Worst Instances of Vampirism in media

[dehro]

all you say is undoubtedly true..but since the subject of this debate would be a mythological creature that goes back basically all the way to when the first dog dug out an arm of the first of our ancestors to be burried in a shallow grave.. I fear that there cannot be a definite answer that doesn't strongly mix opinion with facts..no matter how heavy the tome you end up quoting may be.

[Drascin]

Well, Nasuverse vampires are... strange.

They do seem to unanimously dislike the sunlight (some it hurts, some it simply does not let them access their full power), and most seem to have the craving for blood, but other than that... it's kind of every man for themselves.

You have the Dead Apostles, who are the more vampireish in themes of predation, unnaturalness, and living through the death of others, but one of them is an (un)living story and disaster wrapped in a blood-obsessed jackass genie, another is a chaotic mass of flesh-eating beasts, a third is a psychotic man who hacked the universe so he could go around hijacking bodies and become immortal, and so on and so forth. However, Dead Apostles are quite clearly monsters for the most part, so at least there's that.

And then you have the True Ancestors, who are... well, kinda like vampirized gods more than anything. They got made from blueprints from the god/goddess/whatthehellEVER of the moon, and inherited his/her/its desperate craving for blood and dislike of the sun - but other than that, they're actually more like Gaia's weapons than undead affronts against the natural order and are more "supposed" to be there according to the "natural" order than humans are, instead of the reverse.

[SmartAlec]

Going back to the Dresden Files and derailing a bit, the White Court feeds on emotions, but why only those three emotions? Lust, fear, and despair? Why not anger, or happiness, or sadness, or jealousy? As best I can figure, them being motivated to "farm" only those three emotions seems to be solely designed as a way to enforce the "noir" genre.

They're referred to as a species of vampire, but it's clear the White Court are actually succubi. They try to keep their theme.

The Black and Red Courts are Stoker vampires and Anne Rice vampires (with a monstrous twist) respectively.

One interpretation of vampire that's pretty curious is that of D&D, with vampires being powered by the negative energy plane.

[dehro]

Just out of curiosity (even though this is rather off-topic), what 6-7 "vastly different depictions of elves" are you thinking of?

uhm..Shakespeare, Eoin Colfe, Tolkien, Terry Pratchett, elf-like creatures in folklore which in turn have at least 2 or 3 different characterisations, depending on what country's folklore you're looking at

you could argue that those all fall under the 2 groups Soras has listed..but I do find that they are very different in nature, in purpose, in level of badassery, in powers, behaviour.. in role in the tales they're in.. so no..I can't really accept such a broad summation

[Socratov]

The problem with mythical races and creatures si the fact that they depend on the teller of the myth or story. to know why a certain creature was depicted in a certain way, you first need to udnerstand the message that the story is meant to convey. if it's a warning you will notice that the creatures are absurdly strong in their domain (for example Bram Stoker's Vampires), but when placed in a certain environment (for the same vampires the dreaded sunlight) they are easy to beat or dead allready. The fact that those same vampires can't come into your house uninvited teaches us a coupel of lessons: go out during the day. stay in during the night and don't invite strange people into your home. Garlick? A very healthy vegetable. Religious symbols? if you are a devout person you will find support from the big man (men/woman/women). Running water? rivers and lakes often were used as boundaries between countries. Not only that, but they were a source of fresh water which made living (you need water to stay alive and it helps grow food) possible. Your heart? Even in medieval times and before, people knew that your heart was one of the most important parts of the body. Put a stake through and surely you won't be able to hop around in a happy fashion. Drinking blood makes you live forever? IN a world where people die from bloodloss all the time (fights with piercing and slashing weapons) blood must surely mean the essence of life.

Now for Twilight (to be honest I havent seen the movies or read the books, but furtunately I know female persons so I have at least a slight grip on the general story). In Twilight we get the whole invitation thing, the 'too good to be true' appearance (hypnotism or glamouring), the drinking blood and thus living forever, no other sustenance required. I distill out of this the following: some prospect boyfriends are too good to be true. If you start anything with them you might have to sacrifice more then you are willing to do. Living forever with your love might be all fun and good, but be careful what you wish for... You might get wat you want and lose what you need.
(for the record I thill think the following on this so-called vampire: he lives in the woods, he flies, he sparkles. Ergo he must be a f*****g fairy!)

