Good Books About Vampires

[Seldon2639]

I will second you on "Carpe Jugulum". That was a really good vampire story.

On a side note. My wife descided to write a vampire story after reading Twilight. Her reasons? TO SHOW THE STUPID ***** HOW IT IS DONE. She hates Twilight as much as the rest of us.

I'm gonna try to get in on the ground floor here, and hope to preempt some of the whinging and angsting about just how "horrible" Twilight is:

Get the hell over it... And tell your wife

I get that a lot of us have a conception of the "right" way to write vampires, and the "right" way to formulate a story about them. We also know what a "real" vampire is like, and that Twilight vampires are just silly. Sunlight kills vampires, right, not makes them "sparkle".

I'm gonna lay down some truth here, in the hopes that we can ride straight past that crap.

1. The first vampire romance novel (Vampyre, by John William Polidori) predates Dracula by a good couple of decades. Yes, that's right, vampires were seductive and romantic for a while before they were predatory badasses.
2. The whole "sunlight kills" wasn't in the original Dracula, or in any of the mythos surrounding vampires pre-20th century. It was a misinterpretation of the original silent Nosferatu film, in which the title monster has sex with Mina who gave herself willingly to protect Jonathan. Her love and sacrifice make the Nosferatu disappear in the morning, not the sunlight.
3. Vampires as an allegory for sexual morality and ethics has existed for a long time. They were always fundamentally morality tales, and it's only very recently that we've used them as stand-ins for the type of brooding anti-hero that we absolutely love.
4. There is no consistent mythos of vampire powers. Not a single goddamned one. And everyone writes them differently. Butcher's vampires, while awesome, are different from Hamilton's, Rices, Moores, and everyone else's. Stop treating it like there's a right way to write them
5. Vampires have long been transitioning from "awesome, vaguely evil, suave badasses" for a long time, and have been reinvented. They've been changed from the original "look how dangerous eastern morality is, and how bad it is for women to have sex promiscuously" to something more akin to "a man's struggle to reconcile his animalistic urges with his conscience and morality".

Dislike the books, but for the love of god stop harping on them. I hated Anne Rice's books, so melodramatic and stilted. I hated Laurel K. Hamilton's later books, and I find the Stookie Stackhouse series to be (esentially) "Anita Blake set more southern". But that doesn't mean I have to ***** about them at every opportunity.

I've never read the books, and I'll wager most people here haven't. So, here's my point: if we're hating something just because it's popular to hate it, to bash it, to say it's dumb, that makes us cowards. We want to "show the stupid ***** how it's done", pretending as though we're actually going to write something of any significant quality, or as though her books are so bad that anything can get published. It's a nice thing to say to ourselves, and it must make us feel good, but it fundamentally makes us a bunch of douchebags.

 

[MetalDooley]

I'd recommend Dracula The Un-dead by Dacre Stoker. It's the official sequel to the classic book written by one of Stoker's descendants. Not quite as good as the original and there are a lot of explict sexual scenes, though whether that's good or bad is up to the reader.

I was kinda dubious about the idea of a sequel but I have to say it was pretty enjoyable so I'd recommend it too

The Vampire Wars Trilogy by Steven Savile is pretty good if you have any interest in Warhammer

The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova which several other people have mentioned is also pretty good

Haven't read too many others but I got to say I found Interview with the Vampire to be boring as hell.Anne Rice is as much to blame for the emofication of vampires as Stephenie Meyer

 

[Cain_Zeros]

I'd recommend Dracula The Un-dead by Dacre Stoker. It's the official sequel to the classic book written by one of Stoker's descendants. Not quite as good as the original and there are a lot of explict sexual scenes, though whether that's good or bad is up to the reader.

What the hell is it with this forum and me getting ninja'd on obscure book recommendations?

 

[Marter]

BLASPHEMY!! Pike's Last Vampire books are the ultimate antidote to Meyer's Twilight FAIL!!!

Meant to say I just didn't like the 6th book, but the first 5 were excellent.

 

[Treblaine]

BLASPHEMY!! Pike's Last Vampire books are the ultimate antidote to Meyer's Twilight FAIL!!!

