What have they done with Vampires?!!

[Bosstrain]

I watched the Deadliest Warrior Vampires vs Zombies and found out some truly depressing things that have recently happened to my favorite bloodsuckers. Now instead of the classic vamp fangs, they just have a mouth full of daggers.......WTF! I don't watch modern horror movies, mainly because they have no horror and are all about the gore, to me they should've made another category for the gory shit and left horror alone.....even suspense/ thriller seems to be gore focused. Putting that aside, however, now they've amped up the gore factor for vamps, they just rip the side of your neck open (a lot like zombies IMO), and drink from a gushing wound, plus, vamps are no longer seductive.......again: WTF!

I remember the good old days, when vampires were horrifically charming, you actually wanted Bela Lugosi to sink his fangs in you (or at least the ladies did ). Back then, they didn't even show blood, and I was almost convinced that vampires didn't even swallow the blood, they just sucked it through their teeth like they were straws or something and it went directly into their veins. Vampires, IMO, also get stronger as they age, increasing their strength and vampiric powers, even in Anne Rice's books vampires could reach un-imaginable levels, and when they'd sleep for a couple centuries, they'd awaken when multiplied abilities. Which brings me to my next concern, specifically about the Vampires vs Zombies episode, if the vamps were really old and had extreme power, they'd hardly be threatened by a few walking stiffs, in fact it wouldn't matter how many zombies there were, one vampire ancient could take on an infinite amount. Contrary to Anne Rice, I like to think that an old enough vamp can venture out into the sun without risking anything more than a sunburn, which would heal after stepping out of the sun for a bit, especially after some feeding .

I realize this is a silly thing to even discuss, vampire lore changes of course, as does any lore, but these movies, like 30 Days of Night (which I didn't even realize was a vampire movie since I've never seen it), they've taken these elegant creatures and turned them purely into monsters, not that they weren't already, but now they're just barely above zombies anyway. If their only thoughts are for feeding, then there's little left to set them apart in the monster world, they might as well be werewolves.

Thoughts? Am I just holding on to something that's as dead as these mythical characters? Opinions on 30 Days of Night and movies like that?

[Simplicio]

I don't think anyone was in danger of being charmed by this guy. So the idea of a more monstrous, less charming vampire is hardly new.

[C K Dexter Haven]

There's lots of different interps of vampires, and always have been. There are vampires that are pure monsters (nosferatu). There's the Dracula-type sophisticated and sexually attractive blood-suckers (undead,) And there's the type that just drain life-force without drinking actual bood (succubi.) So, different movies and TV shows take different intepretations.

Footnote: Jim Butcher, in his Dresden series, actually includes all three types (as Red Court, Black Court, and White Court vampires, respectively.)

[Justin_Bailey]

You're right, vampires as grotesque and demonic entities was started with 30 Days of Night. It never happened before that.

EDIT: ninja'd by Simplicio

[D_Odds]

Better gory, scary monsters rather than sexy, sparkly, emo teen heartthrobs.

I abhor vampires who are not wholly evil. Nothing wrong with being sexy and evil; I liked the stories that made vampires sexy but unable to consummate. Vampires are evil, superhuman monsters that need to be hunted into extinction, and who view humans as nothing more than feed cattle. Anything else is not a vampire.

[Simplicio]

FWIW: my understanding is that most of the original folktales had vampires as basically blood-drinking zombies*, and the idea of the sexy, intelligent vampire was an invention of 19th century romantic writers.

*of course, zombies at the timer weren't zombies, but hypnotized slaves of voodoo-priests. So in the early 19th century, zombies weren't zombies and vampires were.

[FlyingDragonFan]

Originally Posted by Bosstrain

Contrary to Anne Rice, I like to think that an old enough vamp can venture out into the sun without risking anything more than a sunburn, which would heal after stepping out of the sun for a bit, especially after some feeding .

Anne Rice did actually feature this idea in her books. The eldest vampires would go out into the sun to, I kid you not, get a tan, so they'd fit in with humans better.

[Bosstrain]

I agree, I'm not looking for teen heartthrobs, I want them to be pure evil incarnate, the seduction itself is evil, the vampire feeds off the emotions as much as he does the blood almost. That's what makes them so terrifying, Lugosi, for example, was scary because you were enthralled with his presence and could not resist. Even if you did resist, he'd just hunt you down, but also, at the same time, he could attend a party and no one would be the wiser that he was a vampire (unless someone had a mirror ).

The nosferatu is not really a vampire, it's a plague. Granted, nosferatu and succubi are vampire-like creatures, but I'm talking real vampires, undead vampires, powerful vampires, vampires that terrify you and charm you at the same time. I'm talkin' vampires that are thousands of years old and they no longer even need to chase you down anymore. They're powerful enough to use their mind and alter reality, you turn around and the door you just came from doesn't exist anymore. It's just a wall, and there's no way out, only the deathly cold embrace of the vamps presence, and he'll feed from your terror for hours, before finally feeding off your blood, draining you dry and leaving your corpse, or turning you into one of his kin.

