# What do you guys think happened to vampires?



## Kitchen Witch (Jul 3, 2011)

I was inspired to make this thread by the discussion on horror.

This topic is not intended to bash any specific work about vampires, regardless of how does it approach the subject. But it is interesting, isn't it, the way those horrific monsters have transformed into something cool and exciting that everyone wants to be?
We had a discussion about this among friends sometime ago, and here's the conclusion we've reached:

Vampires have always been charming and intriguing. They had to be. As Terry Pratchett wrote, it was the only way to get people to stay for the night in the bloody castle. What happened, though, was that the popularity of the theme made more and more people want to draw on it, and not all of them were skilled enough to pull off what Abraham Stoker could - the atmosphere of complete, utter and yet futile revulsion. Careful characterization was replaced by simplistic, blunt construction : in books, this meant other characters simply reacted the expected way without sufficient reason, and in films this meant playing up the sexual attractiveness of vampire characters instead of creating the right mood.

After all, filming a genuinely chilling sequence with a pale woman in the middle is hard work for the whole crew, from light technicians and costume designers to actors and directors. How much easier is it to cast a buxom babe squeezed into a corset and a model to flash his pectorals from time to time? And thus, Vampires Are Sex Gods and Romani people are left behind, saying "...Huh?"


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Kitchen Witch said:


> ...As Terry Pratchett wrote, it was the only way to get people to stay for the night in the bloody castle....


Every wannabe vampire-story author should be required by law to read Carpe Jugulum before proceeding -- not as something to even consider imitating, but to actually _think_ about the vampire monster and its genre before writing silly nonsense pretending to be horror or suspense.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Every cliche was once a fresh new idea, and fresh new ideas tend to get overused and become cliche. The problem is that people often still call the ideas fresh after they are stale. Vampires can be both charming and monstrous, but they don't have to be. They can be purely monstrous. But vampires have shifted away from being both charming and monstrous to being far more charming than monster.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Although I have recently become a fan of HBOs "True Blood" I cannot stand a certain YA series wherein the vampires have rippling muscles and "sparkle."  To me, bloodsuckers sleep in dirt.  They should look evil and gross like "30 Days of Night" or in Stephen King's "'Salems Lot."  "Lot" actually scared me in places.  Nothing about modern vampires is scary.


----------



## Stephen_Melling (Jun 26, 2011)

balaspa said:


> Although I have recently become a fan of HBOs "True Blood" I cannot stand a certain YA series wherein the vampires have rippling muscles and "sparkle." To me, bloodsuckers sleep in dirt. *They should look evil and gross like "30 Days of Night"* or in Stephen King's "'Salems Lot." "Lot" actually scared me in places. Nothing about modern vampires is scary.


Totally agree. In 30 Days of Night the vampires were exceptionally scary.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

balaspa said:


> Nothing about modern vampires is scary.


Yes, exactly. Please put scary back into vampires. After all, the legend most likely originated at the time of horrible disfiguring diseases and I don't believe there was anything charming or seductive in the original "lore". I'd like to see that little whiny girl from Twilight meet the good old Nosferatu http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/


----------



## HDJensen (Apr 20, 2011)

I actually think the great thing about vampires today is that there is a vampire for everybody. You can still find the blood-thirsty, savage monsters in some films and books, but if you prefer the more modern version, sparkle or not, there's some of that out there, too. I've been a fan of vampires of all types since I was twelve, although it was Anne Rice who sparked my interest in them with Louie and Lestat. Back when I was younger, it was hard to find YA books involving vampires.I did read Bunicula in grade school, but I don't think that counts exactly. Lol.  LJ Smith was around at some point, but I never did find her series until much later. I personally appreciate that there are vampires for every age to enjoy. My vampires lie somewhere in the middle most of the time. They aren't inherently evil, but the right vampire can make a terrific villain that you just love to hate.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I love the Jim Butcher Dresden files because there are all kinds of vampires in it.

Though, if you do like your vampires, EVOLVE edit by Nancy Kilpatrick is outstanding.


----------



## Riven Owler (Jul 9, 2011)

I know this is a book thread, so pardon, but did anyone else see "Let Me In"?  That movie took the "sweet" out of vampire again for me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2011)

Riven Owler said:


> I know this is a book thread, so pardon, but did anyone else see "Let Me In"? That movie took the "sweet" out of vampire again for me.


I had a great time with that movie. Chloe Moretz is probably going to be a star for a long time.


----------



## Riven Owler (Jul 9, 2011)

I agree with you about Chloe.  I think she was 13.


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

Kelvecion said:


> Totally agree. In 30 Days of Night the vampires were exceptionally scary.


