Tried of vampires being goody two-shoes?

[Mindfire]

Like I said, it's definitional. So the answer to your question of "how is it not evil" is that not everyone adopts your viewpoint and definition of it

It wouldn't call it definitional so much as semantic. I think the same word is being attached to very different concepts. No one here thinks that sexual attraction is inherently bad (the definition you're using), but I think everyone would agree that sexual attraction that in practice demeans or abuses someone else (the definition I'm using) is definitely a bad thing. What you are calling lust, I would call libido. What I am calling lust, honestly I'm not sure what other word you can use for it.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

It wouldn't call it definitional so much as semantic. I think the same word is being attached to very different concepts. No one here thinks that sexual attraction is inherently bad (the definition you're using), but I think everyone would agree that sexual attraction that in practice demeans or abuses someone else (the definition I'm using) is definitely a bad thing. What you are calling lust, I would call libido. What I am calling lust, honestly I'm not sure what other word you can use for it.

I would say the term you're looking for is "sexual predation."

 

[Steerpike]

I would say the term you're looking for is "sexual predation."

Yeah, I think that's closer to it. Lust in and of itself doesn't carry a connotation of demeaning or abusing. I think you have to go with something different to distinguish one sort from the other.

 

[Feo Takahari]

The lust derail's interesting, so I hope no one minds if I follow it for a while.

Lust interests me because, of all the seven deadly sins, it's the easiest to convert to "good". Wrath can be loosely matched to righteous fury, and pride to the drive to improve oneself, but lust directly corresponds to love in such a way that the two often can't be separated. Two people who long for each other are, in a sense, bound together, and I tend to be very positive towards that bond in my stories. (Eternal, my succubus story, is a direct response to the idea of lust as a sin--several of the characters create their own hell, literally or otherwise, by condemning themselves for feelings that aren't really hurting anyone.)

 

[Jabrosky]

(Eternal, my succubus story, is a direct response to the idea of lust as a sin--several of the characters create their own hell, literally or otherwise, by condemning themselves for feelings that aren't really hurting anyone.)

I like this idea!

 

[Mask]

As I pointed out before, Dracula could walk around in sunlight just fine, though it reduced his powers.

I quite liked that aspect. He was able to mingle with human society and find prey, but was more vulnerable as he did so. Plus, it was only because he was the original vampire--other vampires in that setting couldn't survive in the sun.

As for crucifixes and other Christian symbols, that had more to do with the motifs of the story, Dracula being basically a Satanic type character who essentially declared war on God. It makes perfect sense that he would be repulsed by holy symbols, being a creature born out of a complete rejection of God. On the other hand, someone like Edward Cullen being afraid of crosses would be kinda nonsensical because in his story, being a vampire has nothing to do with religion.

I think Rosaries had the same effect in Vampire folklore. Prior to Christianity, it was mostly herbs and rituals, though (including, in some legends, eating vampire ash or blood with bread to ward them off). My feeling is that vampires, in exchange for their power, should take on weaknesses. Things they hate to look at which repels them is something I find interesting about the concept.

Anyway, swords can kill anything, if you get a good shot in. It's the universial weakness. I'm pretty sure that's some sort of rule.

Unfortunately, not with Vampire novels of recent times. Twilight vampires are meant to have some kind of diamond-like consistency, I was told by a fan of the series. Apparently, Twilight vampires are invulnerable to swords, for that reason.

Ann Rice vampires can be cut, but are quoted as being able to move faster than the human eye can see--making any non-vampire-wielded weapon useless against them, seemingly.

I am uncertain if any vampires are killed by human action, in either of the mentioned novel series.



With lust, I've always associated it more with cheating, and a selfish willingness to put your sexual desires above ethics. Bram Stoker's Dracula popularized vampires as a creature of lust--hypnotising people and raping them, on multiple occasions within the novel. In recent times, that sexual nature has been slanted positively, emphasizing the youthful and seduction aspects.

 

[wordwalker]

I am uncertain if any vampires are killed by human action, in either of the mentioned novel series.