Yes, I know that vamps used to be zombies and zombies were slaves, but this is about as boring as what vampires are now, it's like they've come full circle almost. I also realize that classic vamps turned into goth figures, but some goths would argue that, they'd say there's vamps, and then there's goths. Either way I don't care for humans running around acting like they're goths or vamps or whatever, that's some weird stuff IMO. Maybe it's the gothiic thing that turned people off about vampires and made them want something else other than that. At least Elder Scrolls games know what vampires should be like. A vampire is like The Most Interesting Man In the World: he can disarm you with his looks, or his hands, either way .

[Bosstrain]

Originally Posted by FlyingDragonFan

Anne Rice did actually feature this idea in her books. The eldest vampires would go out into the sun to, I kid you not, get a tan, so they'd fit in with humans better.

Interesting, I remember from The Vampire Lestat that the original vampires tried to kill themselves by stepping out in the sun, and as a result all the vamps got horrible burned....Lestat was one of the few that wasn't.

[Maus Magill]

Originally Posted by D_Odds

Better gory, scary monsters rather than sexy, sparkly, emo teen heartthrobs.

I abhor vampires who are not wholly evil. Nothing wrong with being sexy and evil; I liked the stories that made vampires sexy but unable to consummate. Vampires are evil, superhuman monsters that need to be hunted into extinction, and who view humans as nothing more than feed cattle. Anything else is not a vampire.

Exactly.

Humans:vampires::Happy meals:5-year-olds

[Bosstrain]

Also, vampires belong in castles, or at least large mansions with deep catacombs, none of this living in the big city with a werewolf and a ghost as room-mates (Being Human). They either need to be solitary, or have a clan that lives in a giant graveyard with underground passages....to hell with Twilight (pun intended )

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Bosstrain

Yes, I know that vamps used to be zombies and zombies were slaves, but this is about as boring as what vampires are now, it's like they've come full circle almost. I also realize that classic vamps turned into goth figures, but some goths would argue that, they'd say there's vamps, and then there's goths. Either way I don't care for humans running around acting like they're goths or vamps or whatever, that's some weird stuff IMO. Maybe it's the gothiic thing that turned people off about vampires and made them want something else other than that. At least Elder Scrolls games know what vampires should be like. A vampire is like The Most Interesting Man In the World: he can disarm you with his looks, or his hands, either way .

So in other words...

"I've got a very specific idea of what a vampire is, even though it disqualifies most vampire fiction and all of the original legends themselves. That's what a vampire is dammit!"

[CalMeacham]

Although there were stories of vampires before the 18th century, and vampire-like (in many respects) creatures in other nations throughout history, the modern vampire effectively began about 1800, with Polidori's The Vampyre (and it was mainly popular because everyone thought it was Lord Byron, whereas his vampire story nevere got beyond a couple of paragraphs). Prior to that, a vampire was a somewhat brain-dead walking corpse with obsessive-compulsive disorder (you could stop them from operating by confronting them with a messy time-consuming task) who was well-known by everyone in town to be dead, so they didn't exactly pass for normal humans. They generally didn't speak, and they weren't neatly dressed. Polidori's story gave us the aristocratic, neatly-groomed, cultured vampire who could Pass for Human, and it's been with us ever since. As new people added to the Vampire Saga, they added their own bits of "fakelore" (mock folklore), and they were far from consistent with each other. Throughout the 19th century lots of people wrote about vampires, and a lot of them were disembodied or "psychic" vampires. But even among the solid-bodied blood-suckers you had plenty of variation. People pretty much agreed on them being Creatures of the Night, of their being strong, and you could kill them with a stake through the heart, but everything else was up for grabs. Bram Stoker actually invented a lot of "vampire lore" for Dracula, just so Dracula could subvert it and Van Helsing could exploit it. But that bit about not beimng seen in a mirror, for instance, seems to be original with him.


That Creature of the Night thing varied, too. Vqarney could be Restored to Life (!) after being killed by being exposed to moonlight. Stoker's Dracula was sort of comatose when asleep in daylight, but Stoker had him walking around London in daylight. It's true that Murnau's Nosferatu dissolved in daylight (a first), but the film was hunted down and destroyed by Stoker's widow, and wasn't widely seen. Vampires in literature and movies afterwards died by being staked, burned, or dissolved in acid, not by exposure to sunlight. Not untuil Curt Siodmak wrote the screenplay for Son of Dracula did they statrted dissolving in daylight in earnest. He re-used the idea in House of Frankenstein a couple of years later, and a trope was born. I suspect Universal liked the idea because it eliminated the monster with a minimum of gross, gory bloodshed.


A lot of vampires were genteel, aristocrats, or at least polite, well-dressed folks, but some of them were outright monstrous, from Max Schreck's rat-faced Count Orlock to Robert E. Howard's pretty much unseen vampire to batlike creatures in the Indian stories of Vikram and the Vampire.

[Lemur866]

OK, let's be perfectly clear about the staking, because nobody seems to understand it. Vampires are un-living corpses who rise from their coffins at night to feast on the blood of the living. So, open up the coffin in the daytime, and you find a perfectly preserved corpse. How do you stop this corpse from rising in the night? You can't kill it, it's already dead. So, get a big-ass wooden stake and a hammer, and nail that bloodsucker into the ground. How the fuck are you gonna climb out your coffin now, hotshot?

