I disagree. I think liking sparkly vampires is indicative of being underexposed to vampire literature and having poor taste. It's their problem.
The only good vampire story I've ever read is Dracula. Honestly, he was the most "human". Other people either make them stupid *cough*Twilight*cough*, or too "bad-ass" (Vampires with swords wrought of flames and who are the lords of death and can raise undead, have "cool" unpronouncable names and dark gloomy castles which they inhabit alone, save for their skeletal minions). Dracula's middle ground, he's dangerous albeit "normal", he passes off as a human quite easily (until he tries to murder the protagonist).
The main problem is that there is this pre-conception that there is only one way to portray vampires. Perhaps some readers are 'under-exposed' to vampire literature, but at the same time certain tropes have been pushed as universal truths when in fact they are just one version of vampires (Hollywood is certainly not an authority on the matter, it's better to ignore them in fact). Bram Stoker's Dracula grew pale and weak in daylight, and time was that you had to stake, chop up into little pieces, burn to ashes and then spread across holy ground a vampire - a stake merely stopped them escaping from their coffin. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Twilight, but then that romantic stuff (if it can be called romantic given the issues I've heard about it) never interested me anyway. Morning debrief: "Let's see, staked through the heart - check. Chopped up into pieces, check. Burnt on a roaring fire - check. Spread over holy ground - oh crap!" *Hears angry wrapping on the door*
I agree completely. Most recent fantasy works tend to be part of overly longs series of mediocre quality that diminishes further as it progresses, titles tend to follow an "X & Y" (and with a relatively small pool of nouns, too, like "Swords", "Magic", "Honour" and "Legend") naming structure and are so Tolkien-esque they no longer are because Tolkien was an innovative and brilliant man and writer while these new ones merely are brainless copycats. There's a limit to how many dwarves, elves, orks, fairies, werewolves, vampires etc. we can be treated to whilst also having to stand the various punctuation shakers these authors include in their characters' names and the stories tend to share so few differences from eachother that the only two meaningful distinctions are the bastardisations of the The Lord of the Rings /Discworld-like high fantasy genre and the more Harry Potter / Percy Jackson-influenced urban fantasy version. Of course one may contend that merely the majority of these books are bad and that this is necessary for us also to have the good books too, such as the four I mentioned above; it is however, I think, not too much to ask of writers that they try to be a tiny bit more inventive in the future if they hope of quality and success. The novels and series that become popular and noteworthy tend to differ from the amateurish ones in that the writing is of actual, almost undoubtedly, quality with the most important factors being strong, unique characters, a sensible plot that is interesting, new and doesn't rely on all the characters being absolute idiots for not solving it by the end of the first chapter of the first instalment and that the setting is not so stereotyped as to leave us wondering how it could possibly have avoided copyright infringement, but is an innovative and ingeniously crafted world so as to conform to its own rules and have us be in awe and wonder of it's magnificence and so that we are left wanting to learn more after each finished sentence. It makes me sad to imagine that maybe we simply aren't smart enough readers to buy the well-written works and to not support the others. Maybe our system of book stores, online book buying, advertising or author revenue sources etc. are deterring authors from writing quality literature because the fact the book exists and the publisher, the places it's sold and the cover are more important that what's actually written inside it. But hopefully I'm wrong or we will at least solve this through the economic evolution that is capitalism and those of us who are writers will learn from past successes and failures alike and be able to create some amazing stories for the millennia to come, be it fantasy or not.
I also find that when you take the modern vampire (ignoring Twilight, just most Vampires in fiction) it's a clusterf- of all the mythos. Like, maybe in England they believe vampires can't be seen in mirrors, in Germany they belive they drink blood but don't believe they can be seen in mirrors, in Scotland they believe they have to knock at doors and nothing else... (Merely examples, I doubt I got any of those right). Which gives us a white individual who can only go out at night, does not like heat, sunlight or crosses, can turn into any animal at will, drinks blood, counts every single grain of rice if he sees them, must knock at doors of a home to enter (what the hell!?), are more powerful on nights of a full moon, etc... There's so many details, that any vampire movie/book/etc could be quickly ended if the protagonist as a cross necklace, a bible and a small bag of rice!
It's not the debasement of the mythos that makes Stephanie Mary-Spew Meyer such an insufferably sh*tty addition to vampire literature, it's everything about her books. I don't especially care what kind of creature you portray in your writing, but if you attempt to depict them as evil/'I'm a killer, Bella' and then make them sparkle majestically in the sunlight for no other reason than 'look how beautiful I am, how could I ever show my face in the sunlight?' GAG. Plus horrendous writing, two dimensional characters, plot holes galore, you name it. I'm with the others who say it doesn't matter what you write. It's how you write it. I could have said I was bored of witches and dragons a couple years back but I flipping love Game of Thrones right now, so whatevs. A good story is a good story.
