vampires.

While she may or may not have been responsible for making that a more popular notion these days, it didn't actually start with her. Perhaps under her hand, it has evolved into a formulaic standard for a particular type of vampire story; the romantic ideal of the vampire; seeing through the eyes of the monster.

But if anything, all Rice was (and still is apparently) doing was taking a standard concept of vampires and running with it. By their very undead nature, vampires are rebels. They hide from the light and from the eyes of the parent society, living on its edges, by their own rules. And they represent a deviant sexuality (by deviant, I mean counter to the accepted norm, not necessarily a pejorative connotation), conjugating in a manner that is considered unnatural by the living...er...for the most part. To give this monster a personality, to give him a POV, is little more than the next step.

Hell, that much was done in Dark Shadows.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I liked Anne Rice once upon a time, but the last book I was interested in was Blackwood Farm, and I lost interest about halfway through, when it seemed she was just going through the motions and remaking the same old characters she had made before; turning them into stereotypes.

I liked V:tM back in the day, but after a while, it seemed less an exploration of the exquisite tragedy of unlife, and more an excuse to sell a new splatbook. But that's the way of White Wolf. Still, I had fun with the game.

I still like vampire stuff, but these days, I'm more interested in action-oriented stories. The Vampire Earth series by E.E. Knight. Nothing really romantic at all about these bloodsuckers. And I liked the first few Necroscope books. These vamps are truly icky, though. And a couple of books in the Harry Dresden series have involved vampires. A couple of them were actually even interesting variations on the standard vamp.

people who are obsessed with vampires really annoy me actually

The entire vampire mythos is not creditable to a hackneyed writer like Anne Rice.

Bram Stoker created it. The idea of repressed sexuality is blatant in that book.

Dracula is the embodiment of all Victorian sensibilities and taboos about sex and power being freed from the repression of bourgeoisie morality.

Dracula's fangs can "penetrate" anyone from a male to a female if he wants them. He can have sex in the form of "beasts" through his transformations he becomes anonymous and safe from discovery.

He is "forever young" and unaging, his sexual primacy and power is unabated and will never fade.

There is a strong element of homo-eroticism in Dracula as well. Huge strong manly men under the guidance of an older father figure chase down Dracula and must "penetrate" him with their wooden stakes to defeat him. Read the very end of the novel again sometime after Bowie kills Dracula, there are some quotes there where Stoker barely concealed his sexual overtones.

However, the fascination with vampires can better be expressed by demonstrating one's fascination for sexual liberation if you're going at it on a psycological level. There are also strong links between violence and sex, which it is acceptable for "Dracula" to cross. Its okay for Dracula to force himself on someone, because deep down "Mina wanted it" anyway.



[Edited on Mar 10, 2005 by Oroborous]

I like violence during sex.

im totally obsessed with vampires. mostly fascinated. I wouldnt want to be immortal and watch those u love wither and die while u stay young and youthful that would suck

Well, not really. What he did was give us our modern day popular notions on vampires. He didn't actually create the entire mythos. Those myths go back ages, and range through various cultures. Even the idea of sexual deviancy involved with vampirism didn't originate with Stoker.

Yeah, but they're not sexy. While they have a mystique, they are always ultimately simply corpses that feed off of the living. In her obsession with Lestat, Rice totally forgot about that and just focused on the mystique until mystique became the entire character.

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that she started it. It's just that it got really popular with her, and it bugs me. Who's scared of Lestat? No one; they just think he's sexy.

[Edited on Mar 10, 2005 by TedKoppel]

The only cool vampire:



Gothy lace clad vampires are about as cool as furries. Lestat makes Richard Simmons seem like William Wallace.

...

Well, I suppose this guy was cool too:



But that's it.

Intended as a joke and not to be taken seriously or literally.

I don't know if Rice was really going for scary. She puts us in the viewpoint of the monster, and once that is done, once we identify with the monster, I believe it loses the power to scare us. At least on the same level as before. I think there may even be room for a Lovecraftian idea of personal horror; the horror one succumbs to at the realization of one's own condition or circumstances. That's something I tried to explore with players in Vampire the Masquerade; the realization of a horror at one's own state of being. Condemnation to darkness, and grudging or eager acceptance of the evil that one must now do. Immortality bounded within the setting and rising of the sun can be a form of horror...if played right. If nothing else, Rice explored this idea with characters like Armand, who became trapped in his own stasis. With Claudia, (Rice's personal and persistant ghost) whose dark gift would never allow her body to age along with her mind. It's not so much an in-your-face, BOO, bitches, BOO! type of horror, but I think it can still qualify.

