Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7

Author Topic: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?  (Read 7546 times)

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2010, 01:35:12 pm »

Honestly, vampires have been the unicorns of horror since Dracula.  That is my expert analysis.

The horror monster hierarchy:

Zombies
Lovecraftian stuff
30 Days of Night-style vampires
Robots that take over the world
Murderers
Werewolves
Lovecraftian stuff by August Derleth
Lovecraftian stuff by other people (R. W. Chambers excluded)
Dracula
Edward
Lovecraftian stuff made in Japan
Logged
Shoes...

Ephemeriis

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2010, 01:46:24 pm »

A traditional vampire was never something pleasant.  It was a genuinely dead body that got up and started walking around.  They slept in dirt, they drank blood, they smelled bad.  Don't think of Dracula, think of Nosferatu.

Ever since Stoker wrote his book, however, they've been far more pleasant critters.  They've gone from being a disgusting, rotting corpse to some kind of romantic, dark, brooding anti-hero.

I'm not sure that's really a bad thing...  I've thoroughly enjoyed some of the newer vampire literature.  Anne Rice turned out some very fun stuff, as did Brian Lumley.

But I think we've gone a little too far with the current vampire craze...  They're getting more and more gothic, less and less macabre.  I mean...  They sparkle now.
Logged
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2010, 01:51:22 pm »

Honestly, vampires have been the unicorns of horror since Dracula.  That is my expert analysis.

The horror monster hierarchy:

Zombies
Lovecraftian stuff
30 Days of Night-style vampires
Robots that take over the world
Murderers
Werewolves
Lovecraftian stuff by August Derleth
Lovecraftian stuff by other people (R. W. Chambers excluded)
Dracula
Edward
Lovecraftian stuff made in Japan
so where does aliens go to?

GaelicVigil

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2010, 01:51:41 pm »

I don't get it.
...
In my mind, vampires represent death. They're cold, unstoppable and uncaring. Changing any of that for your average vampire (yes, sadly, Buffy falls under this too, but that's excusable due to "demons"), makes them not be a vampire.
...
Can anyone explain any of this?

When I see people making statements like this about the Twilight series, I don't believe they have actually paid attention to the story.

The classical vicious Vampires you describe match the portrayal of about 99% of the Vampires in Twilight.  You see, the Cullens (Edward and company) are an exception to the norm.  That's the point of the whole story - they are in the minority and trying to do something different than what is common among Vampires.

So, yes, Twilight is very much telling a story about classical, blood-thirsty, cunning, completely evil, Vampires.  But it is contrasting those kind of Vampires with a small group of "Vegan" Vampires.  In my opinion, it's not difficult to believe that these type of Vampires could exist in any classical Vampire tale.

Edit:

Oh, and one more thing.  Where do people get the idea that Vampires are akin to mindless Zombies?  In every famous classical Vampire story, they have always been extremely cunning, very intelligent, and seducers.  Twilight has not deviated from this at all.  If anything, Nosferatu and its ilk has deviated from "classic" vampire (as in the grandfather: Dracula), not Twilight.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 01:55:33 pm by GaelicVigil »
Logged

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2010, 01:53:10 pm »

vegans you say? i knew it! Boulder does suck the life out of people!

Soadreqm

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm okay with this. I'm okay with a lot of things.
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2010, 02:03:05 pm »

What kind of hierarchy is that? Just what did you sort them according to? Zombies are probably the least frightening undead horrors of the night imaginable. Their weakness is complete lack of intelligence. That's the lamest weakness ever, and there are some pretty lame weaknesses around. You can keep them at bay indefinitely by building a tall concrete wall. ::)

And yeah, the old old vampires were pretty much equivalent to modern zombies. :/ I definitely find the sexy, immortal supervillains styled after Dracula more interesting. One of these days, I'm going to read twilight and see what all the whining is about, and until then, my opinion on the sparkling teenage vampires is in limbo. :P
Logged

fqllve

  • Bay Watcher
  • (grammar) anarcho-communist
    • View Profile
    • ufowitch
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2010, 02:04:40 pm »

Oh, and one more thing.  Where do people get the idea that Vampires are akin to mindless Zombies?

From folklore. Vampires were originally just reanimated corpses. Not very sexy. Ephemeralis was right.

All Dracula did was make the vampire Byronic. Cunning, intelligent, seductive, bisexual.