Wooden stake through the heart==crumples to dust is a pretty recent invention. And by recent, I mean by Joss Whedon for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and that was only because he didn't want to have his teenage protagonist have to deal with piles decomposing vampire bodies.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

That Creature of the Night thing varied, too. Vqarney could be Restored to Life (!) after being killed by being exposed to moonlight. Stoker's Dracula was sort of comatose when asleep in daylight, but Stoker had him walking around London in daylight.

Since The Vampyre, Varney, and Dracula have been mentioned, we might as well fill out the foundation of the genre* with Carmilla - in which a major part of the story was the title bloodsucker and the narrator taking regular afternoon strolls through the narrator's estate - it wasn't exactly an action packed story. (Carmilla liked to sleep late, not usually joining the family until near noon, but she hardly abhorred daylight.)


* I was going to say 'major influences', but really for the most part, Polidori and Rymer really had second hand influence, through influencing Stoker, and while Le Fanu had a bit more luck, pretty much the only part that didn't enter the genre primarily via his influence on Stoker is the lesbian undertones (which Le Fanu does much less offensively than most writers who've played that card later - primarily by playing it subtly, so it didn't feel nearly so salacious, but also...while the narrator considers Carmilla's apparent feelings for her odd, and a bit uncomfortable, it doesn't really come across as part of what makes her monstrous, and the feelings seem to be quite real).

[Maus Magill]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

OK, let's be perfectly clear about the staking, because nobody seems to understand it. Vampires are un-living corpses who rise from their coffins at night to feast on the blood of the living. So, open up the coffin in the daytime, and you find a perfectly preserved corpse. How do you stop this corpse from rising in the night? You can't kill it, it's already dead. So, get a big-ass wooden stake and a hammer, and nail that bloodsucker into the ground. How the fuck are you gonna climb out your coffin now, hotshot?

Wooden stake through the heart==crumples to dust is a pretty recent invention. And by recent, I mean by Joss Whedon for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and that was only because he didn't want to have his teenage protagonist have to deal with piles decomposing vampire bodies.

Not quite, Dracula crumbled into dust when his heart was pierced by Quincey's bowie knife.

[Bosstrain]

CalMeacham, wow, great vampire lore, you really know your stuff, bravo. How much influence did Vlad the Impaler really have in all this? I mean, I know he was a major inspiration, but now, with all that info, I'm wondering just how much, maybe he doesn't deserve as much credit as he's been given. Lemur866, this is an extremely interesting take on the stake , in that case, the heart wouldn't necessarily need to be targeted, you could just pin down the limbs, so I wonder how the heart became the place to pierce, this could have started becoming more popular with religion....crosses and all that.

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

So in other words...

"I've got a very specific idea of what a vampire is, even though it disqualifies most vampire fiction and all of the original legends themselves. That's what a vampire is dammit!"

Yes, okay, you got me there, maybe I am looking for a particular style. However, the style I'm looking for maximizes the creatures power, I don't want the vampire to be easily killed, and the older it is the harder to kill. A lot of vampires out there seem too fragile, dumb, and gruesome. I'd think a vampire that's able to blend in would greatly increase its ability to survive, making it more reasonable that it would be old, and I'd rather the vamp be able to get stronger, which would give it a better story, for it to be this strong it would have to have been through centuries of staying alive and all that, and now the imagination takes over dreaming up what it's seen. I want to add to the lore, have less vampires so that the ones that are around are very old and extremely powerful, etc. and so on. All this does is make them more interesting, plus, if they weren't so gory and violent, it would be much better for kids. When I was 6 or 7 I watched a couple vampire movies, but now, if I had kids and wanted to show them a good vampire movie, I'd have to explain why it's not in color, I couldn't show them a modern one, not with blood and guts flying around.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally Posted by Bosstrain

How much influence did Vlad the Impaler really have in all this?

Pretty much nil.

He provided a name and location for Stoker's vamp (I'm given to understand that the story that became Dracula was originally set in Styria, the same setting as Carmilla, though he moved it to what is now Romania in an early draft), but beyond that...nothing of import.

Count Dracula is not (IIRC, it's been more than a decade since I last read Dracula) suggested as having committed any of the specific atrocities Vlad is accused of, nor was Vlad ever accused of being a blood drinker (though there was that one feast among the corpses). Stoker liked the name (which means either 'Son of the Dragon', or 'Son of the Devil', and is a reference to his father's epithet, Vlad Dracul (Vlad the Dragon, or Vlad the Devil).), and his rep as a monster, so grafted them onto an otherwise unrelated character.

[Bridget Burke]

Anno Dracula is back in print! It's the first of Kim Stanley's series--in which von Helsing & his crew lost & Dracula survived--to marry Queen Victoria & make vampirism The Done Thing in England. And most of the "civilized" world.

As a result, vampires came out of hiding--from all the other vampire tales. They had different characteristics, according to lineage (or according to the original author). Some could grow used to the sun. One plucky Irish vampire lass had no fear of holy water--because she was proudly Protestant.

There are two more books in the series & a collection of short pieces about to be published. Characters include vampires from legend & fiction, other fictional characters & "real" people. It's all great fun, with not a bit of glitter.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Maus Magill

Not quite, Dracula crumbled into dust when his heart was pierced by Quincey's bowie knife.