As I remember Dracula, every vampire killed was asleep in his/her coffin-- Lucy, the "brides," and the Count himself (stuck with knives, not swords, just as the sun was setting and he hadn't quite roused himself).

I've always liked this approach to vampires, emphasizing their raw power and balancing it with crosses (or other talismans if you're writing secularly) and probably daylight (although I know it was only the movie Nosferatu that made it official that sunlight burned them). Make it a battle of wits, whether you can get the cross up in time to live out the night, then track him down by day; the notion of fighting vampires fairly is better left to Buffy and other comic-book levels of hero power.

By my definition,

Fantasy, even dark fantasy, means a showdown where the villain has a deadly, nasty "gun," and you've got a powerful "gun" of your own.

Horror means the villain has a deadly, nasty "gun," and you've got a set of antlers.

 

[Mask]

Whoops, meant Twilight and the Ann Rice novels, with that comment. Seems I'm more effected by my illness than I realized.

Wasn't Lucy awake before they staked her? I was rather sure she was. Though, I am forgetful of the details. The vampire brides were slain in their sleep, I recall--but I thought Dracula was actually awake and resisting when he was fatally wounded?

I do agree very much with your ideal of vampires having great strength and weakness, as well as it being more interesting if vampires cannot be fought directly. Sun weakness has been associated with vampires long before film. There are legends about tricking vampires into staying out until the sunrise, so as to destroy them.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

My thing is, how can a predator with a highly intelligent and lethal prey population suvive through the millenia as a viable species if they can be killed by sticks or rendered helpless by the rotation of the earth? I've always considered such things to be a authorial cop-out. It just makes it too easy, giving us squishy little mortals such major advantages over a pinacle predator.

 

[Mask]

Well, think of it this way. They can't be killed by guns. There's also no reason they couldn't use swords or guns. That is a really big advantage in their favour.

In good vampire fiction, they don't really stake the vampire while they're awake, ready, and resisting. It's generally when they've tracked them down and gone to a lot of effort to stake them in their sleep. Driving a stake in someone while they're fighting you, especially if you need to shove it specifically in the heart, and super especially if they're extra strong and fast--is incredibly hard.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Of course you can kill them with guns. There is a phrase to bear in mind when thinking about ballistics - "In like a penny, out like a pizza." A shotgun at close range or a high enough caliber round turns a vampire's (or human's, for that matter) head into a fine pink mist. Ok, maybe that was a little graphic, but my parents are medical people. *shrug*

I've heard it said (by Sherrilyn Kenyon, I think) that you drive a stake through something's heart, everything dies. But I don't think that's true. Not enough tissue damage. A human can survive a perforation of the heart. I know, I know, the source of the wooden stake derives from Christ's cross, but I don't buy into the religious aspects. Vampires cross-culturally pre-date most currently practiced religions, so why would a pre-Christian vampire be bothered by a cross or the "light of God?" Laurell K. Hamilton actually does a fair job addressing this with her vampires, claiming that it's not the denomination that's important, it's having faith in the power behind the object. But, that only works if you're treating vampires are undead, damned, or whatever. We have Anglican and Catholic vampires in our series, so we're not utilizing the religious aspect at all.

But, you're right, trying to stab a super-fast, super-strong being in the chest with a stick is very hard. Especially since you would need a mallet while you're at it - the sternum sits in front of the heart, and it's a solid bone plate. Try driving a stick through that with one hand.

 

[Mindfire]

My thing is, how can a predator with a highly intelligent and lethal prey population suvive through the millenia as a viable species if they can be killed by sticks or rendered helpless by the rotation of the earth? I've always considered such things to be a authorial cop-out. It just makes it too easy, giving us squishy little mortals such major advantages over a pinacle predator.

1. We squishy mortals need massive advantages, otherwise vampires take over the world. Cause and effect and whatnot. So unless you want to tell a story where vampires are the master race, they need weaknesses.

2. Vampires aren't really a "species" that's "evolved". They're either the result of an infectious disease, a supernatural aberration, mutants, or the spawn of Satan, depending on which version you use.