Logged
You don't use freedom Penguin. First you demand it, then you have it.
No using. That's not what freedom is for.

Ephemeriis

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2010, 02:15:20 pm »

Oh, and one more thing.  Where do people get the idea that Vampires are akin to mindless Zombies?  In every famous classical Vampire story, they have always been extremely cunning, very intelligent, and seducers.  Twilight has not deviated from this at all.  If anything, Nosferatu and its ilk has deviated from "classic" vampire (as in the grandfather: Dracula), not Twilight.

Dracula was not a "classic" vampire.

Sure, if we're talking about vampiric characters in literature, I guess he'd be a good place to start.  But he isn't where the whole "vampire" thing started.  Vampires existed in folklore for hundreds of years before Stoker ever thought about writing a story about them.  He based his "vampire" more on the whole Vlad Dracul story than on any vampire folklore.

Traditional folklore portrayed vampires more like zombies than living things.  They slept in the dirt, they smelled bad, they had precious little self-determination.  They basically existed solely to feed on the living.  They weren't romantic, they weren't crafty.

When I see people making statements like this about the Twilight series, I don't believe they have actually paid attention to the story.

The classical vicious Vampires you describe match the portrayal of about 99% of the Vampires in Twilight.  You see, the Cullens (Edward and company) are an exception to the norm.  That's the point of the whole story - they are in the minority and trying to do something different than what is common among Vampires.

So, yes, Twilight is very much telling a story about classical, blood-thirsty, cunning, completely evil, Vampires.  But it is contrasting those kind of Vampires with a small group of "Vegan" Vampires.  In my opinion, it's not difficult to believe that these type of Vampires could exist in any classical Vampire tale.

But, see, you're starting from a false premise.  You think that Dracula is the archetype we're all working from.  Which isn't the case.

Fine, lots of vampires in Twilight are relatively similar to Dracula.  Great.  But that doesn't make them any more true to the folklore that Dracula bastardized.



As for the whole romantic vampire thing...  I'm not going to complain.  Like I said, I've enjoyed a lot of the literature quite a bit.  But that doesn't make it any truer to the folklore.



As for Twilight specifically...  My big complaint, first and foremost, is that it's truly horrible writing.

Bad structure, bad characters, bad plot, bad dialogue, bad everything.  It's genuinely painful to try to read through it.  I haven't encountered many authors that were that painful to read.  So I'd be complaining about Twilight even if it was about walruses rather than vampires.

But, if we're going to limit the discussion to purely vampiric topics...  I'd have to say that my biggest complaint is that the vampires don't die in sunlight.

That's one thing that has largely remained consistent over the years, and it's a huge aspect of what makes a vampire what it is.  Vampires are anti-life.  Living things all derive from the sun.  Sunlight makes plants grow...  Animals eat the plants...  Other animals (like us) eat those animals...  Eventually we die and get decomposed back into the dirt for the plants to eat...  Vampires break that whole cycle.  They eat and eat and eat but don't die (on their own).  They're a foetid infection that needs to be rooted out of the dirt and left to shrivel in the sun.

Even the most romantic vampires out there - like Anne Rice's - still had trouble with the sun.  No matter how cute and cuddly and attractive they got, they still couldn't face the light of day.

But Twilight's vampires don't die in the sun.  They sparkle.  That throws out the whole anti-life thing right there.  That, I think, alters the beast enough that it doesn't even qualify as being a vampire.  Maybe they're supernatural...  Maybe they're evil and drink blood and stuff...  But they aren't vampires.

If I write a story that features people who turn into giant bunnies when the full moon comes out, it isn't a werewolf story, no matter what I call them.
Logged
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Earthquake Damage

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2010, 02:18:42 pm »

The horror monster hierarchy:

Zombies
Lovecraftian stuff
30 Days of Night-style vampires
Robots that take over the world
Murderers
Werewolves
Lovecraftian stuff by August Derleth
Lovecraftian stuff by other people (R. W. Chambers excluded)
Dracula
Edward
Lovecraftian stuff made in Japan

My horror monster hierarchy:

Uncanny valley
Inhuman
Human

Analogous.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 02:25:28 pm by Earthquake Damage »
Logged

Psyco Jelly

  • Bay Watcher
  • It begins!
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2010, 02:25:52 pm »

New age vampires are the kind that make you feel sad to be around, and that makes them happier. My mom has craploads of new age psychic stuff around, so I know. I think she stole my set of runes.
Logged
Not only is it not actually advertising anything, it's just copy/pasting word salads about gold, runescape, oil, yuan, and handbags.  It's like a transporter accident combined all the spambots into one shambling mass of online sales.