Thanks! I edited the 30 Days of Night comic books and wrote or co-wrote 4 novels based on them. The original idea was to make vampires scary again--sharks with legs, nothing you'd want to make out with. I think it was a move in the right direction.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Actually, I think the psychological phenomena is girls who want to "tame" men.  Once upon a time it was guys with tattoos and motorcycles (or along those lines).  Then men of an other race.  (Can't you older folks remember the many romance novels with covers of bare chested American Indians with white women.)  Vampires become that next taboo "bad boys" for "good girls" to tame.  But when general culture see the "bad boy" has acceptable in society, then the "good girls" move on to the next taboo.  What comes after vampires, I don't know.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Geemont said:


> What comes after vampires, I don't know.


Chippendale zombies.


----------



## zizekpress (Mar 9, 2011)

They're written for teenage girls now. Vampires who are supposed to be dangerous, but will also sit down and have coffee with an 18 year old girl they love. It's ridiculous.

I watched an episode of 'The Vampire Diaries' and the supposedly bad vampire did exactly this. He spent all his time at the local cafe, talking to the main girl's friends...where's the danger? 

What writers need to start doing is writing it for adults again, but still intergrating the vampire into the local community somehow, but not in the coffee shop all the time. Then, when any character is alone with the vampire then they are most likely going to die and there's not a lot they can do about it.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

> What do you guys think happened to vampires?


Authors of romance and YA kidnapped them and forced them to appear in their books as MC's love interest; and poor things in that process lost their creepiness and characteristics that painted them as monsters of the night.

My favorite vampires are from movies (Blade) and shows (Wraith), so Dracula being downtrodden by gloomy (sometimes sparkling) eye-candies doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just hope that vampires would continue to evolve in different ways (wouldn't be boring if we only had Dracula-like vampires?) and if that means that we will also have sugary version of them, why not. Diversity is a good thing, and it's not like scary, monster-like vampires are extinct.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

I'm so glad some people have mentioned 40 Days Of Nights. Those vampires were seriously scary and I loved that film. That is what vampires are to me. Evil, violent and ugly. However, I can see why the 'newer' vampires aimed at teenagers and the like, are attractive to their fans. It's just another subject told in a different way. They're after a hero and they just happen to be very attractive vampires. It is such a broad genre, all fans can get their fill.


----------



## Kitchen Witch (Jul 3, 2011)

Geemont said:


> Actually, I think the psychological phenomena is girls who want to "tame" men. Once upon a time it was guys with tattoos and motorcycles (or along those lines). Then men of an other race. (Can't you older folks remember the many romance novels with covers of bare chested American Indians with white women.) Vampires become that next taboo "bad boys" for "good girls" to tame. But when general culture see the "bad boy" has acceptable in society, then the "good girls" move on to the next taboo. What comes after vampires, I don't know.


That's a very good point. Inherent in most cultures there's still this deep conviction that a woman is a being of "heart and emotion", that having a man is her biggest and only success and that she exists only to love (and procreate). So the only way we can have a decent challenge is to do this with as improbable a partner as possible.

But female vampires have just as hard a time. We've focused on spakly boys, but those girls have it rough as well, with their ruby lips straight out of a collagen commercial and corsets that make their stomachs come out of their ears, or, in more "urban" settings, being undistinguishable from prostitutes who are doing a month if "charity work" and have a blood fetish. I see that attraction is important, but reading some books and watching some shows I get this feeling that they... well... were written with one hand, if you know what I mean.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Once upon a time, someone had the idea to make a vampire who wasn't a moster but was a tortured soul fighting against his nature. This led to all sorts of imitators, like vampire hunters who were vampires themselves, and so many angst-ridden vampires. That which was once a breaking of convention became cliche. It's similar to dragons. Dragons used to be the biggest, baddest monsters out there - but monsters nonetheless. Then someone decided to break convention and create a dragon that was really a nice guy. And now it seems every dragon is a wise kindly creature.


----------



## M.S. Verish (Feb 26, 2010)

I suppose it all started with Barnabus Collins in the late 60s with Dark Shadows. He was the first 'tortured soul' vampire that I know of who had issues with what he was. That led to Anne Rice type books with Lestat, and eventually Stephenie Meyer's Edward Cullen. This is a VERY brief summary, but what do I know? My wife and I write epic fantasy.


----------



## gryeates (Feb 28, 2011)

I think everything goes through phases and what happened with Twilight was a writer came along who wrote about creatures that are traditionally considered to be 'horror' in a way that would go down a storm with readers who are not into horror. I don't agree with that take on the vampire but I tend towards being a traditionalist. My preference is for Soker's Dracula, Count Orlok as presented in both versions of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu and the vampires from 30 Days of Night. These were also my own reference points as a writer as I think the vampire can embody our fear of the unknown, it's a dead thing, it should not be and it needs our blood to survive. There's something latently horrific in that symbiosis that I think is not tapped into quite so much as the sexual undertones. Not that there is anything wrong with the latter if that's what interests you about the vampire.


----------



## J.L. McPherson (Mar 20, 2011)

Jeff, the "sharks with legs" reference was just awesome. If anyone can bring back _real_ vampires it is going to be Alan Ryker, the dude is amazing. 30 days of night was the last vampire movie that I remember actually enjoying, those are _real_ vampires and just as important an intriguing plot to go with it.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

Riven Owler said:


> I know this is a book thread, so pardon, but did anyone else see "Let Me In"? That movie took the "sweet" out of vampire again for me.


