Tried of vampires being goody two-shoes?

[murersr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.