The stereotypical vampire?
- Thread starter Aloran
- Start date
Basically, my answer is a thread ending answer. What I'm about to post now is pretty much the be all and end all of this topic. And I say that despite knowing that people will still debate it afterwards and won't agree, but this is all fact. Simply, I'm going to post (in a spoiler box because of length) my answer to the question on 'are sparkly vampires good or bad?' from another thread on this. It gives a full answer to this question too, one that uses so many facts it can't possibly be denied (and that isn't my ego, it is actually true). Anyway, sorry about the upcoming Wall'O'Text, and here goes:
So there you have it. I full answer that for anyone who can't be bothered to read it basically says there are no true definint traits of vampires. Vampires can be anything you want them to be, including sparkly in sunlight (although as a fan of Twilight even I thought that was stupid). There are no set rules for vampires to follow and anyone who sets those rules are basically defeating the entire purpose of vampires in themselves. That said, I kind of did the same with my own short story (link at the bottom of the spoiler box).
Since people keep on posting Twilight threads, and I'm sick and tired of them because they always end up as people who haven't read the books or seen the film going "Twilight's gay, ur gay, lolzorz twilight's crap" and so on (my /b/ speak isn't that good since I'm too used to writing proper sentences, but you get the idea). I'm basically going to give my opinion because this thread has been pretty good so far, I've read people's posts and people here seem to have read the OP for once and aren't simply making stupid comments. The original question was "what's so bad about sparkly vampires" and people have actually given valid answers to the question, regardless of their Twilight knowledge they've had decent discussions that admittedly still bash Twilight, but in an informed way. So here goes, sorry if this is boring you (if so, skip to the last paragraph, it'll be worth it).
I've basically spent a while now trying to stop Twilight bashing on the Escapist, as anyone who reads a lot of my posts will know. I'm aware that I'm the only one doing this, and that I'm fighting a losing battle, but I feel strongly about the idea that opinions should be made, provided that they're informed. I don't care how many of you hate Twilight, as long as you've actually read the books or seen the film and therefore have a reason to dislike the series other than wanting to be cool by joining the hate-wagon. Unfortunatly, most people do join the hate-wagon to be cool and only perhaps 10% have seen the film or 1% have read the books. This really disappoints me.
I've read all the books (own them, in fact). I saw the film and I actually like Twilight. I'm eagerly awaiting seeing New Moon hit the big screen. True, I'm aware of all the flaws in the series, Stephenie Meyer is by no means a great writer (she does focus a lot too much on how perfect the vampires are and how plain Bella sees herself as being) and the characters themselves aren't that likeable. That said, I did still like the characters, but my only real favourites who I actually cared about were Jasper and Alice, and they were pretty much the most complex in a way (although even they weren't too great). The books aren't exactly challenging and there is a wide held belief that they're simple 'Mormon vampire abstinence porn', which may well be true. Nevertheless, in the same way you like watching Eurovision every year or anything with John Barrowman, even though you know you shouldn't, I still like Twilight.
Despite all this, I feel that the portrayal of vampires in Twilight is perfectly reasonable. What most people fail to realise is that the idea of the 'traditional' vampire (i.e. burns in sunlight, hates garlic and religous iconography, and so on) came from Bram Stoker's Dracula. However, this wasn't the defining text on vampire fiction. Vampires first came into the realm of fiction in the earliest legends that date not to Slavic and East European regions, as Stoker suggests, but rather to the Far East, hundreds of years before. These vampires were extremely different and had none of the same weaknesses that the traditional vampire does today. In fact, they were much different to any idea of vampire we have today, and yet these legends spread across the globe. Every culture had their own myths and legends of the vampire, and they all were different. It was merely the prevailing East European legends that were used as the basis for Dracula that came to the attention of most modern people. Indeed, even after Dracula, vampire fiction changed things yet again. In Stoker's novel, sunlight would burn the vampire, in Buffy, it turned them to dust. And that's not all. Every piece of modern vampire fiction changes something about them and creates a new and more 'distorted' idea of the vampire. And thus to the crux of my argument.
