Mindfire

aelowan said:


> Of course you can kill them with guns.  There is a phrase to bear in mind when thinking about ballistics - "In like a penny, out like a pizza."  A shotgun at close range or a high enough caliber round turns a vampire's (or human's, for that matter) head into a fine pink mist.  Ok, maybe that was a little graphic, but my parents are medical people. *shrug*
> 
> I've heard it said (by Sherrilyn Kenyon, I think) that you drive a stake through something's heart, everything dies.  But I don't think that's true.  Not enough tissue damage.  A human can survive a perforation of the heart.  I know, I know, the source of the wooden stake derives from Christ's cross, but I don't buy into the religious aspects.  Vampires cross-culturally pre-date most currently practiced religions, so why would a pre-Christian vampire be bothered by a cross or the "light of God?"  Laurell K. Hamilton actually does a fair job addressing this with her vampires, claiming that it's not the denomination that's important, it's having faith in the power behind the object.  But, that only works if you're treating vampires are undead, damned, or whatever.  We have Anglican and Catholic vampires in our series, so we're not utilizing the religious aspect at all.
> 
> But, you're right, trying to stab a super-fast, super-strong being in the chest with a stick is very hard.  Especially since you would need a mallet while you're at it - the sternum sits in front of the heart, and it's a solid bone plate.  Try driving a stick through that with one hand.



I don't follow your logic. The power of God and related icons kill vampires because God exists (within the context of the fiction, lets not make this a religion debate), and since God has always existed his power ought to affect pre-Christian vampires too.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I don't follow your logic. The power of God and related icons kill vampires because God exists (within the context of the fiction, lets not make this a religion debate), and since God has always existed his power ought to affect pre-Christian vampires too.



I've read at least one story where the explanation for why a cross was effective was actually the vampires own pre-undead faith, and the power that the cross had to tie into what was still buried beneath them. If that's the rationale, then pre-Christian vampires wouldn't be affected (nor, I suppose, would vampires who were non-Christian in life).


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I've read at least one story where the explanation for why a cross was effective was actually the vampires own pre-undead faith, and the power that the cross had to tie into what was still buried beneath them. If that's the rationale, then pre-Christian vampires wouldn't be affected (nor, I suppose, would vampires who were non-Christian in life).



Ah. Well if that's how the rules of your world work, then it goes without saying that it would be the case. But aelowan did not mention such a specific case.


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> I've read at least one story where the explanation for why a cross was effective was actually the vampires own pre-undead faith, and the power that the cross had to tie into what was still buried beneath them. If that's the rationale, then pre-Christian vampires wouldn't be affected (nor, I suppose, would vampires who were non-Christian in life).



Exactly. My vampires, being pagan, are unaffected by crosses or garlic; instead what hurts them is iron, a common weakness of the Fae (also very non-Christian in nature), and [possibly, haven't canonized this yet] symbols of the Maiden and Mother aspects of the Goddess, since the one who created vampires is the Crone, their antithesis.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Mask said:


> My feeling is that vampires, in exchange for their power, should take on weaknesses. Things they hate to look at which repels them is something I find interesting about the concept.



Fair enough. Though, I personally feel that "weakness" is something relative. If you are using vampires as antagonists (as opposed to protagonists, like Meyer and Rice do) then your vampires strenght and weaknesess must be gauged to what your heroes are capable of.

I mean, if you have something like a very, very awesome vampire hunter who may have some supernatual abilities of his own, stuff like your vampires fearing religious symbols and running water becomes way less appropriate than if your MC is, like, just some lawyer.

My heroes tend to be pretty awesome in general, so in my stories, I wouldn't expect a regular person to stand a chance against a vampire anyway.



> Unfortunately, not with Vampire novels of recent times. Twilight vampires are meant to have some kind of diamond-like consistency, I was told by a fan of the series.



That's actually one of the things I liked the most about Twilight. It's a pretty cool and original idea, which is why I don't really mind the sparkling thing.



> Apparently, Twilight vampires are invulnerable to swords, for that reason.



...What if it's a katana? 

Katanas can cut diamonds, right? I saw it on the internet. 



> Ann Rice vampires can be cut, but are quoted as being able to move faster than the human eye can see--making any non-vampire-wielded weapon useless against them, seemingly.



...What if the guy is, like, a _ninja_?

Ninjas are _really _fast!



