Old-Style Vampires

THIS ISN'T JUST TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SPARKLY VAMPS

I went on a kick for awhile where I read a bunch of classic novels, just to figure out why they were considered classic. So I read Bram Stoker's "Dracula". (It can be a confusing read, since it's told in journal entries, letters, and telegrams, but is worth it). And I realized that 90% of modern vampires fall waaaaaay short of the original baddies. It was such a big change that I wrote a paper for college on the creation and evolution of the vampire myth. And it's eye opening.

Dracula could turn into a wolf, a bat, and even mist to creep in through bedroom windows (apparently he didn't need to be invited). Just one bite from him could doom a character to hell, even if they weren't turned. When one character is bitten, just the touch of a communion wafer leaves a burn on her skin, basically showing that she's royally fucked (to put it in layman's terms).

But more than that, Stoker's vampires were entirely different in creation. Today, vamps mostly retain who they were as humans when they turn. The body changed, the mind's still there. But in Dracula, being a vampire is like being demonically possessed. Every vamp was a horrible, cruel, homicidal monster that cared for no one. And just one of them was enough to cause serious hell for a ton of people. There were no hoards of vamps that could be taken down by one teenage girl with a stake.

In short: we've cut the balls of a classic monster and it makes me sad. I would love to see a modern day take on an original vampire. A human police force going up against a real undead scourge that's both brilliant and cruel.

What about you? Do you like our modern day vampires-with-a-heart-gold like Twilight and Vampire Diaries? Do you prefer the evil-with-some-exceptions undead like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural? Or would you love to see the vamps be the down and out incarnations of hell like Dracula?

 

There's a humorous story there...somewhere.

 

I don't like horror and I don't like teenage love stories. I don't like mindless monsters and I don't like them to have hearts of gold. I just want things with brains and personalities who just happens to be fucked up and needs to feed out of people. Garlic is optional.

The only vampires I have the slightest interest in are those from Vampire: The Masquerade (role play/ larp). Probably a side effect of being together with a Dungeon Master.

 

Which sounds much more like an упырь (upyr') That's the Russian word for it, anyway.

This came up once before, so I'll just quote myself....

 

I'm a fan of the "middle-ground" rendition of vamps. Just because I like the idea of anything with sentience being able to differentiate itself from the rest of its species... or whatever vampires are. So sure, a lot of vamps are probably assholes; they drink blood and all that jazz. But I think as a storytelling angle, its more fun to have them there to compare/contrast with humans than to just have them be implacable demonic foes.

 

I do like Stokers take on them but also kinda like the way the movie Priest went with them, a seperate race that's more feral and blind.

 

I like vampires that really play on the theme of humanity, that challenges the idea of good and evil. Let the Right One In did a great job with this. To me, vampires are best whenever they symbolize something. It's a little more than just an evil bloodthirsty thing or a tortured soul that doesn't want to hurt a fly. They represent part of the human condition.

 

Hey a gal that likes true Vampires. +50 Spexxy Points.

I like my Vampires to be kinda in the middle road, anti-heroish
if you will. Then again I think over the long term they would blur
the lines of good and evil anyway.

Sparkly Vampires are for people who can't handle real Vampires.
Don't settle for canned, when you can get raw and fresh.

 

That's good, because there aren't any

Let's look at the Cullen clan, shall we? Immortal? OK, that sounds like vampires. Can feed off of humans, but can also take humans away from their lives in the mortal world and turn them immortal? Still sound like vampires. Superhumanly fast and strong? Still vampirey.

Sparkle in the sunlight? I'm glad that Edward Cullen was straight, because if his "love" story had been about him and another guy, then that whole story would've been a homophobic slur because Edward Cullen was a fey spirit

I'm thinking that there are a few different varieties of vampires in my UrFan world: most of them are in your second category, the rest are in your third, none are in the first. Even the vampires that still have the most in common with their former selves are still the worst possible versions of said former selves, and a lot of them don't even have that much left.

The main vampire that I'm working on was born in 1900, died in 1923, and spent her life wanting to be famous as a singer (despite having grown up as the only girl in New Orleans who'd never enjoyed listening specifically to Jazz). In 1919, the legendary Axeman of New Orleans wrote to the papers and the police to announce that he would be stalking the city on one specific night, and if any house was playing Jazz music, then he would pass them by. Not taking the risk that this was a hoax from some guy pretending to be the Axeman, every house in the city stayed up playing Jazz all night, and nobody was killed (possibly because the Axeman didn't send the letter, but not necessarily).