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2010, 02:32:32 pm »

New age vampires are the kind that make you feel sad to be around, and that makes them happier. My mom has craploads of new age psychic stuff around, so I know. I think she stole my set of runes.
hm does she casts spells of protective wards around your house?

fqllve

  • Bay Watcher
  • (grammar) anarcho-communist
    • View Profile
    • ufowitch
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2010, 02:39:32 pm »

If I write a story that features people who turn into giant bunnies when the full moon comes out, it isn't a werewolf story, no matter what I call them.

No, they'd be werebunnies. But that's a false analogy. There would literally be no reason to call that a "wolf," because it shares no similarities with wolves. But there is reason to call the vampires of Twilight vampires, even though they go out in the sun. They still drink blood, they're still undead. And the only reason they sparkle, I think, is because they drink animal blood instead of human or something. I don't know, I'm not a thirteen year-old girl and I don't like vampires so I've never read it.

And it's not like there haven't been vampires who could go out into the sun before. What about Blade? Sure he was only half vampire(how does that even work?) but he could. Couldn't Stoker's Dracula as well? I mean, you're talking as if the folkloric vampire was a consistent belief over thousands of years. In fact, I can't think of a single folk tale about vampires where the vampire bursts into flames in sunlight.

But the fact is that in the eyes of our culture Edward Cullen is a vampire. That's how things are defined, by their respective cultures. You can disagree with it, but it's always been that way. Dracula is a vampire because people say he's a vampire, Dr. Frankenstein isn't because no one believes he is. If everyone starts calling bicycles cars, well then they're cars. Words and concepts aren't inherently meaningful, they only have the meanings we ascribe to them.

New age vampires are the kind that make you feel sad to be around, and that makes them happier. My mom has craploads of new age psychic stuff around, so I know. I think she stole my set of runes.

Haha, yes. Psi vampires. Totally forgot about those. Definitely the New Age vampire
Logged
You don't use freedom Penguin. First you demand it, then you have it.
No using. That's not what freedom is for.

Ephemeriis

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2010, 03:13:03 pm »

If I write a story that features people who turn into giant bunnies when the full moon comes out, it isn't a werewolf story, no matter what I call them.

No, they'd be werebunnies. But that's a false analogy. There would literally be no reason to call that a "wolf," because it shares no similarities with wolves. But there is reason to call the vampires of Twilight vampires, even though they go out in the sun. They still drink blood, they're still undead. And the only reason they sparkle, I think, is because they drink animal blood instead of human or something.

I wouldn't be calling them "wolf" - I'd be calling them "werewolf", because they still have similarities to werewolves.  They change at the full moon, they turn into animals, they kill people.  Makes as much sense as calling the things in Twilight vampires.

Quote
And it's not like there haven't been vampires who could go out into the sun before. What about Blade? Sure he was only half vampire(how does that even work?) but he could.

Yup.  And the real vampires in Blade could also go out in the sun, they just had to wear some crazy-high SPF sunscreen.

Quote
Couldn't Stoker's Dracula as well?

As I've already indicated, Stoker's Dracula is a departure from the folklore vampire.

Quote
I mean, you're talking as if the folkloric vampire was a consistent belief over thousands of years. In fact, I can't think of a single folk tale about vampires where the vampire bursts into flames in sunlight.

I never said anything about consistency.  Folklore is, by its very nature, fluid.  There've been all sorts of variations on the vampire theme over the years...  The most common way to kill them was never sunlight or a stake through the heart - rather you had to behead them and burn the head and body separately.

But a fairly common trait of vampires is that they despise the sunlight.  It either kills them outright, or renders them catatonic, or removes their supernatural powers, or whatever.

Quote
But the fact is that in the eyes of our culture Edward Cullen is a vampire.

Only because he is labeled as such.  If we didn't have an author telling us that he was a vampire, I doubt if anyone would call him that.  If we were just presented with his assorted attributes, without a label, I doubt if anyone would race to call him a vampire.

Sure, he drinks blood and he's got fangs...  But that's really where the similarities end, isn't it?