Meant to say I just didn't like the 6th book, but the first 5 were excellent.

interestingly I read the first 5 books as a kid yet for years I couldn't find the 6th in the series for many years. So it's kind of hard for me to judge the final book with the previous 5 and yeah, I was kinda disappointed by how they finally treated the character (all gets a bit existential) but it introduced nice new elements.

But damn, it was good to read about her back in action, such a badass when she confronts to rich nobleman whipping that guy. No one writes violence quite like Pike.

 

[Marter]

BLASPHEMY!! Pike's Last Vampire books are the ultimate antidote to Meyer's Twilight FAIL!!!

Meant to say I just didn't like the 6th book, but the first 5 were excellent.

interestingly I read the first 5 books as a kid yet for years I couldn't find the 6th in the series for many years. So it's kind of hard for me to judge the final book with the previous 5 and yeah, I was kinda disappointed by how they finally treated the character (all gets a bit existential) but it introduced nice new elements.

But damn, it was good to read about her back in action, such a badass when she confronts to rich nobleman whipping that guy. No one writes violence quite like Pike.

Bold part pretty much sums up my feelings.

Also, if you haven't heard yet: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/36464/filmnation-to-show-us-the-last-vampire

 

[Treblaine]

I will second you on "Carpe Jugulum". That was a really good vampire story.

On a side note. My wife descided to write a vampire story after reading Twilight. Her reasons? TO SHOW THE STUPID ***** HOW IT IS DONE. She hates Twilight as much as the rest of us.

I'm gonna try to get in on the ground floor here, and hope to preempt some of the whinging and angsting about just how "horrible" Twilight is:

Get the hell over it... And tell your wife

I get that a lot of us have a conception of the "right" way to write vampires, and the "right" way to formulate a story about them. We also know what a "real" vampire is like, and that Twilight vampires are just silly. Sunlight kills vampires, right, not makes them "sparkle".

I'm gonna lay down some truth here, in the hopes that we can ride straight past that crap.

1. The first vampire romance novel (Vampyre, by John William Polidori) predates Dracula by a good couple of decades. Yes, that's right, vampires were seductive and romantic for a while before they were predatory badasses.
2. The whole "sunlight kills" wasn't in the original Dracula, or in any of the mythos surrounding vampires pre-20th century. It was a misinterpretation of the original silent Nosferatu film, in which the title monster has sex with Mina who gave herself willingly to protect Jonathan. Her love and sacrifice make the Nosferatu disappear in the morning, not the sunlight.
3. Vampires as an allegory for sexual morality and ethics has existed for a long time. They were always fundamentally morality tales, and it's only very recently that we've used them as stand-ins for the type of brooding anti-hero that we absolutely love.
4. There is no consistent mythos of vampire powers. Not a single goddamned one. And everyone writes them differently. Butcher's vampires, while awesome, are different from Hamilton's, Rices, Moores, and everyone else's. Stop treating it like there's a right way to write them
5. Vampires have long been transitioning from "awesome, vaguely evil, suave badasses" for a long time, and have been reinvented. They've been changed from the original "look how dangerous eastern morality is, and how bad it is for women to have sex promiscuously" to something more akin to "a man's struggle to reconcile his animalistic urges with his conscience and morality".

Dislike the books, but for the love of god stop harping on them. I hated Anne Rice's books, so melodramatic and stilted. I hated Laurel K. Hamilton's later books, and I find the Stookie Stackhouse series to be (esentially) "Anita Blake set more southern". But that doesn't mean I have to ***** about them at every opportunity.

I've never read the books, and I'll wager most people here haven't. So, here's my point: if we're hating something just because it's popular to hate it, to bash it, to say it's dumb, that makes us cowards. We want to "show the stupid ***** how it's done", pretending as though we're actually going to write something of any significant quality, or as though her books are so bad that anything can get published. It's a nice thing to say to ourselves, and it must make us feel good, but it fundamentally makes us a bunch of douchebags.

The problem with twilight is not that the vampires were romantic but because THE ROMANCE SUCKED! Well, I suppose it is exactly the type of romance that 13-17 year old girls are drawn to but that is NOT the type of romance the majority of readers are interested in (remember, Twilight Saga's success has been down to demographic milking, not wide acclaim).

I can deal with vampires in sunlight... but sparkling!?!? FUCK... NO! That is just some care-bear my-little-pony crap. If sunlight has any affect if should be neutral or mildly inconvenient, anything to keep vampire association with the night. Good example is bright light (as in sunlight) makes vampires tired while night makes them awake and restless (opposite of humans, bright light wakens them, night/dark they get drowsy, prone to go to sleep).

Vampires are human-like creatures that drink human blood... that is IT! They are an allegory for whatever the auteur wants. They can be an allegory for Communist Influence if they feel like it! (though maybe sci-fi with Invasion of the Body Snatchers beat them to it)

I don't think people are harping about the Twilight books per se, I think people are harping on about how it is becoming SO incredibly dominant through marketing to a feckless and superficial demographic. True Blood, and other TV shows are going this route.

 

[TrogdorCronus27]

Check out the anthology By Blood We Live, edited by John Joseph Adams. I haven't read it myself, but I do know that Adams routinely turns out fantastic anthologies, be they Sci-Fi, Fantasy, or Horror.

 

[AhumbleKnight]

I will second you on "Carpe Jugulum". That was a really good vampire story.

On a side note. My wife descided to write a vampire story after reading Twilight. Her reasons? TO SHOW THE STUPID ***** HOW IT IS DONE. She hates Twilight as much as the rest of us.

I'm gonna try to get in on the ground floor here, and hope to preempt some of the whinging and angsting about just how "horrible" Twilight is:

Get the hell over it... And tell your wife

I get that a lot of us have a conception of the "right" way to write vampires, and the "right" way to formulate a story about them. We also know what a "real" vampire is like, and that Twilight vampires are just silly. Sunlight kills vampires, right, not makes them "sparkle".

I'm gonna lay down some truth here, in the hopes that we can ride straight past that crap.

1. The first vampire romance novel (Vampyre, by John William Polidori) predates Dracula by a good couple of decades. Yes, that's right, vampires were seductive and romantic for a while before they were predatory badasses.
2. The whole "sunlight kills" wasn't in the original Dracula, or in any of the mythos surrounding vampires pre-20th century. It was a misinterpretation of the original silent Nosferatu film, in which the title monster has sex with Mina who gave herself willingly to protect Jonathan. Her love and sacrifice make the Nosferatu disappear in the morning, not the sunlight.
3. Vampires as an allegory for sexual morality and ethics has existed for a long time. They were always fundamentally morality tales, and it's only very recently that we've used them as stand-ins for the type of brooding anti-hero that we absolutely love.
4. There is no consistent mythos of vampire powers. Not a single goddamned one. And everyone writes them differently. Butcher's vampires, while awesome, are different from Hamilton's, Rices, Moores, and everyone else's. Stop treating it like there's a right way to write them
5. Vampires have long been transitioning from "awesome, vaguely evil, suave badasses" for a long time, and have been reinvented. They've been changed from the original "look how dangerous eastern morality is, and how bad it is for women to have sex promiscuously" to something more akin to "a man's struggle to reconcile his animalistic urges with his conscience and morality".

Dislike the books, but for the love of god stop harping on them. I hated Anne Rice's books, so melodramatic and stilted. I hated Laurel K. Hamilton's later books, and I find the Stookie Stackhouse series to be (esentially) "Anita Blake set more southern". But that doesn't mean I have to ***** about them at every opportunity.

I've never read the books, and I'll wager most people here haven't. So, here's my point: if we're hating something just because it's popular to hate it, to bash it, to say it's dumb, that makes us cowards. We want to "show the stupid ***** how it's done", pretending as though we're actually going to write something of any significant quality, or as though her books are so bad that anything can get published. It's a nice thing to say to ourselves, and it must make us feel good, but it fundamentally makes us a bunch of douchebags.

I disagree with nothing you have said here. All I did was mention how horrible Twilight was and it's connection with why my wife decided to give it a go. Of course there is no 'one right way'. But there is a wrong way. It is as much about the crapy way she 're-invented' vampires as it is about her extreemly long winded and poorly written story.

In regards to the "show the stupid ***** how it's done" comment I made; my wife is not so silly as to think that she is going to be able to. For her it is about just seeing if she can do it and using Twilight to help motivate her.

While your rant was an interesting read. It was not justified in this case. Half the fun of a vampire story is getting to know the rules in it. How the world works and the like. All I did was mention it as a side note.