The fact that you don't like the aspects of the creature the story is warning you for doesn't make some appearance of said creature in such a medium bad of you choose to ignore the 'why' said creature is described in such a fashion. So instead of 'hating the way they described X in Y', go 'hating the Z, Q is warning me against in Y'.

Edit: The dresdenfiles: those emotions are the safest to use (little retaliation), can be stacked while using, can work addictive in the long (or indeed even short) run and have a lasting couterpart: Lust<>love, fear<>courage, despair<>hope which can protect or abolish the effect. lesson: don't lust but love who you're with, don't fear but overcome it to gain courage and continue to hope to not fall to despair. The emotions used are what makes us mortal, and thus serve as some amount of life force (and thus can be fatal when fed upon too much). The red court uses the old blood=lifeforce recipe and the black coart goes all out with plain old necromancy (literally stealing the literal life force). By using more risky measures (seduction for the whites, drinking blood for the reds and necromancy for the blacks) one gains more powers, but also more vulnerabilities.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Nobody specified any damned time period or degree of importance anywhere. In fact, this thread was created with the idea of every source being important if it applies. You saying that thousands of examples don't count simply because they don't fit with your idea and a few other people's idea of a vampire is kind of galling.

They don't "count" as it were because they largely aren't examples of vampires. They could be relevant in a study of folklore pointing out recurring devices in human storytelling, but even if one supposes a common origin many of them have separated from time and culture. But knowing about hopping corpses or those weird south Asian flying heads won't tell you anything about modern vampire stories.

Using base fact without consideration of their relevance is ignorance of the highest caliber.

I mean, Lief Ericson may not be as famous but he was damn well the first example of a westerner in the Americas that we know of. I mean evidence suggests that some Asian sources were aware of it beforehand but he's the earliest western source and I believe(though may be wrong) the first individual we know the name of to get there. Facts are not popularity contests and cited sources can't be disregarded because they don't fit your viewpoint.

Who's disputing fact?

Fact =/= Important =/= Relevant

Which is the point, they can be related but are not synonymous.

Your entire argument right now is just "Every story running counter to what Scowling Dragon wants is the right way. Everything else doesn't count because it doesn't fit in my argument." and this is a terrible way to argue and would get you laughed out of any credible establishment. If I've misinterpreted you feel free to correct me but please, don't come in here and insult things we like with circular troll-logic and expect to be taken seriously.

Hardly but I came into because I was miffed at the implication that Vampires somehow need the sunlight weakness. That one is a pet peeve of mine because I would like to see it vanish from the mythos. Or trimmed from the "burst into flame" standard. Though I've seen vampire stories with it that aren't bad by any means with them.

There's certainly a fair bit of variation in the details of the vampire myth, but its still a distinct modern mythos with a pretty specific evolution. Most settings put a specific spin, but its like flicking switches on the same panel. At the thematic level though its even closer.

At any rate the vampire is something which diverged from folklore because of Dracula. No not 100% of course, this is literature absolutes are purest nonsense, but with the major percentage being the modern evolution of the vampire started by Stoker, then Dracula, then the other books like Carmilla etc, and then European folklore (Eastern at that) with maybe a single digit or less left for broader influences on humanity through time.

yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..

Such as?

Bear in mind I don't consider say HP's House Elves some kind of terribly distinctive take. They are still very much drawing from fairy traditions, though a closer fit could probably be found under a different name

Though they are more distinct then the trillion and three variation of Tolkien elves in Forgotten Realms alone.

and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.

Hey want to know what was a joke?

But since you went all serious.... such as?

[dehro]

Bear in mind I don't consider say HP's House Elves some kind of terribly distinctive take.

I do.
and that's about where my argumentation ends. It's impossible to compare sources, if personal opinions about those sources have any weight in the debate.

as for different takes.. I have replied to this in a previous post.

[Prime32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobgoblin

[Soras Teva Gee]

I do.
and that's about where my argumentation ends. It's impossible to compare sources, if personal opinions about those sources have any weight in the debate.

as for different takes.. I have replied to this in a previous post.

Hardly if someone was arguing against House Elves because they aren't like Tolkien it would be a silly and baseless claim, because there are two distinct established types.