The book is flat-out disturbing. I will never recommend it to my mother.

_30 Days of Night_ was an enjoyably chilling movie. It felt like it was getting back to the basics. Hit and miss amongst my friends, but spot on for me.


----------



## helenscotttaylor (Jul 13, 2011)

Geemont said:


> Actually, I think the psychological phenomena is girls who want to "tame" men. Once upon a time it was guys with tattoos and motorcycles (or along those lines). Then men of an other race. (Can't you older folks remember the many romance novels with covers of bare chested American Indians with white women.) Vampires become that next taboo "bad boys" for "good girls" to tame. But when general culture see the "bad boy" has acceptable in society, then the "good girls" move on to the next taboo. What comes after vampires, I don't know.


I hadn't thought about vamps this way before but I believe you have hit the nail on the head. At it's heart is the heroine taming the ultimate alpha male be he vampire, fallen angel, werewolf or even the traditonal uber powerful businessman.

Helen


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Personally of the "classic" monsters, I always liked werewolves better.  I think being able to turn into an animal would just be cool.  I would prefer to be able to do it anytime, rather than be beholden to the phases of the moon, but at least if it was during the full moon, you'd just have to deal with it for a short time.  The rest of the time you could go out during the day and not have to smell like a dead person.


----------



## Indy (Jun 7, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> I had a great time with that movie. Chloe Moretz is probably going to be a star for a long time.


It's a remake of "Let the Right One In" which is subtitled in english. I saw that one a year or two ago and it scared the bejeesus out of me. It has either no soundtrack or a very limited one. The subtitles did not detract from the experience. I think if I had not seen it, "Let Me In" still would have been very good.


----------



## HDJensen (Apr 20, 2011)

PC Cast, co-author of the YA vampire House of Night series spoke in an interview about how the fascination with vampires might come from their ability to be invincible. She spoke about how that talks to teenagers, because at that age, you feel invincible. Also, who wouldn't want to be young and beautiful forever? I'm just paraphrasing since it has been quite some time since I read the interview, but I think she nailed it on the head. What teenager, or adult for that matter, doesn't want to be young and beautiful forever? Vampires are just one way of identifying with that. There's a kind of vampire out there for everyone, including handsome, broody, sparkling ones for teenage girls.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> Once upon a time, someone had the idea to make a vampire who wasn't a moster but was a tortured soul fighting against his nature. This led to all sorts of imitators, like vampire hunters who were vampires themselves, and so many angst-ridden vampires. That which was once a breaking of convention became cliche. It's similar to dragons. Dragons used to be the biggest, baddest monsters out there - but monsters nonetheless. Then someone decided to break convention and create a dragon that was really a nice guy. And now it seems every dragon is a wise kindly creature.


Some Asian dragons were wise and kindly creatures, so it's in keeping with ancient mythology from some parts of the world. But I do get what you're saying. This did happen, though I think dragons weren't as overdone this way as vampires have been.

I've never been a huge fan of vampires, monstrous or teen hunk in style. But I prefer monstrous.


----------



## lynnemurray (May 19, 2011)

The fun thing about vampires for me, as a selective reader is how they can go in many directions.

Not long ago I re-read Ann Rice's _Interview with the Vampire_, which is still as tightly written as I had remembered, but I'd forgotten how metaphysical her vampires were compared to so many recent vampires who so often seem a bit lazy in in making the blood=hot sex equation. I get that the raw power of a predator can be a turn-on, but I've observed my cats stalking prey and they enjoy it more than the prey does.

Another observation is that the Vampire = Byronic Hero in paranormal romance so often seems to include a sort of vampire-to-human prenuptial agreement so that the romantic heroine can be reassured that her 600-year-old paramour won't stray. Don't get me started on how vampires seem to only prey on underwear models and strippers. Fortunately Andrew Fox has given us _Fat White Vampire Blues_ and _Bride of the Fat White Vampire_!

I cut the author a lot of slack if the story is enjoyable. For example I love Ilona Andrews _Magic Bites_ series, set in a post-magic-apocalyptic Atlanta, Georgia that alternates between magic waves that trash anything technological and troughs in the magic when technical things work and magic wanes. Andrews' vampires are mindless, soulless, blood-seeking killing machines whose empty minds can be driven by trained necromancers. I adore that conceit. Also, though I generally don't warm to shapeshifters--the shedding, the shedding!--I admire the way Andrews envisions a shapeshifter culture is set up as a self-policing group aimed at preventing incidents of shapeshifters gone wild.

For me part of the fun in both reading and writing about paranormal stuff is seeing how the author chooses to interpret the rather flexible "rules" of the genre.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

NogDog said:


> Every wannabe vampire-story author should be required by law to read Carpe Jugulum before proceeding -- not as something to even consider imitating, but to actually _think_ about the vampire monster and its genre before writing silly nonsense pretending to be horror or suspense.


