vampires, who likes them, who doesn't?

[Meyrrek]

I've always preferred the view that Vampires are considered to be wild animals and to be regarded in the same manner as a pack of hungry wolves or a pride of lions. Therefore, you could cover the grey area of Morality and judgment.

 

[korabas]

If the vamps are indeed soulless, evil killers, then yes you would entirely justified in destroying them, if only for reasons of safety. However, there is a fine line here - if we go out of our way to eradicate them does that not bring us closer to their actions, in terms of morality and ethics?

Also, in fiction you would need to consider your characters. Some might be prepared to hunt out and destroy vampires, but most regular people would not have the will to do this outside of self defense, even if it makes sense. Killing living things (or in this case, un-living) is HARD, and will have psychological effects.

 

[mbartelsm]

I love them (with the exception of the tinkerbell/vampire halfbreed).
I find the hole concept of immortality quite interesting, how do they feel time? how do they plan their stuff? do they feel a day as five minutes or simply as a day? is their age an important variable to the previous questions?
That with their mystical powers and weaknesses combined (such as their weakness to the sun and having to be invited to a huose in order to enter, or how in many stories they can hide in shadows), it is all fascinating!
But as much as I like them, I prefer to see them in low fantasy rather than high, vampires are the kind of thing that gives spice to THIS world, even if they don't exist.

 

[Addison]

I like classic vampires. Vlad Dracula a prime example. Vampires today, Twilight being the example, not so much. One because....i can't explain it but I couldn't get through the first book of the series. The werewolves, while the chemistry between them and vampires was interesting, and their inter-pack government was interesting as well was very nice but they didn't follow the full moon thing. Vampires have been stereotyped. One author started the trend and authors followed, brushing and sanding to fit their story, and now authors today are following that example. Being a writer or partially, almost majorly, about being original.

 

[Rullenzar]

Check out the movie "Priest" or "The Priest" its one of those. It's a pretty nice take on brutal animalistic vamps that have a hive queen controlling them.

Also the movie 30 days of night. Them some nasty vamps there too.

I have to agree with the spike and angel take. The stories they have are hard to top as they touch base on almost everything. At this point to write a good vampire book you have to completely think outside of the box and recreate them in a different way, different characteristics etc...

Twilight author tried to do this and although there are diehard fans of it, i think its completely absurd. Twinkle twinkle

 

[Endymion]

Love Dracula.
Hate sparkly ones.

 

[Zero Angel]

I love vampires!

Not so much angsty ones though...

 

[korabas]

Speaking of decent vampire movies, has anyone since the fairly recent film 'Stakeland'? It's a bit like 'The Road' but with vampires and lots of violence. It's a pretty good film, and the vamps in it are VERY cool (and not at all sparkly)

 

[rockman]

I don't like modern vampires at all, except for the Buffy and Angel series.

The old type of vampires are much more interesting. They slashed their victims throats with long fingernails instead of using fangs, they couldn't enter peoples homes without being invited, and they were grotesque looking. Then when you wanted to kill them, you had to stake them, cut off their heads, then burn them and scatter their ashes. Some types even had two hearts. They were much more vicious and harder to kill.

You can find old vampire legends in almost any culture, and most of them are pretty cool (and none of them have sparkly vampires).

 

[Zero Angel]

As far as the morality of killing vampires, I try to turn this on its head with a short story I recently wrote. In it, I have a hunter pursuing a blood magus (which is a magickian that uses blood magick and almost inevitably corrupts into a vampire). Both the hunter and the blood magus used to be partners in an undead hunting business until the magicker eventually turned to blood magick to get them out of dicey situations.

Although the blood magus believes his old friend is justified morally in pursuing him, he also believes he is mistaken because he has not gone too far into the blood to come out yet.

Anyway, long short story short, it is revealed that the hunter has been paid by some powerful undead to pursue the blood magus and force him to use more and more blood magick. The hunter is very hedonistic and knows that his friend will not kill him until he has progressed over into the vampire level of blood magick, at which point his contract will be over with the powerful undead and he will try actually try to kill the blood magus/vampire.

So here the hunter is deliberately forcing his friend to turn into a vampire before he kills him...although it's not like he has any shred of morality in the first place--he does it all for money.

 

[Mindfire]

As far as the morality of killing vampires, I try to turn this on its head with a short story I recently wrote. In it, I have a hunter pursuing a blood magus (which is a magickian that uses blood magick and almost inevitably corrupts into a vampire). Both the hunter and the blood magus used to be partners in an undead hunting business until the magicker eventually turned to blood magick to get them out of dicey situations.

Although the blood magus believes his old friend is justified morally in pursuing him, he also believes he is mistaken because he has not gone too far into the blood to come out yet.