I don't consider HP's a distinctive from any other "faires called elves" largely because fairies are a more loosely defined and variable group. However while they may have different names and look there's still going to be that distinct "weird" inhuman character of the Fair Folk. The variation seems to be rather the point, but you generally know it when you see it.

Heck to take this full circle its maybe not so baseless give the Tolkien model exclusive rights to being elves. On the grounds that elf meaning anything but that just isn't distinctive enough. I personally would extend some rights to a pre-existing and well established source, provided there isn't a conflict by having both together at the same time.

[Thinker]

I really hate Carmilla. It's a short story about a lesbian vampire of unparalleled beauty who uses her abilities to seduce young women. She can't be harmed by sunlight, weapons, or the like, she can turn into a demonic cat, and can pass through closed doors, though she still must sleep and typically does so at night.. She hates Christian hymns and symbols, but they don't seem to do her any harm. The only way to defeat her is to find her tomb and destroy the body.

[gooddragon1]

No examples here but a justification:
Anyone who saw the movie Avatar (with blue people) may know that people are looking up to characters that are more than Human in capability. Note the rise and popularity of all the superhero movies. So the fact that Twilight gives vampires no real drawbacks is actually what the populace is interested in at the moment.

[Mewtarthio]

I really hate Carmilla. It's a short story about a lesbian vampire of unparalleled beauty who uses her abilities to seduce young women. She can't be harmed by sunlight, weapons, or the like, she can turn into a demonic cat, and can pass through closed doors, though she still must sleep and typically does so at night.. She hates Christian hymns and symbols, but they don't seem to do her any harm. The only way to defeat her is to find her tomb and destroy the body.

A vampire hunter mentioned in the story managed to kill one of Carmilla's progenitors with conventional swordplay. Carmilla herself is quite scared of mortals with weapons, and she generally flees when confronted. Really, the only reason she's able to prey on Laura for so long is that everyone involved is horribly, horribly genre blind.

(Though I'm not sure how Carmilla is relevant. That story predates Dracula by a good quarter-century, so it can't really be a "corruption" of the vampire mythos)

[Jayngfet]

They don't "count" as it were because they largely aren't examples of vampires. They could be relevant in a study of folklore pointing out recurring devices in human storytelling, but even if one supposes a common origin many of them have separated from time and culture. But knowing about hopping corpses or those weird south Asian flying heads won't tell you anything about modern vampire stories.

Using base fact without consideration of their relevance is ignorance of the highest caliber.

Then why is it whenever an encyclopedia of Vampires or undead in general, or any kind of paper or document at all, has time to cite any of them at all they always seem to take the time to point out their similarity to Vampires? You're saying they aren't but for many of them literally any printed word from people who's writings have far more weight than yours say they are.

Who's disputing fact?

Fact =/= Important =/= Relevant

Which is the point, they can be related but are not synonymous.

You don't get to decide what's relevant. You also don't get to decide what does and doesn't count simply because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

Hardly but I came into because I was miffed at the implication that Vampires somehow need the sunlight weakness. That one is a pet peeve of mine because I would like to see it vanish from the mythos. Or trimmed from the "burst into flame" standard. Though I've seen vampire stories with it that aren't bad by any means with them.

There's certainly a fair bit of variation in the details of the vampire myth, but its still a distinct modern mythos with a pretty specific evolution. Most settings put a specific spin, but its like flicking switches on the same panel. At the thematic level though its even closer.

At any rate the vampire is something which diverged from folklore because of Dracula. No not 100% of course, this is literature absolutes are purest nonsense, but with the major percentage being the modern evolution of the vampire started by Stoker, then Dracula, then the other books like Carmilla etc, and then European folklore (Eastern at that) with maybe a single digit or less left for broader influences on humanity through time.

I won't deny a large amount of Dracula influence, but the same eastern european myths also influenced non-vampires and other examples HAVE popped up in media regularly enough that they can't simply be outright ignored, even if there isn't a proportionate amount of representation. Unless you happen to be saying that Vampires based on European myth "count", which I think displays a good amount of prejudice on your part.

Bear in mind I don't consider say HP's House Elves some kind of terribly distinctive take. They are still very much drawing from fairy traditions, though a closer fit could probably be found under a different name

This is your problem. Claiming that they're the same because they follow an incredibly broad sweeping set of traditions, while ignoring that they come from a seperate set of roles in those traditions that gained more prominence during a separate time period is, quite frankly, stupid.