Omg, THIS. Pratchett's not too shabby as a philosopher moralist, either. Agnes Nitt gives the best definition of sin I've ever read.

(From memory, so, not at it's Pratchetty best: "It all starts when you treat people as things." It's a bit more powerful in context, because the man can tell a story, but I think that's it in a nutshell.)

I've been amusing myself trying to think of the next traditional monster that will go through the new horror - sexy - laughable reimagining cycle, and I keep getting stuck. It's the sexy step that's hard. I mean, mummies? That's...I mean, dude. That's gross. Hopefully no working metaphor for sex imbedded in the horror there.

One could say the same for Frankenstein. The humor works better there. I can't think about Frankenstein sex without thinking of Young Frankenstein, which is awesome. (Or, for that matter, the Igor in Carpe Jugulum.)

What other monster archetypes are suitable for a sexy, horrific reimagining? Monsters aren't my strong suit, but there's gotta be some, right?


----------



## John Dorian (Jul 23, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> (From memory, so, not at it's Pratchetty best: "It all starts when you treat people as things." It's a bit more powerful in context, because the man can tell a story, but I think that's it in a nutshell.)


Best Quote ever


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)




----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

Anne Rice eroticized and romanticized the vampire and lesser authors took the idea and ran with it, watering it down and making it safe and palatable, removing the elements of danger and decadence that characterized Rice's books. Lestat was classy and sophisticated, but he would still kill you with no remorse whatsoever.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

Well, I would always love a sexy female blood sucker!


----------



## dltanner99 (Sep 9, 2010)

To fit into a romance novel subtext, they had to become romantic creatures. I wish more about the traditions of vampires carried over from the original strogoi, but that wouldn't sell books (or movie tickets). Bela Lugosi first played Dracula on Broadway in 1927 - and as many women swooned over his looks, hypnotic stare and accent, as fainted from his neck biting. In a way, we've kind of come full circle. The vampire has remained a lucrative fixture in the entertainment industry since Bram Stoker's novel first appeared in serial form beginning in 1897. It has changed with the times, but only gotten more popular. It will evolve again, once it becomes necessary to do so to ensure its survival as a literary and film icon. You just can't get more immortal than that...


----------



## BiancaSommerland (Mar 8, 2011)

HDJensen said:


> I actually think the great thing about vampires today is that there is a vampire for everybody. You can still find the blood-thirsty, savage monsters in some films and books, but if you prefer the more modern version, sparkle or not, there's some of that out there, too. I've been a fan of vampires of all types since I was twelve, although it was Anne Rice who sparked my interest in them with Louie and Lestat. Back when I was younger, it was hard to find YA books involving vampires.I did read Bunicula in grade school, but I don't think that counts exactly. Lol. LJ Smith was around at some point, but I never did find her series until much later. I personally appreciate that there are vampires for every age to enjoy. My vampires lie somewhere in the middle most of the time. They aren't inherently evil, but the right vampire can make a terrific villain that you just love to hate.


I completely agree with this. Granted, even I cringe a little at the sparkly vampires, but I enjoy all different flavors of bloodsuckers. Same thing with watching serial killers. Sometimes I want Chainsaw Massacre. Sometimes I want Silence of the Lamb. Sometimes I want to sympathize with the killer and watch something like Law Abiding Citizen.

As for vampires being sexy, well, it's a little easier to fantasize about them when they don't have smooshed in dog faces. Then again, maybe I see them in a more romantic way since my first exposure to vampires was Forever Knight--I was pretty young. Then there's Kindred the Embraced. And now Vampire Diaries.

I don't think anything really 'happened' to them. I think they gained mass appeal and there was always room for their 'tortured souls' to be explored. Now zombies being glamorized. That I'd have a problem with.


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

BiancaSommerland said:


> As for vampires being sexy, well, it's a little easier to fantasize about them when they don't have smooshed in dog faces. Then again, maybe I see them in a more romantic way since my first exposure to vampires was Forever Knight--I was pretty young. Then there's Kindred the Embraced. And now Vampire Diaries.


I just can't get past the fact that blood breath would be incredibly nasty smelling. No vampire kissing for me, thanks.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

M.S. Verish said:


> I suppose it all started with Barnabus Collins in the late 60s with Dark Shadows. He was the first 'tortured soul' vampire that I know of who had issues with what he was. That led to Anne Rice type books with Lestat, and eventually Stephenie Meyer's Edward Cullen. This is a VERY brief summary, but what do I know? My wife and I write epic fantasy.


Yes, but Louis was actually the tortured soul in that series.