Right--a knife, not a wooden stake. This is a separate motif, a character having only one vulnerable spot, like the heart or the heel. In advanced cases, the vulnerable part can be removed and hidden in a safe place.

[The Man In Black]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Right--a knife, not a wooden stake. This is a separate motif, a character having only one vulnerable spot, like the heart or the heel. In advanced cases, the vulnerable part can be removed and hidden in a safe place.

Am am sure a wooden spike would have worked on Dracula just fine.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by D_Odds

Better gory, scary monsters rather than sexy, sparkly, emo teen heartthrobs.

Oldman! You are needed!

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

OK, let's be perfectly clear about the staking, because nobody seems to understand it. Vampires are un-living corpses who rise from their coffins at night to feast on the blood of the living. So, open up the coffin in the daytime, and you find a perfectly preserved corpse. How do you stop this corpse from rising in the night? You can't kill it, it's already dead. So, get a big-ass wooden stake and a hammer, and nail that bloodsucker into the ground. How the fuck are you gonna climb out your coffin now, hotshot?

Wooden stake through the heart==crumples to dust is a pretty recent invention. And by recent, I mean by Joss Whedon for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and that was only because he didn't want to have his teenage protagonist have to deal with piles decomposing vampire bodies.

I would criticize Buffy for having vampires coming out of the ground with instant kung fu abilities and are essentially immortal with the exception of the whole exploding into dust thing if it weren't for the fact that they're kind of goofy about the way they treat it. They've hung a lampshade on the kung fu part and the dust thing is a way to end a fight non-messily.

[Bosstrain]

Are vampire books still popular? For the last couple months I've been thinking about writing a medieval story, and after starting this thread and thinking about this stuff, now it should maybe be about a vampire in the dark ages. I like fictional books with factual bases, so having real events taking place in it's pages would be a must, but adding a vamp twist to it might be very entertaining. This would also give me the opportunity to impose my idea about vampires into society and get people back to thinking about them as being cunning and evil instead of this strange vamp do-gooder bull and the weird slasher-vamps. Instead of just complaining about the direction that the lore has taken, maybe I should try and do something about it. Thoughts on that? Would it just fail do to the load of vampire stories out there and I should just stick with medieval stuff and find another way to make it historic/fantasy?

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Bosstrain

I agree, I'm not looking for teen heartthrobs, I want them to be pure evil incarnate, the seduction itself is evil, the vampire feeds off the emotions as much as he does the blood almost. That's what makes them so terrifying, Lugosi, for example, was scary because you were enthralled with his presence and could not resist.

That was fine back in the Victorian Era, when temptation itself was something to be feared. But I think at some point, people started saying "I meet a rich, handsome guy, have a moment of ecstasy, then get to live in a mansion and stay young forever; and I'm supposed to be afraid of this why?"

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

FWIW: my understanding is that most of the original folktales had vampires as basically blood-drinking zombies*, and the idea of the sexy, intelligent vampire was an invention of 19th century romantic writers.

In most pre-1800 Slavic folklore, the vampire isn't really mindless like a zombie, and many do have a great deal of power, but they do resemble a disgusting Romero-like creature more than they do Brad Pitt. They generally smelled pretty bad, though they did manage to impregnate their widows from time to time (especially if they were young and pretty, per Serb ethnographer Vuk Karadzic). The more powerful vampires of Russian tales could walk into a room and subdue dozens of people with a gesture, but it was more common for a few people standing guard to drive them away. Above all, the vampire existed to be killed; its function in folk belief was to be a scapegoat for disease and other misfortune. The idea of an immortal vampire would have been ludicrous to a pre-industrial Slav or Greek. If you've got a vampire, you kill it. You don't let that stuff go for hundreds of years. They may have been lustful (though not sexy, unless you're into decomposing flesh), but they weren't suave. I'd bet on a vampire against a zombie in a heartbeat, but it wouldn't be a real entertaining fight.

[Bosstrain]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

That was fine back in the Victorian Era, when temptation itself was something to be feared. But I think at some point, people started saying "I meet a rich, handsome guy, have a moment of ecstasy, then get to live in a mansion and stay young forever; and I'm supposed to be afraid of this why?"

I agree, but at the same time I disagree. Just because the vamp lured you in and tempted you, doesn't mean it'll turn you, most likely it'll kill you and it's just playing with its food.....maybe mother didn't teach him about that .

[Maus Magill]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Right--a knife, not a wooden stake. This is a separate motif, a character having only one vulnerable spot, like the heart or the heel. In advanced cases, the vulnerable part can be removed and hidden in a safe place.

Ah - I thought your objection was to the crumbling to dust bit, rather than the flailing, shrieking, blood-squirting death that Lucy had.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator

I would criticize Buffy for having vampires coming out of the ground with instant kung fu abilities and are essentially immortal with the exception of the whole exploding into dust thing if it weren't for the fact that they're kind of goofy about the way they treat it. They've hung a lampshade on the kung fu part and the dust thing is a way to end a fight non-messily.

Did that ever happen though. I can only remember a few times where they fought freshly risen vamps and I don't remember any instant kung fu.