You can't say they're the same as most other folklore elves in media because they're vastly different from many other examples.

[SoC175]

Spoiler

Show

take over the edificant library, pretty much THE holiest spot in lore at the time. It would be like walking into the vatican and declaring, "This place belongs to satan now", AND MAKING IT HAPPEN! He desecrated it so completely, even the most powerful priest of the main god the place was devoted to, could barely even use his holy power inside.

IIRC the head priest had him at the brink of destruction in a heartbeat and he only survived because a jealous lesser priest snapped and stabbed his superior in the back just as he was about to destroy the pesky vampire

[Soras Teva Gee]

Then why is it whenever an encyclopedia of Vampires or undead in general, or any kind of paper or document at all, has time to cite any of them at all they always seem to take the time to point out their similarity to Vampires? You're saying they aren't but for many of them literally any printed word from people who's writings have far more weight than yours say they are.

Maybe because people that write encyclopedias like to draw connections with familiar things? And with the right context that can be relevant. Even within more familiar mythology you can often draw similarities. Compare and contrast the vampire and the succubus/incubus. In practice they use plenty of the same themes.

The "problem" to use that term loosely is that humanity is on the whole not that creative. Completely separate humans will produce similar ideas. There's the school of thought that there are something like no more then like 7 (or whatever) stories period. Thing like the Hero's Journey structure and all that.

While not untrue the problem with such generalism should/does have limits. As "They're all the same" which that sort of analysis lend itself too is lovely but its no suitable tool to understand say True Blood and what its working form. Or any other specific example. One could start at the most universal level but going down to the more specific taxonomy of the work would have increasing specific branches.

You don't get to decide what's relevant. You also don't get to decide what does and doesn't count simply because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

What's relevant is what is relevant.

I just point it out.

The problem with the vampiric (as opposed to vampire) myths around the world isn't that they are untrue its that they aren't relevant because they are of insignificant influence on the modern vampire myth. Bringing them out doesn't help one understand what vampires in modern media are. Ergo its irrelevant.

There's not a serious debate in western media over whether vamps should be stiff corpses that need hop around versus detachable flying heads. So those myths are not relevant.

(Well maybe in places where the disparate myths are welded together, I know jiang shi sometimes drink blood from imported vampire myths... but the reverse is so far even less often the case. And this is welding functionally separate myths together anyways)

I should also point out you are trying to declare what's relevant same as me.

I won't deny a large amount of Dracula influence, but the same eastern european myths also influenced non-vampires and other examples HAVE popped up in media regularly enough that they can't simply be outright ignored, even if there isn't a proportionate amount of representation. Unless you happen to be saying that Vampires based on European myth "count", which I think displays a good amount of prejudice on your part.

Vampires are based on european myth, codified by Dracula, and then evolved in pop-culture are what is meant by vampire. You just don't HAVE outside influences on that chain.

I find trying to ignore or minimalize very irritating. Its a tendency to blindly take anything that isn't one-hundred percent absolute platonic truth and culturally stewing it not until there's a healthy stew mix... but until it all turns to tasteless gruel.

We can know things.

We can make distinctions on what is or isn't something.

This is your problem. Claiming that they're the same because they follow an incredibly broad sweeping set of traditions, while ignoring that they come from a seperate set of roles in those traditions that gained more prominence during a separate time period is, quite frankly, stupid.

You can't say they're the same as most other folklore elves in media because they're vastly different from many other examples.

HP ones are dubiously elves (given they fit other fairies with a different name better) but the very fluidity of fairy terminology gives it a sort of weight. Or maybe an exception. If you want to be less inclusive then one is left with saying that they aren't elves, they're hob/brownies/goblins with elf written on a piece of paper taped over the name plate.

Of course the slashes are why I don't do that and why elf is. Fairy's are more sweeping because there's more that has to be covered to arrive at useful analysis. Its an area of myth that is over-saturated with variation. Its a place where generalization is required to have get to any kind of understanding in a timeframe like here.

And of course to return to the original point of the tangent... none of those fit Tolkien's elves who in contrast to sweeping fairy tradition are more specific creatures. If I had to put it in a single trait it would be the Tolkien elves are human. They don't do things for strange little reasons that just are, like responding to gifts of clothing. Their 'magic' is really just a skill. They are more like 'real people' with a couple of differences and some advanced knowledge.