My character remembered this night vividly, and after being killed and turned into a vampire, she decided that this was what she wanted to be famous for.

That's how I'm handling mine: by the standards of the superheroes and supervillains in my world, the average vampire is unusually powerful, and a lot of them are even worse than that. Undead cannot infuse themselves with new powers by way of rituals the way that everybody else can, but they start out infused with powers that set them above many others, they can live long enough to learn to make more powerful artifacts than anybody else, and after feeding off of living victims who are infused with powers, the undead can copy their food's powers for as long as it takes their meal to digest (note that if the victim has healing powers, then – in addition to the undead also gaining healing powers – the fact that the regenerating blood takes longer to digest also means that the victim's other powers don't wear off in the undead's system as quickly).

My specific vampire cooked up a ring of invisibility to protect herself from the sunlight, she can make the most out of her meals by way of one of the most powerful recipes of healing potion that my world has ever seen, and her species are "naturally" gifted with speed, strength, toughness, can shapeshift into rats, cats, bats, wolves, spiders, or blackbirds, can psychically influence creatures of any of those types (all of these are more powerful if the vampire is well-fed), and gain the memories of the people they feed off of (yet another advantage of pumping her meal with healing potion first: the memories are more vivid the more she feeds).

She herself is not interested in shapeshifting or beast taming. Other vampires are

 

I agreed with you. I've read Dracula and several of the classic tales of vampires. Like yourself, I do not want to go as far as to say that the various interpretations of vampires being used in the media today are...bad, but, I do say that the lore behind the vampire is underused.
I've recently posted a short story that is my own take on the vampire where I tried to used old vampire lore and make the vampire a creature of horror. I believe that by mining the origins of subject, a fresh take can be found.
Godspeed!

 

I agree with @Cave Troll, @Myrrdoch and @Odile_Blud. I prefer a middle ground vampire. I've never been a fan of stories involving people turning into actual physical monsters, it's just a personal thing because the stories I tend to enjoy the most are ones based in some kind of reality - I'd even go so far as to say I prefer vampires without any "magical" powers at all. I suppose I can't seem to completely separate vampires from human beings, and whenever stories pop up involving monstrous transformations I tend to shy away from them. If I wanted to read a story like that I'd probably go for a werewolf story or something like that.

Just personal preference really, all that being said though it's not an absolute rule - I still do love Dracula

 

I read Dracula and some Anne Rice books and was one of the few people who watched the Kindred. I just like when someone does something different with the genre. I always wanted to do something funny with it. Like imagine a vampire marriage gone wrong - the war of the roses - through centuries. Or some cool vampire being stuck with a real loser he's turned and can't shake.

 

Or one who's Rh+ intolerant.

 

Or a 200 year old nerd that turns some cool kid into a vamp to help him blend in with the modern night, only to be completely ignored by his fledgling. HIJINKS!

 

I'm fairly certain that the invitation thing was in Dracula—that's why Siward's asylum's resident lunatic Renayrd or whatever "Ren" name it was got used by Dracula, as a tool to invite him into the asylum and I believe to take Mina—Dracula promised him immortality or something & of course reneged. With Lucy, he was using some sort of hyponosis and lured her out "sleepwalking." Think it was in chapter 8 Mina says she sees a dark figure hovering over Lucy's half reclining figure after following her friend on one of these increasingly frequent sleepwalks. Afterwards he starts entering Lucy's room when she is very ill, but it's my assumption that he already seduced an invitation out of her in her trance state, thus gaining free entry.

So yeah, Dracula required an invitation. He just had various means to illicit them.

Edit: And to contribute my own pair of pennies, the aspect I admired most of Dracula was not it's style (I dislike the diary entries, letters, news articles, etc whether here or Phantom of the Opera or whatever; just not my cup of tea) but the way it subverted expectations & made the danger immediate.

Previously an unwavering trait of tales of horror (& of terror) was that the events took place in a far away, remote space. Dracula followed suit by having Jonathan travel & find himself cut off from civilization in Romania. But it didn't end there—stoker brought the horror back to quiet & picturesque sea villages and the utterly civilized heart of London. That was true horror. We all like to believe the bad things only happen to us in ancient castles, exotic lands, cabins in the woods, et cetera. Stoker did the equivalent of making attacks in friendly familiar settings, surrounded by loved ones, in broad daylight. He broke all the rules of setting, inevitably making our very homes no longer safe. It was the same sort of violation of when the creature lurks underneath your own covers with you, the place we're all irrationally convinced we'll all be safe & untouchable.