Mindfire said:


> 2. Vampires aren't really a "species" that's "evolved". They're either the result of an infectious disease, a supernatural aberration, mutants, or the spawn of Satan, depending on which version you use.



Eh, vampires can be whatever you want them to be.

I'm _pretty _sure there are stories out there where they are an actual species, though I can't name any examples right now.



Ireth said:


> Exactly. My vampires, being pagan, are unaffected by crosses or garlic;



Speaking of garlic, I always thought that made an odd kind of sense. I mean, if you think about it, a severe garlic allergy seems more believable than being afraid of crosses or exploding from sunlight. 

Fun fact: The reason you shouldn't feed your cat or dog anything containing onion is because onions contain allyl propyl disulfide. If you are incapable of breaking down onion compounds (like cats are) allyl propyl disulfide will actually destroy your red blood cells by damaging the hemoglobine molecules, leading to a type of anemia. When I first read that, my immediate thought was: "You could totally weaponize that to fight vampires!"

I also recall reading an amusing take on the garlic thing, where garlic didn't actually kill or repel vampires - it was just that their senses were so much more powerful than a human's that eating garlic completely overwhelmed their sense of taste.


----------



## Mask

Ireth said:


> Exactly. My vampires, being pagan, are unaffected by crosses or garlic; instead what hurts them is iron, a common weakness of the Fae (also very non-Christian in nature), and [possibly, haven't canonized this yet] symbols of the Maiden and Mother aspects of the Goddess, since the one who created vampires is the Crone, their antithesis.


 Garlic was considered good for protecting you against monsters in the early days of the Egyptian kingdom. It continued to be associated as an anti monster/vampire herb till recently.


----------



## BenGoram

Mask said:


> I quite liked that aspect. He was able to mingle with human society and find prey, but was more vulnerable as he did so. Plus, it was only because he was the original vampire--other vampires in that setting couldn't survive in the sun.



That's never stated in the novel. We never see Lucy or the Brides out in sunlight, but there's no reason to assume they would burn. It is stated that Dracula is stronger, but that may also mean he is stronger as a mere mortal (during the day) than the other vampires would be.



Mask said:


> Wasn't Lucy awake before they staked her? I was rather sure she was. Though, I am forgetful of the details. The vampire brides were slain in their sleep, I recall--but I thought Dracula was actually awake and resisting when he was fatally wounded?



Lucy was confronted while awake, but they actually didn't stake her then, just trapped her in her tomb and returned during the day to kill her. Dracula was awake (it's unclear how much he needs to sleep during the day), but didn't have time/power to resist since the sun was just setting.



aelowan said:


> My thing is, how can a predator with a highly intelligent and lethal prey population suvive through the millenia as a viable species if they can be killed by sticks or rendered helpless by the rotation of the earth?  I've always considered such things to be a authorial cop-out.  It just makes it too easy, giving us squishy little mortals such major advantages over a pinacle predator.



Well, humans are highly intelligent and lethal predators, yet we can be killed by "lesser" animals like wolves, especially at night, when we sleep and they're awake. It's certainly not "easy" to do, but neither is it easy to kill a vampire. 



aelowan said:


> I know, I know, the source of the wooden stake derives from Christ's cross, but I don't buy into the religious aspects.  Vampires cross-culturally pre-date most currently practiced religions, so why would a pre-Christian vampire be bothered by a cross or the "light of God?"  Laurell K. Hamilton actually does a fair job addressing this with her vampires, claiming that it's not the denomination that's important, it's having faith in the power behind the object.  But, that only works if you're treating vampires are undead, damned, or whatever.



I think the actual origin for wooden stakes is much simpler. Vampires *rise* from the grave, so folklore dictates you have to pin them down. And then there's the fact that Dracula is Vlad the Impaler, so the whole idea was retconned to derive from him.

I like LKH's approach. I wish more authors took it instead of assuming only crosses work.

OK. I'm done being annoyingly pedantic for now. Forgive a Dracula-nerd.


----------



## Feo Takahari

On the vampires-as-species thing--Japanese authors seem to really like the idea that vampires are another extant hominid species, like a more elegant Bigfoot. (_Chibi Vampire_ is a typical example of this.)


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Mindfire said:


> 1. We squishy mortals need massive advantages, otherwise vampires take over the world. Cause and effect and whatnot. So unless you want to tell a story where vampires are the master race, they need weaknesses.