Dawn


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

I like vampires when they're done right(In my opinion, that is.  Others like different things, and that's great), and I think there will always be a place for them in literature and film.  Anne Rice's vampire vision is my favorite, because I love the idea of living for thousands of years, witnessing history as it happens, comparing different eras based upon firsthand knowledge.  Her books take me on a journey.  When I read them I feel as if I'm there with the characters.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree -- Rice's vision in her best books is remarkable, setting her vampires in the full context of history. The fact is, the image of the vampire has changed many times since Stoker's Dracula. There've been decades when they've generally been portrayed as monstrous, and other decades when they've been portrayed as sexy and even sympathetic. Look at the film 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' -- actually anything but -- which shows us the Count as almost a romantic hero. Then look at the later John Carpenter's 'Vampires,' where they're portrayed as vicious predators. Radically different images of the creatures, largely dependent on what's going on in our own lives and our societies.


----------



## Ash Stirling (Mar 2, 2011)

I don't have a problem with vampires being in some way 'sexy' - but they should never ever be 'nice.'  After all, as undead creatures that feed on blood, they should be disconnected from humanity.

I've always seen them as amoral creatures, predators that are prone to violence and fall in lust, not in love.  In fact, they are the cats of the paranormal world - they are not tame, their loyalty is fleeting and they are always ready to pounce.


----------



## indiebookslist (Aug 5, 2011)

It's sad, in a way, that Lestat has been overshadowed by Edward Cullen. Anne Rice really cracked a door for Stephanie Meyer. I'm more of Blade / Daywalkers / Underworld vampire lover...where someone goes rogue, and at the very least, keeps them all in check.

Vampire legends have been around for hundreds of years. No need to make them fast, emo, and sparkly.


----------



## Richard Raley (May 23, 2011)

To me, vampires as they were (stakes, sunlight, silver, garlic) have been DONE...usually the further in time you go back the better they've been done as well, though I do admit that Ilona Andrews and Jim Butcher at least tried something new and I liked their takes on it.

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

September 11th. The Western world, in general, got its fill of scares then, and we're still not particularly hungry for more. Hence, proliferation of cuddly, fluffy, bright books and music. *shrug* Can't argue with the Collective Unconscious, dudes.


----------



## Marata Eros (Jul 23, 2011)

I still love vamps but it needs to be something with a new twist or I'm not interested...


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

It's not just vampires but all monsters that have undergone a transformation. If monsters are symbols of evil, part of the change has to do with what the author wants to say about evil, or the Other. 

Maybe there is also a gender component at work. One's biggest fear about Others of the same sex is that they will want to kill you (especially true for males) but one's biggest fear about Others of the opposite sex is that they will (or won't) want to mate with you. And then kill you. Or something like that.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

My Two Cents:

A lot of people might blame BUFFY.

I don't.

Here's why: For as romantic a figure as he turned Angel (and later, even Spike) into, Whedon always threw in reminders of the exact nature of vampires.

I'm thinking of the episode in which Buffy and Angel walk into a vampire worshiping cult and Angel gives a menacing speech about becoming a vampire, to the effect of, "Everything that is you dies. A demon takes up residence in your body and takes over your soul and turns you into a blood-thirsty killer and convinces itself it is you..." or something to that effect.

So for me, even Whedon remembered that vampires were monsters. The only reason Angel was able to be a non-psychotic killer was because of his soul.

Even Charlaine Harris (True Blood) seems to remember vampires are monsters some of the time.

No, for me, I have to lay thing "death" of real vampires at the doorstep of Stephanie Meyer and her disciples. Vamps are reduced to creatures who want to bite you and suck your blood, but are good little LDS/Catholic/whateveryouwannacallems and would never even pop fangs before... marriage!

So they become the ideal, non-sexually-threatening, strong, silent, brooding boyfriends. James Dean with an addiction to blood instead of alcohol. Whatever.

And those who come after Meyer rarely even make them that anymore.

So... if vampires are ever to be restored to their monstrous roots, our only hope is... *DAVID McAFEE!!*


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

The problem with vampires in literature today is that they're all inspired by Anne Rice's sexy aristocrats instead of being inspired by the brilliant Legacy of Kain game series, in which the aristocrats are out-and-out undead slaughtering monsters, both mentally and physically, which is both terrifying and compelling.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

The problem is that Vampires are a fashion statement 

"Oooh, i'm a ruthless killer" Became too cool and was warped by popular culture.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I don't think anything happened to Vampires. Those that want to read about them in horror novels can, those that want to read about them in Paranormal romances also can and those that like Young Adult stuff like Twilight also have options. 

They are characters just like any other. No genre has any kind of ownership on them. They are a character like cops, witches, zombies, painters, cooks etc. You find each across all genres. 

So to me, it breaks down to genres.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

Yes, there are small sub categories of vampires, but they don't dominate horror any more. They fall in the realm of drama and romance, most noted in popular television series, from Angel to True Blood to Twilight, Vampires are the new drama queens.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

So while they _were_ dominating the Horror Genre, did people complain about all the vampires in Horror? 

It all goes in waves. Readers demand what they want to read.