The objection that something isn't an elf because it doesn't follow the Tolkien model is still silly. However that model (and its variations) are the still the most coherent model. And that's pretty sweeping too, just no one has chosen to argue that Moon and Sun elves from Forgotten Realms are significantly different takes on elves yet. Look one type is blonde and extra arrogant, the other is pale with dark hair and arrogant. Totally. Different.

However since you can't discuss elves as a type with such distinctions they are filed right off.

[dehro]

the ease with which you sweep what you like and tell others that they cant' sweep what you don't want to be swept is quite something..
and I'll refrain from commenting on the "what is relevant is relevant, I just point it out" bit..because it's not in my character to get worked up about people over the internet.
if it was..I'd probably be seething.

that said, I'm done with this. clearly we're in disagreement..actually no..clearly you are in disagreement with just about anybody else who doesn't see things exactly your way..
your manner of swapping sources, facts and opinions around to further your arguments leaves me a bit incredulous as to your intellectual honesty, and I don't see any further chance of constructive debate.

good day

[Soras Teva Gee]

the ease with which you sweep what you like and tell others that they cant' sweep what you don't want to be swept is quite something..

You can sweep all you damn well like and I will agree and disagree accordingly.

Both broader definitions and more specific definitions are called for depending on particular context.

I'm not seeing much actual asserting of points, be they arbitrary, useful or otherwise.

Thus far you two have been arguing less for what vampire are and more that they can't be anything because they are everything. If that last bit sounds circular to you then have something of why I disagree with the idea.

[Morph Bark]

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

Point of order!

I did not.

I brought up Ericsson and Columbus!

(Also I am a he, the ponytar isn't exactly suggestive though, can't make out the head shape)

[Jayngfet]

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

It's mainly another example people keep bringing up, and it's a perfect one to use against Soras here simply because he's made sweeping generalizations on the subject in this thread, which are immediately contradicted by others.

Really though I have much better things to do with my time than try to argue with somebody who's proven time and again they can't handle mature discussion or talking things out like an adult. I'm going to suggest Soras be ignored indefinitely or until he can back up his arguments with things that aren't opinion and nothing else.




Back to the original point, I think the Monster Hunter series had a nice take on vampires. They CAN be killed, like any other form of undead, but they're fierce as hell, like any other form of undead beyond the most brainless and shiftless zombies. The amount of firepower brought to bear against even newly formed Vampires tends to be ...excessive. It helps that they look like they justify it at every turn, since instead of two neat little mosquito bites they feed by tearing open the entire throat. Because fangs like that aren't just for neat little wounds. It's also amusing that about half their body count comes not from prey hunted, but from vampire fanboys who assume they aren't so bad.

They do however get killed fairly regularly. With proper cleverness and enough VERY big guns it tends to be something very much achievable.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I don't really care about how a work of fiction represents vampires, only whether or not I enjoy that work of fiction. So despite preferring more folklore based vampires for my own settings I'm happy to enjoy irreverent works like Karin.

I refuse to hate Twilight because:

1. I've never been unfortunate enough to know anyone who liked it and wasn't completely aware of its flaws.

2. I've never read it and hate being told to hate things just because its popular to.

3. I really can't see the difference any more between people who hate Twilight for being a bad influence on young/middle aged women and people who hate Harry Potter for promoting Satanism.

I think that basically comes from people starting to use vampires as trite metaphors for sexual minorities, as opposed to their original "modern" role, starting with Stoker, as trite metaphors for sexual criminals.

Dracula's an evil eastern/central/southern European immigrant, so its not like Stoker wasn't using him to represent a minority.

Underworld kinda gets a little of this nuisance from me too, suggesting that a vampire is just like a werewolf only bat instead of wolf, and not shapeshifting, and vulnerable to sunlight instead of silver, but somehow they're still both two lineages from a single progenitor. W/e.

The distinction between vampires, werewolves and witches tends to be pretty thin in folklore. Often a vampire is just a dead witch or werewolf, and shape shifting powers are incredibly common while anything exactly the same as the modern concept of a werewolf is pretty much absent.

All that being said, the lesser vamps had the standard weaknesses to sunlight, holy water, blessed items, but the master was basically able to either ignore, or just be somewhat weakened by any of them.