Maybe vampires have already taken over the world, and just run everything from behind the scenes to keep us tasty little sheep from panicking and ruining the taste.  Now, that would be some scary vampires.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Feo Takahari said:


> On the vampires-as-species thing--Japanese authors seem to really like the idea that vampires are another extant hominid species, like a more elegant Bigfoot. (_Chibi Vampire_ is a typical example of this.)



Also, yes, vampires can be from whatever origin suits the writer and their world.  Some are natural, some are religious (LOVE Ireth's idea for having them made by the Crone, btw)... ours happen to have been created by a Demon Lord tricking an old blood god into breeding with a human, and then getting a friend to tinker magically with the resulting offspring until she was happy with the final product.  She figured that there were mages making were-critters, so what the heck, let's see what she could make.
Vampires don't even have to drink blood.  I've seen them consume souls, psychic energy, sexual energy, dreams... heck, they could feed off the sticky glue on the backs of posties, if there was something predatory about that.  Just think, a  whole world with un-sticky posties!


----------



## Mindfire

aelowan said:


> Maybe vampires have already taken over the world, and just run everything from behind the scenes to keep us tasty little sheep from panicking and ruining the taste.  Now, that would be some scary vampires.



Well if the vampires have already won, what's the point? That'd be like starting off Lord of the Rings, _with Sauron already having killed Frodo and taken the One Ring._ The story is over. Evil won. Roll credits as the children in the audience cry themselves to sleep.


----------



## Feo Takahari

aelowan said:


> Also, yes, vampires can be from whatever origin suits the writer and their world.  Some are natural, some are religious (LOVE Ireth's idea for having them made by the Crone, btw)... ours happen to have been created by a Demon Lord tricking an old blood god into breeding with a human, and then getting a friend to tinker magically with the resulting offspring until she was happy with the final product.  She figured that there were mages making were-critters, so what the heck, let's see what she could make.
> Vampires don't even have to drink blood.  I've seen them consume souls, psychic energy, sexual energy, dreams... heck, they could feed off the sticky glue on the backs of posties, if there was something predatory about that.  Just think, a  whole world with un-sticky posties!



My favorite: ink.



Mindfire said:


> Well if the vampires have already won, what's the point? That'd be like starting off Lord of the Rings, _with Sauron already having killed Frodo and taken the One Ring._ The story is over. Evil won. Roll credits as the children in the audience cry themselves to sleep.



It's only over until someone rebels. Heroes tend to be very reactive--"I have to stop the evil villain's plot!"--so it's sometimes fun to see them take an active role--"I shall plot to overthrow the villain!" (In this case, our heroes could be humans breaking the system from the outside, vampires breaking it from the inside, or even a new breed that hunts vampires--they just need to have or find enough power to destabilize things.)


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Well if the vampires have already won, what's the point? That'd be like starting off Lord of the Rings, _with Sauron already having killed Frodo and taken the One Ring._ The story is over. Evil won. Roll credits as the children in the audience cry themselves to sleep.



You're telling me you can't think of a compelling story line in a world where _Sauron_ won? There are all kinds of stories you can tell in that kind of world. Hundreds of them.

Have you ever read Sanderson's _Mistborn _books? I'll let him describe the idea in his own words, from his website:

"I wanted to take the standard fantasy story I'd read a dozen times - that of a young peasant hero who went on a quest to defeat a Dark Lord - and turn it on its head. What if the Dark Lord won? What if, in the final climactic moments, he killed the hero and took over the world? Hence, MISTBORN. A thousand years ago, the prophesied hero from lore rose up to overthrow a great and terrible evil. Only, he lost, and the Dark Lord took over and has been ruling with an iron fist for a thousand years. Ash falls from the sky in this barren land, and mists come every night, deep and mysterious."


----------



## Mask

If you like orc protagonists, then it works out perfectly. For human stories, it is highly dependant on how many humans are left--assuming they aren't converted into a new kind of orc.

For Dark Lords other than Sauron, there are plenty of historical examples to use.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> You're telling me you can't think of a compelling story line in a world where _Sauron_ won? There are all kinds of stories you can tell in that kind of world. Hundreds of them.
> 
> Have you ever read Sanderson's _Mistborn _books? I'll let him describe the idea in his own words, from his website:
> 
> "I wanted to take the standard fantasy story I'd read a dozen times - that of a young peasant hero who went on a quest to defeat a Dark Lord - and turn it on its head. What if the Dark Lord won? What if, in the final climactic moments, he killed the hero and took over the world? Hence, MISTBORN. A thousand years ago, the prophesied hero from lore rose up to overthrow a great and terrible evil. Only, he lost, and the Dark Lord took over and has been ruling with an iron fist for a thousand years. Ash falls from the sky in this barren land, and mists come every night, deep and mysterious."