The thing is, Martin uses them sparingly. It's not "HOLY SHIT A DRAGON OH NO IT'S DESTROYING THE CITY!", and you don't find wizards in every street corner. But yes, WHAT you write about does matter somewhat. A novel whose plot is about vampires who live on a giant carrot on mars and have adventures eating tomatoes would never be a good book.
Just making sure. For me, it's the fact that it's primarily a love story aimed at teenage girls, or thereabouts. I get far more out of Buffy than Bella - at least in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it isn't all about Buffy's relationship with Angel, there is significant variety in her relationships and the focus of the stories. I'm currently working on my own 'were' creatures inspired by Japanese fox folklore. A lot of effort is going into creating the culture due to my original intent being figuring out how such a culture might actually work. I'm not going regurgitate modern-day Western society or cliché medieval-esque societies, I'm going for exploring different cultural viewpoints. There will be nothing Hollywood about my were creatures, and nothing of the horror element either. Really? If someone has the talent of T.S. Elliot, we could get some amazing poems out of that. Never say never...you might end up looking a little silly. Always err on the side of caution when it comes to literature.
I can imagine it could work fine as humorous book, especially if it was for kids. Count Duckula was a British 80s cartoon about a vampire duck who lived in a castle that could teleport anywhere in the world. Because they'd used ketchup rather blood in his latest reincarnation, he was a vegetarian, very keen on broccoli. He lived with his butler Igor, who was a vulture and his nanny who was a hen. I think it was good.
Well I don't personally read any vampire literature. I remember when I first heard of the sparkles I was like... whaaaaaat? Seriously, Meyers should've just gone for "nothing happens to them in sunlight." As bad as the movie Underworld 2 was, I thought it was rather cool when Kate Beckinsale stood beneath the rising sun at the end of battle. How do you spell Beckinsale? Beckingsale? Something else?
Fred Saberhagen had a great take on Dracula in his series featuring that character. "The Dracula Tape" is a hilarious version of Stoker's story told from Dracula's point of view.
Considering these requirements and the fact that i throw in a new race as well (it's fantasy btw, not urban fantasy) i guess that means my book will be a best seller . (just kidding -my readers will have to determine that)
Common elements like wizards, werewolves, etc, etc, etc. In either Urban or Classic fantasy works good while well used. Not because they're overused elements they have to work the same way. Also regarding that viewpoint of "Impossible to have a fantasy without those elements" I totally disagree, you can pretty much write a complete fantasy (of any kind) excluding the overused elements, ya need a bit of imagination that's all. In other words, don't limit yourself to that thinking.
I don't quite understand this part of your post. If you mean to say wizards, werewolves, etc, have to work a certain way, I'd have to completely disagree with you. One of the earliest werewolf stories - the Tale of Bisclavret - had absolutely none of the hallmarks of current popular versions; yet other versions, such as in Lithuania, had werewolves fighting on the side of God against evil. My own 'were' creatures aren't even wolves nor are they a curse.
Now THAT's original! I'd read it! What gets me is fantasy can be about ANYTHING. Anything at all, that's not 'real life.' So why are so many writers—published and otherwise—copying each other? Ermmm... perhaps because one version sells another? You need to pitch to an agent that your book is just like the last one they sold... Aargh. Don't get me started.
I think that when many people used the term "Fantasy" they don't mean "Not everyday life", but more something that might be termed "Middle Earthing". They are all the same just as murder mysteries are the same because that was the intention of the author, just as Star Trek Fan Fiction looks like Star Trek. If you showed them a book about carrot eating vampires, they probably wouldn't recognise or consider it as fitting in the genre of "ME Fantasy"© as it exists in their minds.
Ha ha! I love 'Middle Earthing." I think I'll use that term from now on. Wonderful. Now, do we also have "Twilighting" and "Game of Throning" as well???
Funny thing, i never read the Twilight series until recently, and i can see why people would flip out and "love" it, but since i have read many books and write myself, i still call myself neutral on that matter. I neither love it nor hate it, but the fact that the actual problem in the story didn't come until the end really bugs me. Okay quick query, has anyone heard of races or creatures with these names? (checking originality) Fell Deer Veekrine Imirri Void Dragon (I don't include my Shifters because that is a term that i am sure some of you are familliar with from other books)
I can't swear to it, but Fell Deer sounds a little familiar. I almost said Imirri, but then realised it was another of your posts
Sorry to inform you that Void Dragon is already a thing: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Void_Dragon Apart from that you're good
I've never enjoyed a high magic setting. Most of the plot, and conflict is solved with some spell, or a potion with crazy ingredients. In a low magic setting anything can happen, and everything plays a role in it. I like low magic settings.
Weaveworld by Clive Barker. For fantasy that isn't like anything you've read before, read the hell out of that.