I always preferred the variant to this where the really powerful vampires are more bound by the weaknesses and its the younger weaker ones who can get away with walking around in sunlight.

IT just bugs me that years, or even centuries, of murder and bloodshed are swept aside cos they feel bad one day. Not that the atoning vamp story is bad. But at times casual killing is ignored and that bugs me.

The last series of the (original British) Being Human had a nice take on that, where the 'good' vampire has lived a very long time and has a tendency to spend a century as an evil monster, then feel guilty and go all pacifist for 50 years before relapsing and becoming a monster again. Nobody who knew him as a monster has any sympathy for him and just expects him to go evil again at the drop of a hat.

Which might just have been a parody/stab at Whedon's Angel.

Bram Stoker did his research

so well that he describes Romania's greatest folk hero as a Hungarian. The name Dracula comes from a Hungarian order of merit given to Vlad the Impaler's father, but that doesn't make either of them Hungarian any more than (honorary) Sir Steven Spielberg is British or French.

Your choice..but you can't expect everybody else to abide by it. (I prefer Polidori)

My problem with Polidori is this:

Take any friend. Describe the events the happen to the protagonist of The Vampyre to him/her.

I really hate Carmilla.

The only way to defeat her is to find her tomb and destroy the body.

That's pretty much the standard way to kill vampires if you read any actual folklore. Carmilla was a lot better researched than Dracula, which was basically a rip off of Carmilla with a ton of Irish witch lore added in (yeah, most of Dracula's powers/weaknesses aren't actually based off vampires at all). All the vampires in Dracula save for the title one also die in the exact same way and Dracula himself is only a variant (killed by knives while his coffin is transported on a cart).

Vampyr (1932) is an interesting film loosely based of Carmilla that basically ignores all the movie stereotypes and goes straight for a folkloric basis.

A vampire hunter mentioned in the story managed to kill one of Carmilla's progenitors with conventional swordplay. Carmilla herself is quite scared of mortals with weapons, and she generally flees when confronted.

Nah, Carmilla acts tired and weak all the time, but she only 'flees' after completely and utterly subduing a hardened soldier in a matter of seconds (with some kind of strength draining touch, which is the closest fictional equivalent I can find to the ridiculous level drain on touch power of D&D Vampires).

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

Elves have a lot to do with Vampires actually, fairies and the undead not really being separate in Gaelic lore. The Baobhan Sith is a blood sucking Scottish fairy that may or may not also be a kind of ghost.

[Thinker]

A vampire hunter mentioned in the story managed to kill one of Carmilla's progenitors with conventional swordplay. Carmilla herself is quite scared of mortals with weapons, and she generally flees when confronted. Really, the only reason she's able to prey on Laura for so long is that everyone involved is horribly, horribly genre blind.

(Though I'm not sure how Carmilla is relevant. That story predates Dracula by a good quarter-century, so it can't really be a "corruption" of the vampire mythos)

Carmilla was attacked with a sword and escaped unharmed. She seemed to flee because she was worried about being harmed by conventional weapons, but never seemed to be actually affected by those weapons. Her progenitors were destroyed because their bodies were destroyed in their tombs.

I brought it up because there were instances of the OP's issues with vampires even before the seminal work of vampire fiction.

[Lord Seth]

I don't really care about how a work of fiction represents vampires, only whether or not I enjoy that work of fiction. So despite preferring more folklore based vampires for my own settings I'm happy to enjoy irreverent works like Karin.

I feel similarly. Honestly, I see no issue with vampires being as super-powered as was being complained in the original post. I always find it amusing when people complain about how in a work of fiction (e.g. Twilight) vampires aren't killed by the sun when that trope didn't even exist until Nosferatu.

Carmilla was attacked with a sword and escaped unharmed. She seemed to flee because she was worried about being harmed by conventional weapons, but never seemed to be actually affected by those weapons. Her progenitors were destroyed because their bodies were destroyed in their tombs.

I brought it up because there were instances of the OP's issues with vampires even before the seminal work of vampire fiction.

While I haven't read the book itself because the thing is apparently longer than War and Peace, from what I've heard about it, Varney in Varney the Vampire (another story that predated Dracula) was pretty indestructible also. It took falling into a volcano to actually kill the guy.