----------



## August_V_Fahren (Aug 6, 2011)

Vampires are still going strong. Let the Right One In and Chan-wook Park's Thirst come to mind.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I don't think anything happened to Vampires. Those that want to read about them in horror novels can, those that want to read about them in Paranormal romances also can and those that like Young Adult stuff like Twilight also have options.
> 
> They are characters just like any other. No genre has any kind of ownership on them. They are a character like cops, witches, zombies, painters, cooks etc. You find each across all genres.
> 
> So to me, it breaks down to genres.


Couldn't agree more. Supernatural fiction is a big enough category to cater for all tastes.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

I like my vampires old school to the point where I'll get ticked off if they can't stand sunlight.

They shouldn't be sexy like a pinup model they should be mesmerizing.  They're visceral and primal.  They aren't dangerous because they're attractive and they aren't attractive because they're dangerous.  They're dangerous because they can put your consciousness to sleep, suck the life out of you and leave you a hollow husk that does nothing but hunger.

I ask...any recent vampire books for adults that won't anger me?


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Ty Johnston said:


> Chippendale zombies.


OMG write it!


----------



## mallington (Jun 20, 2011)

Actually, this is my first post, and having read the comments, I'm very impressed with the astute insights of the other writers who have responded.  I recently put up on Kindle a "vampire" novel, and here's what I discovered in the long process of collecting material, as well as reading other works in the genre.  The vampire mythology that came out of Eastern Europe spanned a couple of centuries and had a very real and disturbing impact on ordinary lives.  That, in itself, is great literary material, and it begs the question: how did it start?  At what point did superstition overwhelm fact?  No question about it, we're still intrigued to this day by the mythology, and so the books keep coming, wrapped in the morass of cliches that will eventually doom the subject.  That's too bad.  There's still room in this story line for originality and drama.  I must say that the first 50 pages of Bram Stoker's Dracula are still gripping - perhaps because it was the first popular account that brought attention to the subject - or maybe because it was good writing.


----------



## leadbelly (Aug 27, 2011)

I think romance happened to vamps. I get the romance genre and its place in literature/book publishing but it seems to have seeped into everything. For example, it's quite difficult to find any genre that doesn't have some sort of romantic aspect to it--even horror, fantasy, etc. And as others have said, you can't have a romance with someone that isn't appealing. 

I got into a debate with a friend of mine who hates the direction that vamps have taken (sparkles) and ended up making her cry (I'm not mean, really). My thought was that if you believe in evolution then vamps could evolve over time, she on the other hand thinks that vamps wouldn't or couldn't evolve and should be the mean blood suckers they originated as. I believe that as well, for the most part but I do think vamps could evolve but I still think romanticizing them is ridiculous.

Sort of out-topic, one thing that really bothers me about the "sparkly" vamps is how it kinda glorifies the sharing of blood when in fact, it should be doing just the opposite. Sharing/drinking blood should not be romanticized for a segment of the population who aren't getting decent sex education.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

But wasn't Bram Stokers Dracula a love story at its heart?

I love vampire stories.  My favs are where vampirism is like a highly contagious disease, such as in Draculas by Kilbourne, Crouch, Blake and Wilson.  Also the Strain trilogy by Guillermo Del Toro and Chuck Hogan.  Isn't that sorta a cross between zombies and vamps?

But I have also read some of the romance once, not the kiddie stuff.  I have to admit there is some sort of draw in it.  I think it is a bit deeper than "taming" the bad guy.  In these books, the vampire is the ultimate warrior and he will completely commit to a woman.  He might be a womanizer (better for the romance if he is) before he meets "the one".  But as soon as she comes along it is hard and fast and he can only be with her.  It feeds into the fear women have of finding love and being left later.  In the series I read (the black dagger brotherhood), the vamps completely bond to their wives and leaving them isn't physically possible.  Instant lifetime devotion.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

KindleChickie said:


> But wasn't Bram Stokers Dracula a love story at its heart?


Not really, no.

There are characters that love each other to be sure, but the story is about Dracula coming to England, wreaking a little havoc, and having the intrepid band of good guys chase him back to his home and fight him there.


----------



## Aubrie Dionne author (Feb 10, 2011)

Interesting conclusion and very true!

I also think that people want to read about sexy monsters these days. For instance, the Phantom in Phantom of the Opera was supposed to be ugly, but newer versions have him looking pretty good to me.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

NogDog said:


> Every wannabe vampire-story author should be required by law to read Carpe Jugulum before proceeding -- not as something to even consider imitating, but to actually _think_ about the vampire monster and its genre before writing silly nonsense pretending to be horror or suspense.


I haven't read Carpe Jugulum, but I recommend writers of vampirism read The Historian if they wish to create a community of vampires based on historical myth and legend rather than copying each other. Thre are some good ones like Anne Rice's vampires, and if I were to imitate anyone's vamps, it'd be hers.


----------



## Robert S. Wilson (Jul 21, 2011)

They Hunger by Scott Nicholson has some pretty horrifying vampires in it. No sex appeal there...


----------



## Eliza Baum (Jul 16, 2011)

Atunah said:


> So while they _were_ dominating the Horror Genre, did people complain about all the vampires in Horror?
> 
> It all goes in waves. Readers demand what they want to read.