Other than that, it was explained. Vamps in the Buffyverse have super fast reflexes making the kung fu a natural extension of a regular person's fighting style. It's like little kids in a backyard who think if they practice really hard they'll be able to do spinning kicks and shit. With the vamp reflexes, they can. And their inner five year old comes out to play.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Bosstrain

I agree, but at the same time I disagree. Just because the vamp lured you in and tempted you, doesn't mean it'll turn you, most likely it'll kill you and it's just playing with its food.....maybe mother didn't teach him about that .

Yeah, but if the worst that can happen is getting killed, there's no reason to be more afraid of vampires than anyone else. Ted Bundy killed people. The only reason to have a story about a vampire is because there's something specific about him that's necessary to the story. So writers have changed the rules of vampires to create the story they want to tell. We no longer fear the same things we used to.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by The Man In Black

Am am sure a wooden spike would have worked on Dracula just fine.

Yes, but if you jab a knife into a modern vampire's heart, they'll just laugh. It has to be a sharp piece of wood. Why you need a wooden stake specifically, no one can seem to explain. I just wanted to point out where the whole "staking" mythology came from--as a way to nail the bloodsuckers in place.

In modern stories, vampires also rarely react to garlic anymore. The old mythology was that garlic was a powerful healing herb that would repel vermin. So if it keeps away rats and cockroaches, it would work against bad luck, witches, goblins, and all sorts of supernatural threats up to and including shambling corpses.

[Bosstrain]

Okay, so I did a little research on vampire books..................I think there's plenty out there, a lot, actually, way more than I ever imagined, it seems everyone and their grandma has written a vampire book. Wow, good thing I wasn't just wanting to write a vampire book, I think a nice, 758 A.D., Rome's aftermath, Bizantine/Vandal/Visigoth kinda' thing with twist of vampirism (the antogonist will most likely turn out to be a vamp) would be perfect. Still not sure if I'll actually write it or not, like I said, I've been thinking about writing something for the last few months, and only just recently started doing some serious research into that time period. Seems the Wendier (wanderers) were the scourge of Europe around that time, perfect period to have a vampire get nervous about just how safe his cover is. Still, the vampire aspect would only be like a cherry on top kinda' thing, in fact, I'll probably leave some clues throught the book, and then somewhere just over halfway through, the reader will figure it out, then let them worry about the protagonists for a while as they scream at the book saying: "it's a vampire you idiots!". Of course, I may have to exclude the actual word vampire from the book, but everyone will know just what it is.

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

Yeah, but if the worst that can happen is getting killed, there's no reason to be more afraid of vampires than anyone else. Ted Bundy killed people. The only reason to have a story about a vampire is because there's something specific about him that's necessary to the story. So writers have changed the rules of vampires to create the story they want to tell. We no longer fear the same things we used to.

Maybe so, maybe so, either that, or writers are just running out of ideas and don't have a better way of fixing the problem. I'm not trying to be an ass, so I apologize if it seems that way, but having something that kills and can't be killed itself is really pretty scary, if you ask me, just sayin'.

[FriarTed]

Just a note- since Dracula is identified as a Voivode by Van Helsing, if he wasn't Vlad, he was still of the 1300-1400s family. I don't know how long any descendants held the title after that. So Dracula would be at least 400 years undead by the time of the novel. Hence his turning into dust upon knifing & beheading.

Assuming of course, that he was killed & didn't merely dematerialize as a ruse. *G*

[FlyingDragonFan]

Originally Posted by Bosstrain

Interesting, I remember from The Vampire Lestat that the original vampires tried to kill themselves by stepping out in the sun, and as a result all the vamps got horrible burned....Lestat was one of the few that wasn't.

Close. What happened was that one of the oldest vampires, who was the keeper for the "source" king and queen vampires while they were in a centuries-long sleep, got tired of the whole thing and dragged them out into the sun while they slept, hoping to kill them and all their offspring, himself included. Except they were already too strong, and it merely tanned them. Since they were the source, all vamps on Earth were affected by this. The oldest were simply tanned like they were, the middle-aged were seriously burned, and the youngest completely combusted. This was hundreds if not thousands of years ago, though, and Lestat was not around yet.

[TBG]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Yes, but if you jab a knife into a modern vampire's heart, they'll just laugh. It has to be a sharp piece of wood. Why you need a wooden stake specifically, no one can seem to explain. I just wanted to point out where the whole "staking" mythology came from--as a way to nail the bloodsuckers in place.

In modern stories, vampires also rarely react to garlic anymore. The old mythology was that garlic was a powerful healing herb that would repel vermin. So if it keeps away rats and cockroaches, it would work against bad luck, witches, goblins, and all sorts of supernatural threats up to and including shambling corpses.

It's not just wood for modern vampires. It always depends on the story. True Blood vampires and Blade vampires seem to be very vulnerable to silver, you stab them with a silver knife, it just might work, yet Buffy vampires never seemed to have any aversion to silver.

As for garlic, again depends on the story. On Buffy they didn't use garlic because someone on the cast (Nicholas Brendan, I think) was highly allergic to it, but you do sometimes see it in Buffy's trunk of supplies, indicating it might work, they just aren't using it. On Being Human (US version) garlic doesn't harm them but it makes their "vamp face" show up uncontrollably.