[Mewtarthio]

Carmilla was attacked with a sword and escaped unharmed. She seemed to flee because she was worried about being harmed by conventional weapons, but never seemed to be actually affected by those weapons. Her progenitors were destroyed because their bodies were destroyed in their tombs.

I was thinking about this:

“The stranger, having seen all this, came down from the steeple, took the linen wrappings of the vampire, and carried them up to the top of the tower tower, which he again mounted. When the vampire returned from his prowlings and missed his clothes, he cried furiously to the Moravian, whom he saw at the summit of the tower, and who, in reply, beckoned him to ascend and take them. Whereupon the vampire, accepting his invitation, began to climb the steeple, and so soon as he had reached the battlements, the Moravian, with a stroke of his sword, clove his skull in twain, hurling him down to the churchyard, whither, descending by the winding stairs, the stranger followed and cut his head off, and next day delivered it and the body to the villagers, who duly impaled and burnt them.

Granted, the hunter had a vastly superior tactical position in that fight, but weapons can still hurt those vampires. As I recall, Carmilla herself mostly just evades attacks before fleeing.

I brought it up because there were instances of the OP's issues with vampires even before the seminal work of vampire fiction.

Ah. That makes sense, then.

While I haven't read the book itself because the thing is apparently longer than War and Peace, from what I've heard about it, Varney in Varney the Vampire (another story that predated Dracula) was pretty indestructible also. It took falling into a volcano to actually kill the guy.

Don't let the length of the book put you off. Let the terrible, terrible writing style do that for you, instead. Varney's powers are wildly inconsistent. In one chapter, he gets "killed" by a single bullet until he regenerates in the moonlight. In another, he takes a bullet without flinching, then gives the bullet back to his assailant and offers to let him try another shot.

[Tergon]

My personal distate for Twilight is twofold. Firstly, have you ever tried to read those books? I'm sorry, but they are just awful. I'm not saying I could do better, not by any means, but the plot drags on in a predictable direction using stupid cliches with one-dimensional characters and no real story beyond "A loves B but oh no there is a secret keeping them apart." The story doesn't have to involve Vampires for me to dislike that. It could be a contemporary piece about a Catholic girl loving a devout Muslim boy, or it could be set in space about a human girl loving an alien boy, or it could be set in the middle ages about a peasant girl loving a noble boy. I would still find the plot achingly, grindingly boring, and that's without touching the fact that I just found it to be a really badly-written story. Again, I don't know if I could do better, but... well, I'm not an architect, but if I saw a house that looked like it was going to collapse, I'd say the guy who designed it did a bad job. Same concept with a badly written book, I'll say the author really didn't impress me.

The other reason I don't like it is because of how Vampires are portrayed, but it's not necessarily that I think Vampires need to work a certain way. Or rather, it is, but not quite so blunt as that.
What I dislike is an author wh's not creative enough to come up with a new concept for a story, but is arrogant enough to steal and then warp an existing concept. Twilight wasn't a creative new spin on the Vampire mythology. The characters very specifically state that the mythology is wrong, and that real vampires work differently in the Twilight universe. And that's just... lazy. Yes, okay, Vampires dying in sunlight is a concept that came from Nosferatu, but they were always weakened by it, which is why they came out at night. They always had weaknesses and strengths that could be exploited. There are, for want of a better term, rules to how Vampires work, even if those rules may vary slightly from creation to creation. And above all else they were always predators.
I don't like the idea of taking two parts of the mythology (Immortal, drinks blood), mixing in a bunch of random crap (sparkly in sunlight, super speed and strength), taking away all vulnerabilities short of being dismembered or incinerated, and saying "No, still totally counts, see?" Because I'm sorry, it damn well doesn't. A cat has two eyes and sharp teeth; that doesn't mean I can say it's basically a shark. The creatures in Twilight are not recognizable as vampires for any reason beyond immortality and the fact that they feed on blood. So why bother to call them Vampires at all? Why not call them Fey, why not call them Old Ones, why not call them Snazzwogglers form the planet Darfingus? Any of these work just as well without trying to cash in on the Vampire mythology that the story explicitly and deliberately discards. Calling them Vampires when all of the mythology surrounding Vampires until then has been ignored is, quite simply, lazy. It's just using a name the reader might be familiar with to draw them in, and it's pointlessly complicating the existing and traditional mythology by applying the name Vampire to something that doesn't really fit it.