Couldn't agree with this more. Sexy, "nice" vampires are overdone today, and in two years it'll be something else.


----------



## Dianna Hardy (Aug 9, 2011)

My take on it:

Vampires, like most monsters, represent an aspect of our "shadow". Over the last few decades of freedom of speech, finding your yin (if you're a man), finding your yang (if you're a woman), and generally being more open as a society about ourselves and "feelings" we have integrated the monster within our own psyches, becoming more comfortable with it. Therefore, the monster looks more attractive to us and is more attractive.

In film, the vampire has always been synonymous with seduction, right back to Nosferatu (yes, aspects of the black and white cinematography was made out to imprint "seduction" in the subconscious). And I'm one of those that believes Bram Stoker's Dracula was a love story as well as a horror. Dracula would have never come to England had he not spied the picture of Mina (supposedly the reincarnation of his only love, Elisabeta). He cursed his soul _because_ Elisabeta died. She was _the reason_. It's just as tragic and star-crossed as Romeo and Juliet, the difference is that the lead is a monster and we have doubts about whether he deserves a happy ending. In the end, Mina redeemed him by killing him at his request, so he got his "happy ending" in a roundabout kind of way. It's not a romance by today's definition, but it's definitely a love story. As you can probably tell, I love this book! 

And as a general rule, I don't like my vampires to sparkle, but hey, each to their own


----------



## Iain Manson (Apr 3, 2011)

I like my vampires nasty. Don't know if anyone is familiar with the 1970 movie _Count Yorga, Vampire_, but there were some cool vampires in that. And Count Yorga himself? Well, you'd be _proud_ to have your blood sucked by such an exemplary representative of the undead.

In real life, of course, vampires are a pain. In London back in the 1960s, the Highgate Vampire got on everybody's nerves, and on not a few jugulars. The irritation culminated in a mass vampire hunt in Highgate Cemetery on the night of Friday, March 13th, 1970. They didn't get him, and although someone did claim to have staked him three years later, I wouldn't bet on it.

I've only ever known one vampire at all well, and he really sucked. Vampires do.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

KindleChickie said:


> But wasn't Bram Stokers Dracula a love story at its heart?


You're thinking not of Bram Stoker's Dracula, but "Bram Stoker's Dracula," the movie with Keanu Reeves and Gary Oldman. The movie does have some good parts, but all that "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" stuff was not in the book.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

> You're thinking not of Bram Stoker's Dracula, but "Bram Stoker's Dracula,"


Exactly.


----------



## Dianna Hardy (Aug 9, 2011)

R. M. Reed said:


> You're thinking not of Bram Stoker's Dracula, but "Bram Stoker's Dracula," the movie with Keanu Reeves and Gary Oldman. The movie does have some good parts, but all that "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" stuff was not in the book.


Oh, crud, you're right ... I was thinking about the Nosferatu film, then switched to the Dracula film instead of the book. Doh! I stand by what I said about Nosferatu film though (the 1922 film)


----------



## Richard Raley (May 23, 2011)

I forgot to mention Charlie Huston in my first post.  There's some great gritty vampires in his Joe Pitt books.  He treats them like a virus and the effect of needing blood and the hardship of hiding from society is very real.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

M.S. Verish said:


> I suppose it all started with Barnabus Collins in the late 60s with Dark Shadows. He was the first 'tortured soul' vampire that I know of who had issues with what he was. That led to Anne Rice type books with Lestat, and eventually Stephenie Meyer's Edward Cullen.


Barnabas was such a romantic vampire as were Anne Rice's. I haven't read Stephenie Meyer's, but so many now are ridiculous parodies..
JMHO


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

*shiver*

Vampires were the monsters that lived under my bed.  When I was a kid, my friend turned on Bela Lugosi's Dracula.  She told me if I got scared, to pull this crocheted afgan my mom had left on the couch over my head.  But she didn't tell me to close my eyes.  So I saw it all through the loose knit and was SCARRED FOR LIFE.    

Okay, so seriously, I slept under the covers from age three to age fifteen.

The first vampire movie I could ever handle was "Buffy" ("Buffy" the tv show was too scary and I couldn't handle it until I was well into my twenties...  I was a wuss.)  And then I discovered Robin McKinnley's Sunshine and I GOT it.  There is something about surviving the worst nightmare or taking the teeth out of the most horrible monster that reaffirms living.

What I think is interesting is this cultural reversal of monsters-to-heros and heros-to-monsters.  There was a movement a couple years back, just as Twilight was coming into its own with its declawed vampires, to turn unicorns into maneaters.  I don't know if it is a generational need to rebel against the monsters of the past, the hipsters yearning for irony, a metaphor for society at large where good is bad and bad is good...  Just an interesting cultural shift.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

R. M. Reed said:


> You're thinking not of Bram Stoker's Dracula, but "Bram Stoker's Dracula," the movie with Keanu Reeves and Gary Oldman. The movie does have some good parts, but all that "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" stuff was not in the book.