Maybe it became about power, or perhaps, more appropriately majesty. And maybe Rice did become too caught up in Lestat.

*shrugs*

I think our modern western conception of vampires began with, as you say corpses animated by hunger for the living. Some of these corpses may have been disfigured by disease in life; I read one potentially dubious account of bodies of syphillis victims with highly disfigured teeth, which caused primitive villager types to fear their corpses. They may have associated the idea of a living corpse with sexual sins in life. Of course, this does not make these animated corpses sexy in any way, but it is like the first step towards equating vampires and sex.

Bram Stoker ran with this idea, personifying this mythical monster with a real life monster, who held, at times, great power and dominance, who reportedly drank blood. A noble, regal and tragic figure who was larger than life. The very essence of what we picture when we think of the modern vampire. Or Anne Rice's vampires. Dracula continued on in this same (forgive me) vein in death, dominating like a transylvanian pimp. Three wives devoted to him; mental powers of domination over...well, mortal women. This is very sexual...or rather, i suppose it can be argued so rather convincingly. Dracula is a complete mack. He's a romantic and dangerous figure, like Lord Byron, thinking deep thoughts while staring out a window. He penetrates, not just with his fangs, but also with his gaze, and his very will.

There is tremendous precedent for vampires being simple hungry dead that are repugnant monsters in every way. But there's also precedent for them being charming sexy bitches who may or may not also be repugnant monsters in their own way. There's enough room in the realm of fiction for both takes on vampires. Personally, as I have mentioned before, I find interest in the vampire as monster. The vampire as hero. The vampire as sexy bitch. All are just variations on a theme to me. I tend to think Rice and similar authors may have taken the sexy bitch variation a bit too far, I still think it's a valid take on the theme.

of course, opinions vary. I can see where you're coming from. I hope you can see where I'm coming from too.

I watched that last night for the first time. Way cool.

nuff said

Good point of course, but I think Stoker truly deserves credit for bringing the myth into Western culture. Just as the Grimm brothers deserve credit for the German fairy tales.

What's most interesting about Stoker is his sublte criticism and rejections of the "new" Victorian moral standards. Vampires were not "social rebels" in that sense until his writing and there isn't an author today who can tackle a vampire story without confronting Bram Stoker's works.

Legends about vampires are obviously older than Stoker, but he truly codified the mythos and deserves credit for assembling it. Stoker took a disparate group of legends and turned them into a recognizable archetype. Legends about vampires now always has the sun destroy them, holy items repel them, stakes through the heart immobolize or kill them. Prior to Stoker, these various "myths" were not applied universally to vampires.

Without his influence, the entire genre and mythos would be vastly different, much more inchoatic. So I'm quite inclined to credit him with the creation of the mythos. Just as we credit James Watt with the steam engine even though the first modern one was invented by Tomas Savery and the real first steam engine by Hero in Greece. All creations may have multiple authors, but certain ones truly deserve more credit for what they've done.

I tend to agree with what you've just said: Stoker's Dracula is pretty much seen as the definitive Vampire in literature, even though he was predated by John Polidori. There is some indication that Polidori's story had some impact on similar literature of the time...I suppose it's possible that this may have influenced Stoker to some degree. But Polidori's name slips from history, even though he was involved in the historic and immortal night that also spawned Shelley's Frankenstein. There's no doubt that when we look to vampires in literature, the name on the forefront is Dracula; no doubt that the most enduring tale was composed by Stoker.


Polidori's Vampire (1819)

Stoker's Dracula (1897)

mincy, victorian vampires are kinda weak, imo.
if i see a vampire, i dont wanna think its just some effite nancy in a frilly, billowy shirt.
i wanna be able to look at it and know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that is the motherfucking walking dead. so that i may flee, and alert the Church to the abomanation.

this is a vampire.

Thee vampire

Did someone say vampire?

I wonder if vampires ever bite their tongue...and if they do..Do they like it?

wow, shes hot.



im kidding, im kidding....