[Barking Dog]

Originally Posted by Tengu

Count Dracula is not (IIRC, it's been more than a decade since I last read Dracula) suggested as having committed any of the specific atrocities Vlad is accused of, nor was Vlad ever accused of being a blood drinker (though there was that one feast among the corpses). Stoker liked the name (which means either 'Son of the Dragon', or 'Son of the Devil', and is a reference to his father's epithet, Vlad Dracul (Vlad the Dragon, or Vlad the Devil).), and his rep as a monster, so grafted them onto an otherwise unrelated character.

Some nits that might could use a bit of picking: while you're right that daddy was called Dracul, it was not an epithet referring to the devil. It referred to the Order Dracul, an organization not unlike the Knights Templar, which consisted of daddy Vlad and some of his neighbour princes and dukes and tasked with protecting the borders of their christian kingdoms against the Ottoman Empire. Little Vlad called himself Draculya (son of the dragon) to further associate himself with his hero father. Nobody else really called him that, as far as I've read.
And while we would call the guy a cruel SOB, at the time he was considered harsh, but fair. Much of the atrocities attributed to him (such as the feast among the corpses) were largely propaganda from his peers, who didn't like him that much. I forget why.
You might, I'm sure, be aware that he was in his time, and still is among modern romanians, considered a folk hero. Largely due to his attempting to follow is his dad's footsteps, fiercely and successfully repelling border incursions and (at least one, to my memory) invasion from the Ottoman's to the south.

So, I"m done now.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally Posted by Barking Dog

Some nits that might could use a bit of picking: while you're right that daddy was called Dracul, it was not an epithet referring to the devil. It referred to the Order Dracul, an organization not unlike the Knights Templar, which consisted of daddy Vlad and some of his neighbour princes and dukes and tasked with protecting the borders of their christian kingdoms against the Ottoman Empire.

A valid nitpick - I knew this, and should probably have mentioned it. But I didn't, so there it is.

Little Vlad called himself Draculya (son of the dragon) to further associate himself with his hero father. Nobody else really called him that, as far as I've read.

Bolding mine. This part is new to me. Interesting.

And while we would call the guy a cruel SOB, at the time he was considered harsh, but fair. Much of the atrocities attributed to him (such as the feast among the corpses) were largely propaganda from his peers, who didn't like him that much. I forget why.

Very true. This is why I referred to him as having been accused of the atrocities, not having committed them. As to the peers who spread the rumours, I'd guess you're thinking of the Wallachian boyars (the noble class), who he rather detested, and therefore had many of them executed, and the rest for the most part had their power stripped away and given to soldiers and peasants who Vlad felt he could trust. IIRC, it was the boyars and his foreign enemies (primarily the Turks, although a quick look shows the stories were popular in Germany, too) who were behind most of the attacks on Vlad III's reputation.

[Bosstrain]

Originally Posted by FlyingDragonFan

Close. What happened was that one of the oldest vampires, who was the keeper for the "source" king and queen vampires while they were in a centuries-long sleep, got tired of the whole thing and dragged them out into the sun while they slept, hoping to kill them and all their offspring, himself included. Except they were already too strong, and it merely tanned them. Since they were the source, all vamps on Earth were affected by this. The oldest were simply tanned like they were, the middle-aged were seriously burned, and the youngest completely combusted. This was hundreds if not thousands of years ago, though, and Lestat was not around yet.

Ah, now I remember, I did get a little confused because the book went back in time and talked about previous events and so forth. There was a whole section in the middle that seemed to wander, and I think because in the story, Lestat was kinda' wandering and sorta' confused himself....or something like that, it's been a while since I read it, it's all a tad foggy...

[Lamia]

I also thought this thread was going to be about Twilight!

Originally Posted by Tengu

(Carmilla liked to sleep late, not usually joining the family until near noon, but she hardly abhorred daylight.)

IIRC, it's at least implied that Carmilla couldn't wake up before noon, and that this was one of the limitations of being a vampire. It don't think there's any suggestion that morning light would actually hurt her though, and you're correct that she does go out in the sun during the afternoon without suffering any ill effects.

Originally Posted by FriarTed

Just a note- since Dracula is identified as a Voivode by Van Helsing, if he wasn't Vlad, he was still of the 1300-1400s family. I don't know how long any descendants held the title after that.

According to Wikipedia, members of the House of Drăculești continued to rule Wallachia into the early 17th century. The list on the linked page ends in 1600, but the list of rulers of Wallachia includes Radu IX Mihnea (Voivode of Wallachia off and on until 1623) as a member of the same family.

The title "voivode" apparently originally referred to a war leader, although it did come to mean the ruler of a province. In Dracula Van Helsing's contact says "He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk", so it seems possible that Stoker was using this title in the earlier military sense.

Originally Posted by Barking Dog

Some nits that might could use a bit of picking: while you're right that daddy was called Dracul, it was not an epithet referring to the devil.

That is apparently what Bram Stoker thought though, and why he chose the name "Dracula" for his vampire. He wrote in his research notes that "DRACULA in Wallachian language means DEVIL." (See Dr. Elizabeth Miller's essay Filing For Divorce: Count Dracula vs Vlad The Impaler, where she argues that Stoker was only loosely inspired by the historic Vlad the Impaler.)