In short, I dislike Twilight because I just plain don't like it. And I don't like their version of Vampires because I think it's poorly handled. So as much as there are people out there who might abuse the story or the movies just on principle, I'm speaking as a self-admitted horror nerd and buff who gave this a legitimate chance and found it to be just plain awful.

[Socratov]

something funny just occurred to me: in Dresden it is said the White court had Bram Stoker write Dracula so people could put a stop to black court vampires. What if Twilight is the one issued for extermination of the white court?



(insert conspiracy Keanu meme where appropriate)

[Cikomyr]

There is a series of books called The Cleric Quintet. In the last book,

Spoiler

Show

Kierkan Rufo becomes a master vampire.

Generally speaking the vamps are fairly standard, but the master vamp named in the spoiler can turn into green mist to avoid physical damage, can summon wolves, can create either vamps subserviant to him, or turn those he kills into zombies. He was even able to

Spoiler

Show

take over the edificant library, pretty much THE holiest spot in lore at the time. It would be like walking into the vatican and declaring, "This place belongs to satan now", AND MAKING IT HAPPEN! He desecrated it so completely, even the most powerful priest of the main god the place was devoted to, could barely even use his holy power inside.

He was even able to stand up to daylight during the grand finale. Simply because he was that damn powerful. Oh yeah, he took at least one magical and blessed weapon to the heart, and proceeded to remove it from his body by forcing the arm of the person holding it to remove it. Said person was physically the strongest being not a vamp in the quintet, and he totally overpowered this person capable of shattering massive stone blocks with their face, while having a magic dagger in his heart.

All that being said, the lesser vamps had the standard weaknesses to sunlight, holy water, blessed items, but the master was basically able to either ignore, or just be somewhat weakened by any of them.

Except that this specific vampire was more than just a "Master Vampire". He was also fully empowered by what was probably considered to be the most powerful artifact of a specific God.

Basically a God-Chosen Master Vampire. I think we can excuse the range of power he reached. Although Deneir helps us if he ever had put his hands on Crenshinibon, which absorbed daylight.

[Eldan]

something funny just occurred to me: in Dresden it is said the White court had Bram Stoker write Dracula so people could put a stop to black court vampires. What if Twilight is the one issued for extermination of the white court?



(insert conspiracy Keanu meme where appropriate)

Unlikely, really. Stoker makes Dracula rather undesirable, and lists his weaknesses. Meyer makes the White Court (if htey are the white court) wonderful and sexy, and makes them much harder to kill than the real ones are.

[Yora]

As much as I love Mass Effect 2, Morinth is a very strong contender for my own most disliked vampire outside of Twilight.

Strangely, others of her kind that are shown later on seem to be relatively normal people who just happen to carry a lethal sexual disease, but Morinth is just silly.

[Traab]

let me re-iterate.. Polidori.

also, what Jayngfet said.


yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..
and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.

Honestly? I can only think of a couple main forms of elves. Tolkein-esque elves. Ancient, beautiful, wise, yadda yadda. Or the fae. Chaotic, mischievous, some good, some evil, random assortment of appearances, just as likely to take advantage of a stupid wish said out loud as they are to do you a favor, that sort of thing. There are a few different sets, like the drow for example, and a few tweaks on the standard elf, like for example, david webers elves are near suicidally depressed beings because of what amounts to PTSD. But for the most part, those are the two main types of elves I see. A few details changed do not create an entirely new elf, you can still see the baseline that was drawn from.

And that, to me, is the real issue with new vamp hate. Its like suspension of disbelief in a way. You can only stretch the material so far from the source before the acceptance snaps. Its hard to draw a firm line in the sand and say, "On this side I can accept the vamp description. On this side, no, its too much." As everyone has a different tolerance for these kinds of things. And yes, there are far more sources than bram stoker, the problem is, unless you are big into vampire lore, or otherwise have had access to the more obscure or lesser known myths, bram stoker style vamps ARE the baseline. Just as much as tolkien and the fae are the baseline for elves. So departing too far from the dracula style is treated as creating a race of hairy rage monsters that like to rape pillage and plunder, and calling them elves. Its just a huge 'wtf?!" moment for most people that wouldnt likely earn a lot of acceptance.