The horror was that it could be anywhere, any time, and come for anyone. And that was new and that was exciting and that was terrifying.

Edit 2: Actually, what bothered me was how in the heck did Dracula get to London if undead can't cross running waters? Do oceans/seas not count? Or was it simply safe because his coffin of grave dirt was on the ship with him?

That's what always bothered me. I actually like the weird rule about not crossing running water. In several of my vampyr nightmares, that was our solid means of escape. Whenever there wasn't a stream or river or whatever, I inevitably died in that dream.

 

Oh definitely. I've played enough vampire RPs to know that people always want their human character to end up turned.

About goth kids being annoyed at not being turned? You could definitely make that a satire.

I can be a fan of the mindless monsters (if they're done well) because there is a bit of horror in knowing there's no way to reason with the thing coming after you.

 

Well they've had a lot of names before the word "vampire" was established. My personal favorite was when they called them "wraiths" or "revenants" in 13th century documents. (Side note: it is aggravatingly difficult to find English translations of really old Latin texts).

Also, I've never compared modern vamps to a new minority of human, but you're right. That's exactly what they are.

The issue is that there's often no contrast between humans and vampires. Vampires are just stronger versions of humans. Some stories will opt for vampires to have greater emotions than humans, but again it's just a magnification of previously standing creatures.

I have heard of that movie, but I have not watched it. May I assume it is scary?

 

You can definitely use them as a metaphor for vices like greedy, gluttony, or lust. Any kind of material addiction, really. The problem is, most modern day stories aren't really using them for that. It's just vampires because vampires.

Damon from Vampire Diaries was a bit like that (in the books, not the series). Kinda chaotic neutral.

Honestly, I think the real problem with the Twilight vamps was that they were obnoxiously OP. Literally nothing hurt them, except for another vampire.

First of all: super jazzed (pun intended) that you used the Axeman in your story. That bit of history has always intrigued me since I first heard about it on Mysteries at the Museum. It's such a weird tale (everyone playing music to stave off a serial killer) that deserves to be told.

Secondly: I am intrigued by the idea of them changing their diet to change themselves. It's definitely a different take on the whole thing. And it could definitely play into different themes if you wanted to swing it that way.

Thirdly: Don't hate on the fae. Cuz they have had a renaissance as their original tricksy, monstrous appearance and the modern fae would not be afraid to kick your ass. xD

 

Haha, thanks. It's not that I want all vampires to be like the ones of old, but their angsty new version doesn't really do it for me.

Well werewolf stories have gotten tamer throughout the years too. A lot of them have werewolves being able to shift at will and maintain their humanity while in wolf form. So even they're not the same "turn into a hungry monster every full moon" rendition.

 

I don't mind people doing different things with the genre. It just seems most aren't anymore. Vampire really doesn't change too much between stories, save for some differences in abilities and certain weaknesses. Although I'm not quite sure how well serious changes would go over.

Once a nerd, always a nerd! xD

 

He may have gotten an invitation, it was a while ago that I read it. And it is a bit of a confusing read, as you have to infer a lot of things from hints given in the various forms of printed media.

I do like the idea of horror coming with you. Like when the ghostly/demonic spirits follow the person from the creepy gothic mansion to their own home. Or when scary things begin to happen to you when the lights are on. That's the worst, because it means not even light will keep the terror at bay.

If I remember correctly, I think the reason he was able to cross was that he was asleep on the ship in his coffin surrounded by dirt. The dirt is like a loophole for a lot of what are supposed to be his weaknesses.

 

Not really, though it's a fun watch. It's based on a graphic novel series. The film itself, while visually interesting, and thematically unusual, is plagued by very self-aware dialogue. Every line is vying for that epic dialogue feel. Every. Line.

 

Have any of you guys seen "What We Do in the Shadows"?

It's a mockumentary of modern vampyrs and it's hilarious (to me).

 

I guess thats highly individual ^^
I don't think so, but liked the story and it had some great action scenes as well I think and like I said, I like the alternative take on vampires.