[Barking Dog]

Originally Posted by Tengu

Bolding mine. This part is new to me. Interesting.

I'll admit, I could be wrong on that bit. This is all out of memory, and I don't have my handy-dandy cite that I got it all from on-hand, I'm sorry to say. But from what I remember, I'm pretty sure it was a bit of political spin with the name. Vlad III was rather unpopular, with his own own boyars, and with his peers in the neighboring countries (as you pointed out. The turks really go without saying). but everybody loved his dad, Vlad II. He was a hero. And like many other dynastic sons, he tried to fill his father's shoes. Or perhaps more accurately, appear to do so.

Or perhaps not. I didn't exactly major in the politics of middle ages E. Europe. So, there's at least one grain of salt there.

[Barking Dog]

Originally Posted by Lamia

That is apparently what Bram Stoker thought though, and why he chose the name "Dracula" for his vampire. He wrote in his research notes that "DRACULA in Wallachian language means DEVIL." (See Dr. Elizabeth Miller's essay Filing For Divorce: Count Dracula vs Vlad The Impaler, where she argues that Stoker was only loosely inspired by the historic Vlad the Impaler.)

Hey, I'm not arguing. I was talking about the historical Dracula and nothing else. I mean, Stoker wrote a novel, not a historical treatise.

I just wanted to contribute to the thread in my own, sad way.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally Posted by Lamia

IIRC, it's at least implied that Carmilla couldn't wake up before noon, and that this was one of the limitations of being a vampire.

That's not quite the implication I got from it. (Although my earlier post wasn't either - it's what Laura (the narrator) thinks, at first, so it was a safe spoiler-free explanation.) The implication I got was that Carmilla did her actual sleeping in her tomb (which wasn't far from Laura's estate) in the early morning (after her pre-dawn visits with Laura, or implied hunting in the village), which is why her bedroom was locked, and why they found it empty when Laura suddenly got worried about her. Which, of course, meant she had to travel between her tomb and the house in the morning.

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Tengu

That's not quite the implication I got from it. (Although my earlier post wasn't either - it's what Laura (the narrator) thinks, at first, so it was a safe spoiler-free explanation.) The implication I got was that Carmilla did her actual sleeping in her tomb (which wasn't far from Laura's estate) in the early morning (after her pre-dawn visits with Laura, or implied hunting in the village), which is why her bedroom was locked, and why they found it empty when Laura suddenly got worried about her. Which, of course, meant she had to travel between her tomb and the house in the morning.

Carmilla was definitely sleeping in her tomb, but I had the impression that she had to sleep at a particular time.

Aha, I found the passage I was thinking of. Right near the end of the story it says "How they [vampires] escape from their graves and return to them for certain hours every day, without displacing the clay or leaving any trace of disturbance in the state of the coffin or the cerements, has always been admitted to be utterly inexplicable. The amphibious existence of the vampire is sustained by daily renewed slumber in the grave."

This isn't totally clear, but it gives me the impression that Carmilla had to sleep during the day, and that she had to sleep at a fixed time ("certain hours"). But as you say she did have to get back and forth between the grave and Laura's house, so that may have been at least part of the reason why she seemed to "wake up" so late every day.

[CalMeacham]

Yes, but if you jab a knife into a modern vampire's heart, they'll just laugh. It has to be a sharp piece of wood. Why you need a wooden stake specifically, no one can seem to explain. I just wanted to point out where the whole "staking" mythology came from--as a way to nail the bloodsuckers in place.

It's not invariably wood. In Carl Dreyer's film Vampyr the vampire is staked with an iron bar (in full daylight, too -- this predates the Curt Siodmak films I listed above, so "dissolves in daylight" hadn't become part of the Canon yet). In Richard Matheson's novel [i]I Am Legend[/b], the hero uses wooden stakes until he discovers that he really doesn't need them. Various alternate methods of killing vampires include non-wooden impaling objects, in particular nails.


In one of his stories ("What do you think of chocolate-coated manhole covers?" , I think), Larry Niven asks (but doesn't answer) the question "Could you kill a vampire with a stake made of Plastic Wood?"

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Yes, but if you jab a knife into a modern vampire's heart, they'll just laugh. It has to be a sharp piece of wood. Why you need a wooden stake specifically, no one can seem to explain.

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

It's not invariably wood. In Carl Dreyer's film Vampyr the vampire is staked with an iron bar (in full daylight, too -- this predates the Curt Siodmak films I listed above, so "dissolves in daylight" hadn't become part of the Canon yet). In Richard Matheson's novel I Am Legend, the hero uses wooden stakes until he discovers that he really doesn't need them. Various alternate methods of killing vampires include non-wooden impaling objects, in particular nails.

Adding to CalMeacham's examples, in the Tim Powers novel The Stress of Her Regard the vampire-like beings are vulnerable to both metal (iron/steel) and wooden weapons. IIRC the reasons for this aren't fully explained in the novel, but here's what Powers had to say in an interview:

Originally Posted by Tim Powers

I was puzzled by the fact that the things that stymie supernatural assailants, are on the one hand silver bullets, cold steel and on the other hand wooden stakes. And I thought how's the rationale? I thought one is a very good of conductor of electricity and one's a very bad conductor – virtually an insulator. Therefore they hate the extremes, they like the middle. What's the middle? Well, silicon! You know, computer chips, semi-conductors. And I thought OK, well that's interesting, because silicon is the famous other basis possible for life.