 

[Mindfire]

Of course you can kill them with guns. There is a phrase to bear in mind when thinking about ballistics - "In like a penny, out like a pizza." A shotgun at close range or a high enough caliber round turns a vampire's (or human's, for that matter) head into a fine pink mist. Ok, maybe that was a little graphic, but my parents are medical people. *shrug*

I've heard it said (by Sherrilyn Kenyon, I think) that you drive a stake through something's heart, everything dies. But I don't think that's true. Not enough tissue damage. A human can survive a perforation of the heart. I know, I know, the source of the wooden stake derives from Christ's cross, but I don't buy into the religious aspects. Vampires cross-culturally pre-date most currently practiced religions, so why would a pre-Christian vampire be bothered by a cross or the "light of God?" Laurell K. Hamilton actually does a fair job addressing this with her vampires, claiming that it's not the denomination that's important, it's having faith in the power behind the object. But, that only works if you're treating vampires are undead, damned, or whatever. We have Anglican and Catholic vampires in our series, so we're not utilizing the religious aspect at all.

But, you're right, trying to stab a super-fast, super-strong being in the chest with a stick is very hard. Especially since you would need a mallet while you're at it - the sternum sits in front of the heart, and it's a solid bone plate. Try driving a stick through that with one hand.

I don't follow your logic. The power of God and related icons kill vampires because God exists (within the context of the fiction, lets not make this a religion debate), and since God has always existed his power ought to affect pre-Christian vampires too.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't follow your logic. The power of God and related icons kill vampires because God exists (within the context of the fiction, lets not make this a religion debate), and since God has always existed his power ought to affect pre-Christian vampires too.

I've read at least one story where the explanation for why a cross was effective was actually the vampires own pre-undead faith, and the power that the cross had to tie into what was still buried beneath them. If that's the rationale, then pre-Christian vampires wouldn't be affected (nor, I suppose, would vampires who were non-Christian in life).

 

[Mindfire]

I've read at least one story where the explanation for why a cross was effective was actually the vampires own pre-undead faith, and the power that the cross had to tie into what was still buried beneath them. If that's the rationale, then pre-Christian vampires wouldn't be affected (nor, I suppose, would vampires who were non-Christian in life).

Ah. Well if that's how the rules of your world work, then it goes without saying that it would be the case. But aelowan did not mention such a specific case.

 

[Ireth]

I've read at least one story where the explanation for why a cross was effective was actually the vampires own pre-undead faith, and the power that the cross had to tie into what was still buried beneath them. If that's the rationale, then pre-Christian vampires wouldn't be affected (nor, I suppose, would vampires who were non-Christian in life).

Exactly. My vampires, being pagan, are unaffected by crosses or garlic; instead what hurts them is iron, a common weakness of the Fae (also very non-Christian in nature), and [possibly, haven't canonized this yet] symbols of the Maiden and Mother aspects of the Goddess, since the one who created vampires is the Crone, their antithesis.

 

[Anders Ämting]

My feeling is that vampires, in exchange for their power, should take on weaknesses. Things they hate to look at which repels them is something I find interesting about the concept.

Fair enough. Though, I personally feel that "weakness" is something relative. If you are using vampires as antagonists (as opposed to protagonists, like Meyer and Rice do) then your vampires strenght and weaknesess must be gauged to what your heroes are capable of.

I mean, if you have something like a very, very awesome vampire hunter who may have some supernatual abilities of his own, stuff like your vampires fearing religious symbols and running water becomes way less appropriate than if your MC is, like, just some lawyer.

My heroes tend to be pretty awesome in general, so in my stories, I wouldn't expect a regular person to stand a chance against a vampire anyway.

Unfortunately, not with Vampire novels of recent times. Twilight vampires are meant to have some kind of diamond-like consistency, I was told by a fan of the series.

That's actually one of the things I liked the most about Twilight. It's a pretty cool and original idea, which is why I don't really mind the sparkling thing.

Apparently, Twilight vampires are invulnerable to swords, for that reason.

...What if it's a katana?

Katanas can cut diamonds, right? I saw it on the internet.

Ann Rice vampires can be cut, but are quoted as being able to move faster than the human eye can see--making any non-vampire-wielded weapon useless against them, seemingly.