Twilight has done nothing new with vampires compared to other fiction. The vampires are exceptionally strong, fast, and some have supernatural powers beyond their advanced senses and skills. These differences have gone unnoticed or unappreciated as a problem by most people. And that's fine. However, the problem for most people is 'sparkly vanmpires'. This is basically bashed as a major reason, more so than any other, about why Twilight is so bad. To be completely honest, I hated the idea of sparkly vampires. I thought, all the vampire traits were perfectly fine and indeed very much ideal, save for the vegitarianism (although I'm guilty of that myself, as you'll soon see). Sparkling in the sunlight was just too stupid for me, though. So to anyone who's read this far (if you have, congratulations and you get a whole bag of cookies for your patience), I come to my conclusion. What I have been building up to is this: I didn't like the sparkly vampire bit. That did ruin them slightly for me. However, Stephenie Meyer was perfectly within her rights to have sparkly vampires and as such I accept them as part of the world of Twilight. That's basically it.
Final thing. When I read Twilight I was first starting to get into vampire fiction (That same week I'd previously bought, on impulse, a ticket for a reimagined theatre production of Dracula at my university. It was the best impulsive thing I've ever done, definitely worth it.). Anyway, soon afterwards I began to come up with short story ideas and so on, and I'd just begun to explore within my own mind the darkes recesses of the human psyche, the macabre and the horrific things that lie within all our minds (bear with me, I'm setting a mood here). Recently, there was a thread started up on this very forum for short stories. As a result, I created my own short story basically stealing some ideas (the good, not the considerable bad) from Twilight. In writing, I made sure to make an effort to create engaging characters and a moving story that does what Twilight apparently fails to do. The characters are basically created in my own signature style, as good people who inherently have dark personalities and are flawed and have to overcome their flaws and struggle against themselves and each other to find happiness and fulfillment. Very complex, but to the level that it doesn't overshadow the point and morals, a must in any short story. I'm waffling now, so here's the link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.110578?page=3#1939495
It's the story called 'Nameless', and it's in three parts. I advise you take a look, if so then please give some constructive criticism, it would be much appreciated. Thank you
And sorry for the huge Wall'O'Text...
I've basically spent a while now trying to stop Twilight bashing on the Escapist, as anyone who reads a lot of my posts will know. I'm aware that I'm the only one doing this, and that I'm fighting a losing battle, but I feel strongly about the idea that opinions should be made, provided that they're informed. I don't care how many of you hate Twilight, as long as you've actually read the books or seen the film and therefore have a reason to dislike the series other than wanting to be cool by joining the hate-wagon. Unfortunatly, most people do join the hate-wagon to be cool and only perhaps 10% have seen the film or 1% have read the books. This really disappoints me.
I've read all the books (own them, in fact). I saw the film and I actually like Twilight. I'm eagerly awaiting seeing New Moon hit the big screen. True, I'm aware of all the flaws in the series, Stephenie Meyer is by no means a great writer (she does focus a lot too much on how perfect the vampires are and how plain Bella sees herself as being) and the characters themselves aren't that likeable. That said, I did still like the characters, but my only real favourites who I actually cared about were Jasper and Alice, and they were pretty much the most complex in a way (although even they weren't too great). The books aren't exactly challenging and there is a wide held belief that they're simple 'Mormon vampire abstinence porn', which may well be true. Nevertheless, in the same way you like watching Eurovision every year or anything with John Barrowman, even though you know you shouldn't, I still like Twilight.