Anyway, long short story short, it is revealed that the hunter has been paid by some powerful undead to pursue the blood magus and force him to use more and more blood magick. The hunter is very hedonistic and knows that his friend will not kill him until he has progressed over into the vampire level of blood magick, at which point his contract will be over with the powerful undead and he will try actually try to kill the blood magus/vampire.

So here the hunter is deliberately forcing his friend to turn into a vampire before he kills him...although it's not like he has any shred of morality in the first place--he does it all for money.

See I'm not sure that story is applicable here for two reasons:
1. The blood magus isn't actually a vampire yet.
2. The hunter is an amoral jerk anyway, so whether killing a vampire is wrong or not would be for him a drop in the moral bucket. He's got bigger issues morally for that to much matter now.

 

[Zero Angel]

See I'm not sure that story is applicable here for two reasons:
1. The blood magus isn't actually a vampire yet.
2. The hunter is an amoral jerk anyway, so whether killing a vampire is wrong or not would be for him a drop in the moral bucket. He's got bigger issues morally for that to much matter now.

I may have given away too much of the story in my description. On the surface, the hunter appears to be a moral character and there is little distinction made between a blood magus and a vampire--other than a name--to the reader at first. The story is written to lead the reader to view the blood magus as a bloodthirsty monster and the hunter as a stalwart hero that is forced to hunt down his one-time-friend, with only minor clues that the roles are actually reversed until some monster-like-qualities of the hunter are revealed and some hero-like-qualities of the blood magus are revealed.

 

[BeigePalladin]

I like vampires. I like the idea of them, I like what can be done with them. as for what type, I can't say I have a prefrence - so long as its not stupid and well written

 

[SeverinR]

Vampires? They suck.

Like anything, depends on how they're depicted.

I like vampires in: Nosferatu, Dracula, Lost Boys, Vampire Hunter D.

I hate vampires in: Buffy, Twilight.

Exactly,
Teen vampire shows are cliche and played out, but there are millions of other ways to create a vampire.

Interview with a vampire, Dracula, Let me in, not the traditional cliche vampire story.

You can use a stereotypical vampire in a unique story, or a special vampire in a unique role.
How about a vampire in a world war? How about a story like man without a face but he's uninjured but a vampire that wants to be left alone?

There is no prohibited cliche, just ruts that writers seem to get stuck in.

"Are humans cliche? They have been written about since the dawn of mankind"

 

[Steerpike]

How can Dracula not be the traditional vampire story?

Buffy and Angel are way better than Vampire Hunter D, in my view. There's nothing wrong with those kinds of vampire stories. To some extent, the comparison is misplaced because the former are more comedy/drama presentations. Nosferatu, Dracula, Interview, and so on are not meant to be comedic.

I'm of the opinion that any and all of the above are open to being done and done well.

 

[Reaver]

Twilight set back vampire stories by a thousand years. Meyer wrecked the whole genre for me.

 

[Steerpike]

Twilight set back vampire stories by a thousand years. Meyer wrecked the whole genre for me.

Then you'll be sorry to see another huge publishing deal for something that began as Twilight fanfic:

Twilight Fan Fiction History of Gabriel

 

[Svrtnsse]

I put vampires in my world. For now, they don't have any actual place in any of the stories I'm writing but I put them in anyway. The short summary is:

The vampire is one of the strangest and most mysterious beings known on Aua. Partially aether-based, it is a parasite that lodges itself between its host's physical body and its soul, creating the type of being that's commonly referred to as the vampire. These vampires are creatures of the night; they're over-sensitive to light and they feed on blood. They're powerful magic wielders, they don't die of old age and they're almost impossible to get rid of.

The entire article can be read here.

I hope it's okay I'm posting a link instead of the entire article. If not, please let me know and it won't happen again.

 

[Zero Angel]

Twilight set back vampire stories by a thousand years. Meyer wrecked the whole genre for me.

I disagree Reaver. I think Twilight set back the cultural appetite of teenage girls a thousand years or so (or at least those that succumb to it), but it's kind of like any press is good press. The fact that Twilight brought vampires and werewolves mainstream means that stories about them (even monstrous ones) are much more likely to be picked up and considered than they might have been before.

Is there a stigma around vampires and werewolves now that may prevent people from approaching them...yes I do agree with this. But well, a different stigma has been around the entire fantasy genre for as long as I can remember and the work of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings (the movies, not the books), Twilight and comic books amongst others has been slowly making fantasy one of the most accepted and competitive genres out there.

...at least amongst people that pay for it (publishers, producers, etc).

 

[Steerpike]

I disagree Reaver. I think Twilight set back the cultural appetite of teenage girls a thousand years or so (or at least those that succumb to it), but it's kind of like any press is good press.

I agree with the latter part of the sentence, but not the former. Some teen girls who liked Twilight went on to read more substantive fare. And, of course, millions of adults from early twenties through at least their 50s in age, were also fans of Twilight.