No, I was speaking of the book. Reread it and you will see the flowery language used is much the same as in romance novels of today. It would have been worded better if you asked me if I were thinking of the movie instead of telling me what was in my head. Sorta a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## Iain Manson (Apr 3, 2011)

KateDanley said:


> *shiver*
> 
> Vampires were the monsters that lived under my bed. When I was a kid, my friend turned on Bela Lugosi's Dracula. She told me if I got scared, to pull this crocheted afgan my mom had left on the couch over my head. But she didn't tell me to close my eyes. So I saw it all through the loose knit and was SCARRED FOR LIFE.


Kate, I don't think much of your friend. I hope you dropped her.

When I was little, I didn't know about vampires. For some reason, they were not common in rural Scotland. But I was scared to death of witches, and had recurring nightmares of one by the name of Woo-Woo. My father told me to sleep with my popgun beside my bed, and Woo-Woo never came again. Looking back, I think it's a pretty low-grade witch who can be scared off by a popgun.

The most terrifying witches ever were to be found in the _Toby Twirl_ books. Toby was a somewhat unusual pig. Determined to lay the ghost (if that's not too unfortunate a metaphor) of my childhood fear, I tracked down the books in question in the British Library recently. I wish I hadn't, because now I'm more scared than ever. These witches wear black pointy hats, and - I'm not making this up - fly on broomsticks! Silhouetted against the moon, they're a horrible sight.

But the worst thing of all is that they catch little children and . . . _make them do the housework!_ AAAAAGH!!!


----------



## leep (Aug 25, 2011)

The change (the latest) with vampires seems to that they're now considered superheroes, who only eat animal's blood, or some synthetic stuff.  They have super strength and speed, are hard to kill and spend a lot of time hanging around at night with the shades on.  You can see the cinematic appeal.

They've long had a link to seduction and sex though, which is another area that doesn't hurt.

As everyone has mentioned, people seem to have forgotten their origins or that historically they were always cast as the bad guys.


----------



## joshtremino (Jul 31, 2010)

Vampires are just too cool. They're rich and powerful. Even if they were ugly, their immortality and strength makes them really cool. Monsters are only scary when they kill the good guys, but those same monsters can make some incredible protagonists. I mean, what's the difference between Jason and Dexter? Or how about Freddie Krueger (sp?). South Park made him a hero in one of their episodes and it worked.


----------



## normcowie (Jun 21, 2011)

Well, the vampires of today sure don't resemble those in the book that scared the hell out of me when I was sixteen (um, that was like, thirty five years ago). I don't like the rippling muscles, the rubber faced tv vamps, or the ones with choppers that look like they came from a Jurassic Park movie. Give me classic anytime.

That said, the movie (haven't read the book) for "Interview with the Vampire" was inspired.


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

Iain Manson said:


> The most terrifying witches ever were to be found in the _Toby Twirl_ books. Toby was a somewhat unusual pig. Determined to lay the ghost (if that's not too unfortunate a metaphor) of my childhood fear, I tracked down the books in question in the British Library recently. I wish I hadn't, because now I'm more scared than ever. These witches wear black pointy hats, and - I'm not making this up - fly on broomsticks! Silhouetted against the moon, they're a horrible sight.
> 
> But the worst thing of all is that they catch little children and . . . _make them do the housework!_ AAAAAGH!!!


Forget vampires! I'm sleeping with the lights on tonight!


----------



## KVWitten (Apr 11, 2011)

I've always felt that the one aspect of vampires that made them unique was that they were both scary *and* seductive.  (Preferably at the same time.)

Most modern vampires seem to be either one or the other - evil, scary, ugly, zombie-like creatures or gorgeous, angst-ridden centerfolds who want to be human again.  Ugh.  I'm sick of both types.

I once had a discussion with a friend who said the 'gorgeous-type' vampires *were* scary because they were very strong/fast and could kill you.  I pointed out that, as middle-aged women, most men and many women are stronger than we are and could strangle us with their bare hands if they wanted to.  But we don't walk around in fear because we trust other people to follow the rules.  Vampires that follow rules (to remain hidden from and/or co-exist with humanity) are not scary.

Give me scary *and* seductive.


----------



## AGF (Sep 5, 2011)

Vampires as dark creatures of the night hit their nadir with Stephenie Myers' sparkling vamps. 

They have always been a popular storyline in popular fiction going back to Varney the Vampire or further. So perhaps it was inevitable. through so many incarnations they would become not menacing predators lurking in the shadows but brooding males models.

The romance angle so prominent in vampire fiction these days certainly has played a factor in this transformation.
There was always a fair amount of attraction/repulsion between vampires and their female victims, the source of almost all sexual tension. So what better way to explore it than through a character who is not just a male sexual predator but an evil/undead holding out the promise of immortal life to amplify the allure of the taboo and forbidden? 

The problem is, as another poster has pointed out, is many writers today have distilled that brew of mystery, desire, longing and sexual confusion into a girl crush.


----------