Despite all this, I feel that the portrayal of vampires in Twilight is perfectly reasonable. What most people fail to realise is that the idea of the 'traditional' vampire (i.e. burns in sunlight, hates garlic and religous iconography, and so on) came from Bram Stoker's Dracula. However, this wasn't the defining text on vampire fiction. Vampires first came into the realm of fiction in the earliest legends that date not to Slavic and East European regions, as Stoker suggests, but rather to the Far East, hundreds of years before. These vampires were extremely different and had none of the same weaknesses that the traditional vampire does today. In fact, they were much different to any idea of vampire we have today, and yet these legends spread across the globe. Every culture had their own myths and legends of the vampire, and they all were different. It was merely the prevailing East European legends that were used as the basis for Dracula that came to the attention of most modern people. Indeed, even after Dracula, vampire fiction changed things yet again. In Stoker's novel, sunlight would burn the vampire, in Buffy, it turned them to dust. And that's not all. Every piece of modern vampire fiction changes something about them and creates a new and more 'distorted' idea of the vampire. And thus to the crux of my argument.
Twilight has done nothing new with vampires compared to other fiction. The vampires are exceptionally strong, fast, and some have supernatural powers beyond their advanced senses and skills. These differences have gone unnoticed or unappreciated as a problem by most people. And that's fine. However, the problem for most people is 'sparkly vanmpires'. This is basically bashed as a major reason, more so than any other, about why Twilight is so bad. To be completely honest, I hated the idea of sparkly vampires. I thought, all the vampire traits were perfectly fine and indeed very much ideal, save for the vegitarianism (although I'm guilty of that myself, as you'll soon see). Sparkling in the sunlight was just too stupid for me, though. So to anyone who's read this far (if you have, congratulations and you get a whole bag of cookies for your patience), I come to my conclusion. What I have been building up to is this: I didn't like the sparkly vampire bit. That did ruin them slightly for me. However, Stephenie Meyer was perfectly within her rights to have sparkly vampires and as such I accept them as part of the world of Twilight. That's basically it.
Final thing. When I read Twilight I was first starting to get into vampire fiction (That same week I'd previously bought, on impulse, a ticket for a reimagined theatre production of Dracula at my university. It was the best impulsive thing I've ever done, definitely worth it.). Anyway, soon afterwards I began to come up with short story ideas and so on, and I'd just begun to explore within my own mind the darkes recesses of the human psyche, the macabre and the horrific things that lie within all our minds (bear with me, I'm setting a mood here). Recently, there was a thread started up on this very forum for short stories. As a result, I created my own short story basically stealing some ideas (the good, not the considerable bad) from Twilight. In writing, I made sure to make an effort to create engaging characters and a moving story that does what Twilight apparently fails to do. The characters are basically created in my own signature style, as good people who inherently have dark personalities and are flawed and have to overcome their flaws and struggle against themselves and each other to find happiness and fulfillment. Very complex, but to the level that it doesn't overshadow the point and morals, a must in any short story. I'm waffling now, so here's the link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.110578?page=3#1939495
It's the story called 'Nameless', and it's in three parts. I advise you take a look, if so then please give some constructive criticism, it would be much appreciated. Thank you
And sorry for the huge Wall'O'Text...
So there you have it. I full answer that for anyone who can't be bothered to read it basically says there are no true definint traits of vampires. Vampires can be anything you want them to be, including sparkly in sunlight (although as a fan of Twilight even I thought that was stupid). There are no set rules for vampires to follow and anyone who sets those rules are basically defeating the entire purpose of vampires in themselves. That said, I kind of did the same with my own short story (link at the bottom of the spoiler box).
I was looking for an excuse to post this:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/ff/Bellasue2.jpg
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/ff/Bellasue2.jpg
fyi, a CBE is not a knighthoodoliveira8 said:Well Wikipedia says he got knighted in 2001 "In 2001, Lee was appointed Commander of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE) by Queen Elizabeth II".tk1989 said:I don't think Christopher Lee was knighted? or have you just put 'Sir' in there as just a respectful way of addressing him?oliveira8 said:
It's not like we are criticising him, quite the opposite in fact! He was born to play such roles as Dracula, Saruman, and that dude from the Wicker Man! He is just the perfect villain; his acting style, looks and voice just give a truly impressive and convincing impersonation of evil.
And I noticed you werent criticising him.