These silicon-based beings also try to stay out of the sun because their bodies start to crystalize in direct sunlight. (One character suggests this was the truth behind the story of Lot's wife.) It's explained that they originated during a much earlier time in the Earth's history, when the atmosphere was different and protected them from more of the sun's rays.

[GreedySmurf]

Just an interesting aside on the whole staking a vamp thing.

D&D, which originated back in the late 70's, had Vampires, where a stake through the heart wouldn't kill the vamp outright, but would render it immobile. You had to cut off the head and burn it to truly kill the vampire.

It's an interesting data point I think that the fact it needed to be wooden was still important, but wasn't tied to staking it in it's coffin. But also that it still didn't kill it outright.

I personally try not to get too hung up on the actual 'abilities' of vamps, as it changes in popular culture all the time, even before it was counted as 'popular culture' [Having said that I think making them sparkly has taken them out of the realm of vamps into something else]

[RealityChuck]

As someone who has written and sold a reasonable amount of vampire stories, I use the genre because I can pick and choose from the legends as I see fit. My most successful short story was based upon the premise that all the legends get things wrong.

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by Barking Dog

Little Vlad called himself Draculya (son of the dragon) to further associate himself with his hero father. Nobody else really called him that, as far as I've read.

That's hard to say. According to Raymond McNally, "Dracula" was Vlad's preferred name in life. If that's how he introduced himself and signed his name (and it is documented that he did this), I'd be surprised if his contemporaries didn't call him that, especially given that Vlad III was, like his father, a full member of the Order of the Dragon.

And while we would call the guy a cruel SOB, at the time he was considered harsh, but fair. Much of the atrocities attributed to him (such as the feast among the corpses) were largely propaganda from his peers, who didn't like him that much. I forget why.

Political propaganda. Vlad was the last of the fiercely independent Wallachian princelings. Both the Turks and the Saxons had reason to villify him post-mortem. Russian tracts about Dracula were much more evenhanded. This might say more about the Russian tradition of (sometimes brutal) autocracy than it does about Dracula's better side, however.

Originally Posted by Lamia

According to Wikipedia, members of the House of Drăculești continued to rule Wallachia into the early 17th century. The list on the linked page ends in 1600, but the list of rulers of Wallachia includes Radu IX Mihnea (Voivode of Wallachia off and on until 1623) as a member of the same family.

It bears mentioning that every Wallachian prince after Vlad Dracula was essentially a client of the Ottoman Empire. In The Romanians 1774-1866, Keith Hitchins posits that Dracula's deposition was the de facto end of any pretense of real Wallachian autonomy.

[Bosstrain]

Just adding my take on the vampires being night creatures thing. It would seem that a lot, if not most or all monsters were originally creatures of the night, and this may very well be because: (a) people, until recently (with the invention of the lightbulb), have always been terrified by the night due to the difficulty of seeing just what is making that spooky sound or being mugged/killed by theives/bandits. (B) Because people needed to have a time when they were completely safe from monsters (in this case vamps), and naturely the daylight makes the darkness go away (physically and metaphorically). I'm sure everyone already knows this, heres the other thing though, monsters (vampires, ghosts, zombies, etc) all came from the imagination, but were inspired by something that was real. The undead were most likely given a serious boost during the middle ages, specifically with the black plague I'd imagine. Death would be everywhere, bodies just lying around sometimes, you'd walk by one and suddenly the damn thing moves.....the undead!! This would be many times more scary if you were hurrying to get home after the sun had already gone down, you're getting spooked by various noises, then you remember that body you saw moving, and now all you can think about is "what if it's coming after me!" Trust me, I'd think just a thought along those lines would push reason aside and the hair on the back of your neck is now about as stiff as that corpse. Just for fun, imagine starting to run home, super freaked out, you trip and fall on a dead body, and right at that moment it's arms jerk up in the air...trying to hug you .....I'd think that happening just once would be plenty to start a whole bunch of scary stories and stuff. Of course, the black plague wouldn't be the only source for such stories, people have been dieing since the beginning of time, it just seems to me that during the plague, the stories would told a lot more and people would be thinking about it a lot more, thus coming up with a lot more lore.

Anyway, probably stupid to mention those points, this is all well known I'd imagine, something to think about I guess, I just remembered that the undead were, in fact, somewhat a reality, if only a reflection of peoples lack of understanding.

[Bosstrain]

I must say that I'm truly disappointed with so many people giving so much credit to Vlad, I had no idea he wasn't even a real part of vampire legend that much at all. If History Channel was hosting the Deadliest Warrior show and not Spike, then I'm sure they would have busted the myth about Vald starting it all, but those Spike morons went right ahead and gave full, 100% credit to Vlad, as if he was the father of vamps. I knew he wasn't the real source so even at the time I thought them naming Vlad was a bit much, I went along with it though, thinking they weren't too off base, but thanks to you fine people, I now know that that whole boat doesn't even float . DAMN YOU, SPIKE!