I haven't read Mistborn. Perhaps I will. And it's not so much that a plot where evil wins is inconceivable, it's that I can't think of a reason anyone would read it. Such a story can only go in two ways: Star Wars: The Remix or a super-depressing story where we just watch the bad guys be jerks to everyone.


----------



## Steerpike

That's a far too limited viewpoint, Mindfire.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> That's a far too limited viewpoint, Mindfire.



Perhaps it is. But I'm generally not fond of "the hero loses" stories. Probably something to do with my upbringing.


----------



## Mask

Depends on how they're done. Samurai Jack could be seen as a Hero Loses story. Problem with that one was it didn't have an ending (stupid networks...).


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Perhaps it is. But I'm generally not fond of "the hero loses" stories. Probably something to do with my upbringing.



Doesn't have to be a 'hero loses' story. The Dark Lord could have won 1000 years ago, and you can have plenty of stories set within the resulting milieu, including ones where the hero wins.


----------



## Mindfire

Mask said:


> Depends on how they're done. Samurai Jack could be seen as a Hero Loses story. Problem with that one was it didn't have an ending (stupid networks...).



Samurai Jack was awesome! They need to finish it. If Powerpuff Girls can get a new episode years after the fact (I am not kidding) surely Samurai Jack can get one! And I wouldn't count that as an example of the hero losing, because there was always the understanding that he would triumph in the end. It was just a matter of when/how long it would take and what he would have to overcome to get to that point.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Doesn't have to be a 'hero loses' story. The Dark Lord could have won 1000 years ago, and you can have plenty of stories set within the resulting milieu, including ones where the hero wins.



Ohhh. That's a bit different. I thought we were talking about an anti-climactic "Game Over. Lol." type of story.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Ohhh. That's a bit different. I thought we were talking about an anti-climactic "Game Over. Lol." type of story.



Oh. I interpreted the post about vampires having won to mean a story that takes place in a world where the vampires won, but not necessarily being about how they won and squashed everyone like bugs


----------



## A. E. Lowan

I had a nightmare before waking that I'm gonna share here, because I'm the sharing kind.  Yes, this thread is giving me nightmares lol!

I dreamed I was in service to a powerful vampire in a major city.  My cohorts and I were plotting against him, I think to extort money.  One day we stopped to pick up his deposit bag at the bank, a regular errand, and made a discovery.  In the bag were deposit receipts dating back over the last year.  Apparently the bank had put them in the bag by mistake.  He suspected something!  The dream ended while I was going over those receipts, horror dawning.

Now here's the scary part.  Real conflict with a vampire isn't about the physical confrontation.  Irregardless of vulnerablities or advantages, when it's really scary is when it's a chess match with a mind cunning and amoral enough to have survived, and indeed thrived, for centuries in the shadows of a hostile world.  How does a human feel in this world?  How does the oxen bull feel knowing his bretheren in the field are meals on the hoof?  What happens to the oxen when he is no longer of any use?  No matter how well you serve, at the end of the day your boss sees you as food with an experation date.  Not to mention short lived and inevitably replaceable.

No matter how sexy, how "goodie-two-shoes" a vampire is, at the end of the day he still looks at the mortals around him and sees interactive Happy Meals.  I like it!


----------



## Penpilot

Mindfire said:


> Well if the vampires have already won, what's the point? That'd be like starting off Lord of the Rings, _with Sauron already having killed Frodo and taken the One Ring._ The story is over. Evil won. Roll credits as the children in the audience cry themselves to sleep.



There are plenty of stories where the "bad guys" have won and that's the starting point. Take for instance the following movies.

The Matrix - The Machines have won
Daybreakers - The vampires have taken over the world


Actually if you think about it every story that of the form "Evil Overlord/Corporation/Government rules the world and the people must rise" is a story where evil has won. Eg 1984.

If you look at TV

Firefly - takes place within a world where the "bad guys" won.  
Battlestar Galactica. - The whole series is based on the fact that at the beginning the good guys got their asses kicked by the bad guys. 

This is just the stuff that I can come up with off the top of my head. I'll bet there are a gazillion more.


----------