...What if the guy is, like, a ninja?

Ninjas are really fast!

2. Vampires aren't really a "species" that's "evolved". They're either the result of an infectious disease, a supernatural aberration, mutants, or the spawn of Satan, depending on which version you use.

Eh, vampires can be whatever you want them to be.

I'm pretty sure there are stories out there where they are an actual species, though I can't name any examples right now.

Exactly. My vampires, being pagan, are unaffected by crosses or garlic;

Speaking of garlic, I always thought that made an odd kind of sense. I mean, if you think about it, a severe garlic allergy seems more believable than being afraid of crosses or exploding from sunlight.

Fun fact: The reason you shouldn't feed your cat or dog anything containing onion is because onions contain allyl propyl disulfide. If you are incapable of breaking down onion compounds (like cats are) allyl propyl disulfide will actually destroy your red blood cells by damaging the hemoglobine molecules, leading to a type of anemia. When I first read that, my immediate thought was: "You could totally weaponize that to fight vampires!"

I also recall reading an amusing take on the garlic thing, where garlic didn't actually kill or repel vampires - it was just that their senses were so much more powerful than a human's that eating garlic completely overwhelmed their sense of taste.

 

[Mask]

Exactly. My vampires, being pagan, are unaffected by crosses or garlic; instead what hurts them is iron, a common weakness of the Fae (also very non-Christian in nature), and [possibly, haven't canonized this yet] symbols of the Maiden and Mother aspects of the Goddess, since the one who created vampires is the Crone, their antithesis.

Garlic was considered good for protecting you against monsters in the early days of the Egyptian kingdom. It continued to be associated as an anti monster/vampire herb till recently.

 

[BenGoram]

I quite liked that aspect. He was able to mingle with human society and find prey, but was more vulnerable as he did so. Plus, it was only because he was the original vampire--other vampires in that setting couldn't survive in the sun.

That's never stated in the novel. We never see Lucy or the Brides out in sunlight, but there's no reason to assume they would burn. It is stated that Dracula is stronger, but that may also mean he is stronger as a mere mortal (during the day) than the other vampires would be.

Wasn't Lucy awake before they staked her? I was rather sure she was. Though, I am forgetful of the details. The vampire brides were slain in their sleep, I recall--but I thought Dracula was actually awake and resisting when he was fatally wounded?

Lucy was confronted while awake, but they actually didn't stake her then, just trapped her in her tomb and returned during the day to kill her. Dracula was awake (it's unclear how much he needs to sleep during the day), but didn't have time/power to resist since the sun was just setting.

My thing is, how can a predator with a highly intelligent and lethal prey population suvive through the millenia as a viable species if they can be killed by sticks or rendered helpless by the rotation of the earth? I've always considered such things to be a authorial cop-out. It just makes it too easy, giving us squishy little mortals such major advantages over a pinacle predator.

Well, humans are highly intelligent and lethal predators, yet we can be killed by "lesser" animals like wolves, especially at night, when we sleep and they're awake. It's certainly not "easy" to do, but neither is it easy to kill a vampire.

I know, I know, the source of the wooden stake derives from Christ's cross, but I don't buy into the religious aspects. Vampires cross-culturally pre-date most currently practiced religions, so why would a pre-Christian vampire be bothered by a cross or the "light of God?" Laurell K. Hamilton actually does a fair job addressing this with her vampires, claiming that it's not the denomination that's important, it's having faith in the power behind the object. But, that only works if you're treating vampires are undead, damned, or whatever.

I think the actual origin for wooden stakes is much simpler. Vampires rise from the grave, so folklore dictates you have to pin them down. And then there's the fact that Dracula is Vlad the Impaler, so the whole idea was retconned to derive from him.

I like LKH's approach. I wish more authors took it instead of assuming only crosses work.

OK. I'm done being annoyingly pedantic for now. Forgive a Dracula-nerd.

 

[Feo Takahari]

On the vampires-as-species thing--Japanese authors seem to really like the idea that vampires are another extant hominid species, like a more elegant Bigfoot. (Chibi Vampire is a typical example of this.)