Quote
That's how things are defined, by their respective cultures.

Is that how it works?  Or do things define the cultures?

Quote
You can disagree with it, but it's always been that way. Dracula is a vampire because people say he's a vampire, Dr. Frankenstein isn't because no one believes he is.

In Dracula, the author states that he is a vampire.  The author told us what to believe.  People of the time would not have associated that description with a vampire.  Now, years later, we accept that definition.  The thing defined the culture.

In Frankenstein, nobody claims anyone is a vampire.  So we don't make that association.

Quote
If everyone starts calling bicycles cars, well then they're cars. Words and concepts aren't inherently meaningful, they only have the meanings we ascribe to them.

Words are labels for thoughts, concepts, and things.  A particular series of grunts and whistles doesn't have any meaning in and of itself.  But the only reason that "bicycle" actually means "that thing with pedals and two wheels" is because everyone has agreed on that.  If I personally decide to start "car" instead of "bicycle" nobody is going to know what I'm talking about.  The meaning isn't going to suddenly change because I use a different word.

Yes, the meaning of words shifts over time.  "Moron" used to be a medical diagnosis, now it's a simple insult.

But that's due to a slow shift in the connotation, not because somebody wakes up one morning and declares that a purring furry thing with four legs is a cactus.
Logged
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

KaguroDraven

  • Bay Watcher
  • Forward!
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2010, 03:15:59 pm »

The bunny thing would still be a lycanathope though, just a werebunny rather than a werewolf.
Edit:Your analogy still makes no sense since the world 'werewolf' comes from the term 'were', meaning MAN, and Wolf, obvious, manwolf, a man who is a wolf. And Werebunnies, Wereboars, Werebears, etc. exist both in myth, but rarely, and in things like D&D.

Also about the half-vampire thing, it's happened in several things, but in the original Blade comics he was a normal human, the movies made him half-vampire. And even in that full vampires burn and die by the sun, he is just lacking that weakness by what we can only assume to be pure chance. Also the folklore had NOTHING to do with half of the 'classic' vampire weaknessness, includeing the sun. The christian chruch, catholics specificly I believe but I could be mistaken, decided upon comming accross the myths that it would be a useful way to control the populas, so and they made a few tweeks here or there to make them more 'unholy' beasts. It happens alot, with several different religions and several different myths.
Logged
"Those who guard their back encounter death from the front." - Drow Proverb.
I will punch you in the soul if you do that again.
"I'm going to kill another dragon and then see if I can't DUAL-WIELD DRAGONS!
Because I can"-WolfTengu

Soadreqm

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm okay with this. I'm okay with a lot of things.
    • View Profile
Re: Obsession with "New Age" Vampires?
« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2010, 03:19:56 pm »

I think I've heard of psychic vampires, but I can't remember the context. Pretty sure it was something really weird. :)

I don't think there's much point in staying true to folklore. Folklore changes depending on what kind of stories the folk are telling. Sure, it's been evolving less since literature became widespread, but there's no reason to follow it. Tolkien knew a lot of Norse folklore, and he used it when he wrote his dwarves, but his dwarves aren't perfect flawless copies of the folklore-dwarves. Indeed, many successful writers have sought to add their own twists to their fantasy monsters rather than just copy something from mythology.

As for the sunlight thing, yeah, Dracula could do it. He was less powerful during daytime, and I think he needed boxes of earth around for some reason, and I haven't actually read the book, but he didn't burst to flame as soon as morning came. It's been an oddly consistent trope since then, and I can totally understand the reasoning behind it. Vampires (a lot of horror creatures really) are creatures of the night who live in darkness and abhor daylight because it symbolizes life and so on and so forth. Eh, whatever. I think the real reason is that they're kind of overpowered if you don't add some kind of really crippling weakness. :P

As for the nomenclature, it's either using an existing word for your critters, making up a new word, or not naming them at all. Do you think Twilight would be significantly improved if Meyer called his vampires "nyxlings" or something? As stated, I haven't read it, but I find that difficult to believe. And considering how central the vampires apparently are to the plot, it'd be kind of awkward if everyone just spoke of "them" all the time.

And really, it's a creature that drinks the blood of living things to extend its own life, using its sharp fangs. Even if Meyer hadn't used the word "vampire", everyone would still call them vampires.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7