The vampires in the Discworld series satifies the OP’s requirements. But it’s sort of borderline. They have to acclimate to light and such. But there are still problems, the vampire photographer for the Ankh-Morpork Times turns to dust when exposed to a flash, something of an issue for that line of work but he carries a vial of blood for reconstitution purposes.
Actually, any organic material could harm them; wood, horn, etc. They were not true undead, but some sort of alternate state of existence. Rare people with enough determination could rise up from apparent death as a vampire ( as Dracula did ); and very rare vampires could transition back to humanity by enough of an effort of will. There were also “half vampires” who made the transition to vampire only halfway, and wandered the world in something of a daze.
OK, I haven’t read them all that recently. And after the first two, they suffered badly from sequel-itis. Thanks, dude. 
Great discussion. Clearly the recent divergence of “styles” of vampires is making people ask a lot of new questions. Should vampires “sparkle”? Is their drinking of animal blood a wuss-out? Can they actually be vampires without fangs?
What’s fun about all the examples shared in these comments is that they are all still vampires, as varied as they seem to be.
So, as for the vampires *I *know: Thanks to developments in chemistry, they are able to enjoy sunbathing in Aruba. They are generally beneficent towards mortals but enjoy “tweaking” them with their mind-control powers and domination skills. They love human blood and also malted milk balls (although not together). And they can’t see themselves in mirrors (which is why they have webcams in their bathrooms).
–Diana Laurence, author of How to Catch and Keep a Vampire: A Step-by-Step Guide to Loving the Bad and the Beautiful, Sellers Publishing, October 2009
'Nother author who’s vampires hasn’t been mentioned yet; Kim Newman, of Anno Dracula fame.
From memory, his vampires—biological makeup and abilities varied between vampire bloodlines, though most of the basics seemed universal—could eat and enjoy food, though they didn’t require it; older and more powerful vampires could walk freely in daylight, though younger or weaker ones would be injured or killed; holy objects had no effect on them, though silver did—and it’s said that other severe physical injuries, including drowning, would be able to kill a vampire too; they could have sex, even with humans, but were incapable of sexual reproduction, even with other vampires; they were at least theoretically immortal, though if they were unhealthy or diseased in life, or were “turned” by a vampire from an unhealthy bloodline, they might become an unhealthy enough vampire that they wouldn’t have a very long life expectency; many or most appeared very human, though diseased (or very powerful) vampires could look monsterous.
Curiously, the mirror weakness did apply, and even worked on photographs, though the effects varied between vampires—sometimes there would be no image at all, or it might be of an empty suit of clothes. Sometimes the image would be blurry or blotted out, and in a few the image would be clear, but the vampire would appear even more cadaverous than they looked in person.
No, the Sparklepires are not Vampires. They deviate far too much. Not a single vampire weakness.
I think that the ability to go without harm into even full daylight is one no-go. AFAIK, only the ridiculous Sparklepires can do that.
White Court vampires of the Harry Dresden novels look like normal if extremely good looking people. They eat, drink, and have children like normal, aren’t bothered by sunlight or most of the traditional vampire weaknesses. They are in fact psychic vampires that feed on emotions ( lust, fear, or despair depending on bloodline ). Their weakness is love, or even anything made or given by someone for expressing love; contact with a person in love or such objects burns them like holy water would the classic vampire. They also have the classic vampiric Hunger, even if it’s for an emotion and not blood.
Actually, Dracula could. He was just less powerful; as I understand it the sunlight-destroys-vampires thing was made into a universal weakness by Hollywood.
Yes, but he was harmed by a reduction in power. And he was supposed to be super vampire, too.
I think it’s simple - if you need to drink blood to live, you’re a vampire. It’s binary, and cuts all this No True Scottish Vampire crap the hell out. Yes, there are a lot of untraditional vampires out there, but if they need to drink blood, then they’re vamps.
I would consider the whole undead thing an equally if not even more important component of being a vampire. If we imagine some fictional disease that can only be treated by ingesting blood, then an ordinary but unfortunate person could become a “vampire” by your definition. I’m sure the nickname “vampire” would be applied to such people by the insensitive, but this isn’t what most people would understand the word “vampire” to mean. If animal blood were sufficient for their needs then that’s not even scary, it’s just gross (and perhaps not even that depending on one’s cultural background – the Masai still sometimes drink cow’s blood).
FWIW, both Merriam-Webster and the OED explicitly mention reanimated corpses in their first definitions for the word “vampire”, although the OED leaves room for vampires that are not reanimated corpses.
Oxford English Dictionary: vampire, n. 1. A preternatural being of a malignant nature (in the original and usual form of the belief, a reanimated corpse), supposed to seek nourishment, or do harm, by sucking the blood of sleeping persons; a man or woman abnormally endowed with similar habits.
Merriam-Webster: vampire, n. 1 : the reanimated body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons asleep.
Both of these definitions include what I would consider the distinguishing characteristics of the vampire: a creature that used to be a living human but is no longer alive in the conventional sense, and that subsists on the blood of humans.
In my personal choices for vampire literature, I’m with you, Lamia, but be aware that it’ll cut out a large part of the literature, including the vampirism-as-infection, vampires-as-aliens and similar subgenres. Also some of the more amusing ethnic variants…
The Anno Dracula series is excellent. It’s also a pastiche populated with vampires from different literary sources. The “rules” of vampire un-life are inconsistent because vampire literature & folklore often disagree on the deteails. Newman explains that the different vampire lineages (or bloodlines) vary. Characters from history & other literature show up in this alternative history series–figuring out the sources is fun.
Or you can check out what’s been written on the Wold Newton site. Beware spoilers! Down the rabbit hole…
At least some of the vampires-as-aliens, etc., stories present their creatures as being the inspiration for vampire legends, not the same thing as the vampires of legend. I don’t believe The Hunger even uses the word “vampire” (although it’s right in the title of the sequel The Last Vampire). I don’t have a problem with vampire-like beings in fiction, but I prefer it if the author at least demonstrates some awareness that they are not vampires in the traditional sense.
By this point I think non-traditional vampires have become as much of a cliche as traditional ones, though. I don’t think I could even name a book from the past 20 years or so that wasn’t primarily about “nice” vampires.
My favorite is from a 1991 TV movie called Blood Ties, about the Carpathian-American community (“Don’t call us vampires. That’s an ugly racial slur.”) The Carpathians were a subspecies of humans. They were slightly stronger and slightly faster than normal, and had slightly longer lifespans. Their eyes were more sensitive to light, so they preferred to go out at night. Their ancestors had been bandits and outlaws, so they tended to have a predatory mindset similar to the Mafia. The blood-drinking was simply a cultural quirk.
Blindsight vampires aren’t nice at all. They are predators, and regard humans as prey animals. In the end ( major spoilers for the end of the book ) :
They apparently exterminate humanity, leaving the viewpoint character possibly “the last conscious creature in the universe”.
Simon Green’s vampires are never nice. Usually they are also walking corpses that look like walking corpses, complete with mold.
One Foot in the Grave had vampires that were all sociopathic as a side effect of the transformation.
The vampires of Those Who Hunt The Night weren’t nice at all; they had to kill to feed and were exceedingly creepy.
Dude- I am a Carpathian-American. :eek:None of that applies to me or my people. 
(Although “robber baron” was apparently on the resume, so I suppose “bandits and outlaws” is not that much of a slur.):smack: