293: Zombies Rule, Vampires Drool

[Dastardly]

Zombies Rule, Vampires Drool

When it comes to the great monster showdown, vampires may be popular, but zombies have the edge when it comes to scaring the pants off of us.

Read Full Article

I agree that zombies are more compelling than vampires... and I largely agree that it's because of their simplicity. Zombies are, in a sense, just far more elegant a "monster solution" than vampires.

So much of the vampire mythos is arbitrary. Why garlic? Why a wooden stake? I mean, there are explanations, depending on who you ask... but it's the fact that you need one. Zombies--killed by a shot to the brain. Makes complete sense. (Yes, both of them are reanimated dead, but that's one of those things that we already accept pretty readily as "just 'cause")

But really, I'd like to expand the idea of "monsters as disease allegory." You mention vampires as an AIDS-metaphor, and I can somewhat see that. Bit of a stretch, but one I could go with. Along those same lines, I think that zombies have a readily-available disease comparison: Cancer.

Cancer essentially amounts to a mutated cell, replicating uncontrollably, corrupting healthy tissue, and traveling through the body to spread elsewhere. Zombies? A mutated human, replicating (uncontrollably) by bites, corrupting healthy humans, traveling across the land and spreading the infection elsewhere. In both cases, time is against us. The problem only grows and spreads. Zombies are essentially cancer of the species. Pretty terrifying thought, really.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Meh, I've never found any of the big monsters to be scary. Except dead girls. Throw a ghost/dead girl in to a movie and it will be scary. But werewolves, unstoppable killers, vampires, zombies, guy ghosts. Never scary, even in movies where they try to make them scary, they're just not. But I think even without being scary vampires just add more than zombies. Add more story, depth, immersion, fantasy. Zombies are basic and boring, whereas the fact that vampire mythology is confused is what makes it interesting. You can take creative license, make the vampire in your story YOUR kind of vampire.

 

[Dr.Nick]

I think one big thing about zombies that is left out is that they kind of reflect the problems of our own advancement. Our giant cities? Just gigantic zombie traps. Our huge population? Just more zombies.

 

[AgentBJ09]

I knew I was feeling White Wolfish hints from this article, and then I saw it was from the writer of Clan Novel: Lasombra. Which is sitting on my bookshelf, waiting until I can assemble the entire series from used bookstores so I can read them all.

Vampire: the Masquerade did vampires in a totally different style than anything discussed here, really. It was more along the lines of Vampires as Illuminati: whatever you thought was a secret conspiracy, probably was, and they probably had something to do with it. VtM was huge in my college circle, and we used to brainstorm complicated theories late into the night. While fun, vampires as political intrigue definitely isn't for everyone.

I haven't been able to extricate myself from nostalgia long enough to embrace VtR over VtM. That's probably my own personal prejudices mostly, but I know what side of the Broken Fanbase I fall on. (I've never taken very well to massive continuity reboots, and I really miss the dry deadpan humour of the old WoD books.) Besides, to me the complicated mythos was part of the fun. But to each one's own, and it certainly wouldn't hurt the world to have more people roleplaying VtR vampires instead of Meyerverse abominations.

True. Meyer did screw vampires, and werewolves (Not so subtle gay undertones), over quite a bit, but I like to think of both of these as niche mythos', and nothing more.

[image width=100]http://werewolfsr4.webs.com/200px-LogoTribeGlassWalkers.png[/IMG]​

[image width=150]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/3884409898_d5a91d5036.jpg[/IMG]​

On a brighter note, I really enjoy the Requiem mythos of Vampire versus Masquerade since I've played Bloodlines to death with every clan. I get the humor, but the ones in Requiem seemed far more frightening to play as in their respective worlds, which is something that is badly missing from vampires these days.

I get where you're coming from on the loss of Masquerade because I felt the same way about Werewolf the Apocalypse and Mage the Accession, but in truth, White Wolf was nearly out of ideas for all their lines at that point. All that was left was use the self destruct switch and open the gates to the Apocalypse so they could start again.

These days, I play Mage the Awakening and Werewolf the Forsaken most for my offline RPGs, but in my opinion, White Wolf's two vampire games, Masquerade and Requiem, are the gold standards of vampires. That being said, I would be a Glass Walker instead of a Ventrue. Tech based magic/weapons > Natural Charisma/Domination.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hell, in True Blood you can like vampires. Because they're made of pure awesome. They kick ass, they're suave and slick and not at all stupid and mindless. It's good, in a way.

Er...like most "friendly" vampire depictions, being a vampire is taken as a get out of jail card. If humans acted the way True Blood vampires did, they'd be considered monsters. the books are worse, though, there's more casual murder and rape...the first book has a very fucked up bit where Sookie has sex will Bill in the hope it'll stop him murdering her.

Occasionally, she will make a half-hearted effort at reminding him that he doesn't own her, but his behaviour is otherwise totally ignored.

Twilight...Edward never rapes or murders anyone in the books (he considers murder, though), but nobody calls him out on his fucked up stalking, cause he's a vampire.

...

Mind you, like with zombies, the main problem is that they are fucking everywhere, and generally much the same (people get angry and confused if you don't follow the rules set in stone a few decades back), for no adaquately explained reason.

 

[brunothepig]

Hell, in True Blood you can like vampires. Because they're made of pure awesome. They kick ass, they're suave and slick and not at all stupid and mindless. It's good, in a way.

Er...like most "friendly" vampire depictions, being a vampire is taken as a get out of jail card. If humans acted the way True Blood vampires did, they'd be considered monsters. the books are worse, though, there's more casual murder and rape...the first book has a very fucked up bit where Sookie has sex will Bill in the hope it'll stop him murdering her.

Occasionally, she will make a half-hearted effort at reminding him that he doesn't own her, but his behaviour is otherwise totally ignored.

Twilight...Edward never rapes or murders anyone in the books (he considers murder, though), but nobody calls him out on his fucked up stalking, cause he's a vampire.

...

Mind you, like with zombies, the main problem is that they are fucking everywhere, and generally much the same (people get angry and confused if you don't follow the rules set in stone a few decades back), for no adaquately explained reason.

I didn't say the vampires in True Blood were good or nice or anything. Hell, my favourite is Eric, and he's a total dick. But he's awesome. I do agree though, but I'm one of those people who does root for a serial killer or something if he's well characterised/cool enough.
Need to borrow those books off my girlfriend...

snip

snip

Are you guys talking about good vampire games? How easily can I acquire said games, and would you mind elaborating?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I didn't say the vampires in True Blood were good or nice or anything. Hell, my favourite is Eric, and he's a total dick. But he's awesome. I do agree though, but I'm one of those people who does root for a serial killer or something if he's well characterised/cool enough.

Ah, ok, fair enough, misunderstood that.

Mind you, they only seem to get away with it because the police don't seem to do much of anything.

I mean, in the Anita Blake books, before they gave up on the actually pretty interesting themes and characterisation in favour of endless, pointless sex, policing the supernatural was a big deal, like you'd expect if everyone knew it existed.

 

[AgentBJ09]

snip

snip

Are you guys talking about good vampire games? How easily can I acquire said games, and would you mind elaborating?

Absolutely. Here's the one I was talking about before.

-Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade_-_Bloodlines]

[image width=300]http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/457/65734170.jpg[/IMG]​

This game I can easily recommend to any vampire fan. You can buy it on Steam for about 19.99, which is far cheaper than a typical online price of about 25$ or more, disks only.

This game allows you to play as one of seven different vampire clans from the Vampire the Masquerade tabletop RPG, each with different skills and powers that can be used with a reservoir of blood, your Vitae, that you fill by feeding on people. By expending blood, you can use powers that do everything from making your opponent daze off for a bit, to making everyone near you go incurably insane to the point that they kill each other.

The story, while linear, offers a lot of sidequests to give you chances to earn XP. Like in the original RPG, you gain XP for completing quests, which you can then spend to improve Attributes, Blood/Clan Powers, and Skills. Most quests are also non-linear, so you can tackle them in a number of ways.

Beware, however. As a Kindred/Vampire, you are under a set of rules called the Masquerade, a code of ethics and secrecy that all Kindred must follow, lest they be hunted by humans, or killed by their own kind. That means no feeding in public, nor displaying obvious supernatural powers openly. Subtle ones, like Trance, no one cares about since the source cannot be traced.

As for the pen and paper version(s) of the game...

Vampire: The Masquerade [http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade]

This game is all pen and paper, like Dungeons and Dragons, so you'll need a number of rulebooks and ideas for a vampire-based story to craft a scenario for your players. The line was discontinued in 2004, but this, along with the Werewolf the Apocalypse and Mage the Ascension games, are good RPGs to try.

Look on eBay, Half-Price, and in some general used book stores for copies of the rulebooks, although I would recommend the Second Edition of the game over the first.

Vampire: The Requiem [http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire:_The_Requiem]

This is the New World of Darkness version of Vampire. It started in 2004 after the Masquerade continuity was nuked to hell, and while it only has five clans at the outset, the setting is darker than Masquerade and the vampire feel is more sinister.


If you can, download the Quick-Start games for Masquerade and Requiem. They will give you an idea of if you want to play those games.

 

[brunothepig]

Snip

Excellent. I've wishlisted Vampire: The Masquerade. Now I just need money...

I didn't say the vampires in True Blood were good or nice or anything. Hell, my favourite is Eric, and he's a total dick. But he's awesome. I do agree though, but I'm one of those people who does root for a serial killer or something if he's well characterised/cool enough.

Ah, ok, fair enough, misunderstood that.

Mind you, they only seem to get away with it because the police don't seem to do much of anything.

I mean, in the Anita Blake books, before they gave up on the actually pretty interesting themes and characterisation in favour of endless, pointless sex, policing the supernatural was a big deal, like you'd expect if everyone knew it existed.

Yeah... The police always seem to sooner or later realise that the villain is a big one, so he's gonna be around for a while or something... Of course, if I was a cop I would not try arresting a vampire.
Anita Blake books? Policing the supernatural? Sounds fun. I'll keep an eye out for them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Anita Blake books? Policing the supernatural? Sounds fun. I'll keep an eye out for them.

Well, she's a necromancer, she raises the dead so they can do stuff like answer questions about their wills, determine if an area is sacred ground so it can't be built on, that sort of thing.

She's also a vampire executioner, once a vampire breaks certain rules, it gets removed from play. Later on, she got into dealing with politics between different groups of were-creatures, putting up with prejudice for having "close" were-creature "friends", as well as being a woman not-police officer dealing with macho male police. And being of mixed ethnicity.

Was actually pretty good, until the magic sex stuff took over completely and it went downhill hard.

 

[carpathic]

Fabulous article! Thank you.

 

[Verlander]

Vampires have had an "evolution" similar to Native Americans in Western movies, and it's due to social change. Back when Nosferatu was released, there wasn't this pressure of equality, and the church had far more control. Therefore an unholy outcast was far scarier than today.

Zombies lack that kind of development. They aren't characters, they are props, and so they are always spoken about in "apocalypse" situations, as there is no way you'd have any guilt about killing them. If Dead Rising had any form of sentient life, it wouldn't have been as much stupid fun.

Zombies aren't scary-zombies are a challenge. Vampires, if done right, are still worrisome. You may not have control over your immediate actions, they are faster and stronger than you, they psychologically represent our patronising forefathers (unless it's tripe like Twilight), and above all, they want to kill you. With a Zombie attack, you just need to be faster than the rest.

Finally, I have to add this. Normally, I try not to get involved in the "American remake" whining that occurs, when American xenophobia, and general lack of originality or insight hits, and they rob a decent series from the UK, but this time I must protest. Being Human, the real one, is a great series, and has recently featured a "type 4"- or a zombie to you and me. It treats the subject different;y to most zombie stories, but more importantly, it, and every other episode in the 3 series so far, is good, universal, and unnecessary for a remake. Watch the British version, and leave the American intellectually bankrupt companies picking up the pennies after an expensive loss. Seriously, it'll be Dr Who next

 

[beema]

Excellent points all around. I had never really thought about how vampires have seriously changed over the years in their perception.

All the vampire authors should really get together and come up with some unified code of vampirism. All those complex differences between every continuum are obnoxious. Although I don't know why I care, seeing as how I don't keep up with any vampire-related things.

Vampires are the Walking Undead, whereas Zombies are the Walking Dead. weird

 

[Max_imus]

30 Days of Night was a shot in the arm for the vampire genre, because the vampires were a force of nature. It is an excellent counter-example to this thesis.

Indeed. I was just asking myself, why wasn't 30 Days of Night referenced in the article? The vamps in there are as scary as vampires can get.

Apart from that, great article.

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

i had no idea Willam Dafoe was in a Vampire movie!?!?!! and only 2 yrs ago no less. now i must see it!!!

 

[Dansky]

Just a couple of quick notes:

30 Days of Night
The reason I didn't call out 30 Days Of Night, after much deliberation, is that the cultural tide seemed very much to be flowing against it. It felt like much more of an outlier on the pop-cultural map in the days of Twilight, True Blood, and innumerable sexytime vampires in the paranormal romance section, and unfortunately the box office returns seemed to verify that.

The World of Darkness
I only worked on the original WoD, but I can say there were definitely times when we tried to amp up the horror as high as it would go. There's some fairly nasty stuff lurking in the Guide to the Camarilla, for example, or the original Clanbook: Lasombra, if you look for it.


And thanks to everyone for taking the time to read and comment on the article.

 

[Light 086]

I'd say the only scary thing about zombies is the thought of becoming one, other than that they're just disgusting, smelly, and have horrid table manners. Vampires at least have some class (or pretend to), like Dracula living in a castle and socializing with the upper class.

 

[Kegluneq]

And pity is anathema to fear. The notion of getting killed by one of the beasts on the pages of The Passage may be scary, but there's nothing about them in and of themselves that leaps off the page and frightens the reader.

I disagree with this. I think you missed the point of how the vampires worked in that book. Whilst the majority of the jumpers/smokes/dracs were essentially superfast mindless plague zombies, they were connected to whichever of the Twelve sired them originally. These Twelve were classic vampire archetypes of the truly scary variety; not only did they control whole armies of the undead, they were able to mess with your mind at the most basic level and make you doubt who or what you are. The Twelve absolutely had agency, albiet of a particularly demented and inhuman kind.

And having a psychopathic serial killer be able to control your very perception of who you are, mould you into their image, is a pretty scary thought. It's certainly deeper than the threat of zombies, who simply represent blander themes such as social alienation and the slow inevitability of decay and death. (Okay, those are pretty important too, I guess.)

 

[dubious_wolf]

I don't like the place vampire have taken in modern times. It's really depressing that such a powerful mythological creature has been defanged and castrated to a point of lame.
I guess if you take the religion out of the vampire you're left with nothing more than a really weird hemophiliac....

 

[Sathom]

Intriguing article

If I had any nitpicking rants to add, they would be these:

I feel the conclusion that Vampires actually are more dangerous than Zombies, and that Zombie stories thus are just about patting the survivor's (as which we imagine ourselves) backs, is a bit short-fetched. The patting-the-back thing surely is part of it, but claiming Zombies are less of a threat ignores some factors. For instance, the threat they pose results from their sheer numbers; so whatever you do, in the end you'll run out of ammunition, or they will overrun your barricades, etc. The question of how many rounds one has left thus may prove to be a much more threatening one than any problem Vampires could pose. If not anything else, survivors will have to rest eventually; Vampires need to rest, too, usually, while Zombies don't. Up aganist Zombies, you'll screw up sooner or later just because of mental or physical exhaustion (unless you find a global cure, which usually fails); opposite to Vampires, you're under attack almost permanently. So I feel it's not true that because Zombies are less dangerous, stories involving them are rather patting-back stories about the living than stories dealing with the monsters.

It is true, however, that Zombie flicks deal with the survivors (their colflicts among each other, for instance) much more than Vampire stories nowadays deal with the humans; I guess this goes to show that in the end, one of the horrifying aspects of the Zombie is that he is a (although distorted) mirror image of ourselves, which I feel is a subtext of most Zombie flicks (something to which Freud, whose article about "The taboo of the dead" I only can recommend, would agree). This at least is true for anything which is not just a cheap attempt to exploit the genre. Zombie stories are about the living all right, but not just in a patting-their-backs way.

Another thing (which rather goes for some comments than the article) is that I guess it's idle to discuss whether Zombies sometimes are rather like Ghouls, or Vampires in the olden days were more like Zombies, or Zombies with ties are like Victorian Vampires etc. Literature and movies have moved the undead of any kind so far away from the original myths (I could go into a long rant about how the original meaning of the staking, or how and why it works, was lost, forcing contemporary authors to either awkwardly explain or ignore it, but I'll spare you this - and of course we all know that the "Zombies" in the movies aren't Zombies in the Voodoo sense of the word, and rather resemble the Undead in the Gilgamesh Epos or the scandinavian Draugr), and created so many different versions of them, that the distinctions seem useless. There aren't "the" Zombies or Vampires anymore, just Joss Whedon's (nice pun btw. , Bram Stoker's, George Romero's etc.
(Notice btw. how the skeleton-like Terminator robots actually are just technically advanced undead in a way?

One last thing - I'd really like to see a nice Ghoul movie one day (btw. here we go again - the Arabian ghul have nothing in common with the corpse-eating creatures to which Lovecraft slapped that label). It's a hard topic, though, I guess. One trouble with Ghouls may be that eating corpses (and darker stuff the idea suggests) still seems a bigger taboo than sexuality or gore (the contemporary Vampires have lost all signs of being "dead", which takes any hint at necrophilia out of vampirism); another is that the classic "Lovecraftian" ghoul, since eating corpses only, hardly makes a good monster. He poses no threat to the living - he's just a bit "eee-yuck". You'd have to change him, thus, and would just end up with the same discussion - is it still a Ghoul, or rather a Zombie?