Its just below a knighthood. If we are going to use Wikipedia heres a link!:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire
Bah you British and your complicated ranks...tk1989 said:fyi, a CBE is not a knighthoodoliveira8 said:Well Wikipedia says he got knighted in 2001 "In 2001, Lee was appointed Commander of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE) by Queen Elizabeth II".tk1989 said:I don't think Christopher Lee was knighted? or have you just put 'Sir' in there as just a respectful way of addressing him?oliveira8 said:
It's not like we are criticising him, quite the opposite in fact! He was born to play such roles as Dracula, Saruman, and that dude from the Wicker Man! He is just the perfect villain; his acting style, looks and voice just give a truly impressive and convincing impersonation of evil.
And I noticed you werent criticising him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire
If Sir Gandalf gets his Sir title why not Saruman! I bet its cause Sir Gandalf is gay! Saruman is always on the losing team...*sigh*
Love those books. THAT'S how you write a vampire series for kids. None of that Twilight bullcrap.Nimbus said:
As for me, I prefer for my vampires to have the following traits:
-Lust for human blood
-Fangs
-Weakness to sunlight
-Immortality.
-Hypnosis or some kind of mental power.
-Transformation powers
-Weaknesses to silver, garlic, or holy water
-Stronger senses (smell, hearing, etc.)
-Increased strength and speed.
-Difficult to kill. (Like by fire or decapitation or a stake through the heart.)
-The ability to fly (optional)
-MUST NOT SPARKLE. ANY SPARKLING RESULTS IN AN IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF KICKASS POWERS.
Very pale, turns to ashes in the sun, is repelled by the mental energy produced by strong beliefs, is easily injured by fire, drinks blood, has various magical powers and is usually very pretty.
Vampire isn't a stereotype, it's a curse. It isn't about Vampire's being bad, it's about Vampirism being a curse.
A tragic curse that warps even the most noble of victims into twisted, manipulative sociopaths who kill and spread disease for their own selfish survival. (They also represent turn of the century Victorian anxieties - as the Vampire as we know him was created by Bram Stoker.) You take away the negative elements of Vampirism and it ceases to be a curse - it's free super powers. Who wouldn't take the Embrace if you could be a vegan and sparkle in the sun?
Though I like the I Am Legend (the book, not the movie) explanation of Vampires and Vampires in the WoD games.
A tragic curse that warps even the most noble of victims into twisted, manipulative sociopaths who kill and spread disease for their own selfish survival. (They also represent turn of the century Victorian anxieties - as the Vampire as we know him was created by Bram Stoker.) You take away the negative elements of Vampirism and it ceases to be a curse - it's free super powers. Who wouldn't take the Embrace if you could be a vegan and sparkle in the sun?
Though I like the I Am Legend (the book, not the movie) explanation of Vampires and Vampires in the WoD games.
The truth is, seeing as there are just so many different incarnations of the Vampire, I really don't care how they're portrayed, beautiful or demonlike, not being able to walk into a home without an invite, holy connotations or not. Science or mystic. Vampires tend to make for great storytelling no matter how they're portrayed. But the sparkling.....I have to say, I draw the line there. The reason I draw the line there, is because Stephanie Meyer only did it to make her vampires more lovable. It's a slap to the face of people who actually take pride in the genre of vampire stories. Twilight is Mormon smut. Straight up. "ooh, I love you," "I love you so much it hurts," "it hurts me, when I can't be with you," smooch smooch sparkle smooch. Screw Stephanie Meyer. She's the messiah of Hot Topics everywhere.
Immortality, regeneration, blood thirst and enhanced strength are the big ones to me. Fangs too obviously... Vampires should prefer the dark, but not necessarily because sunlight sets them alight. It could just be to hide their new features a little.
I quite like Oblivions approach really, the need for blood is to remain human. Not drinking blood just enhances the vampiric 'attributes' which also includes weakness to sunlight, fire and silver. The choice is to be a monster and look human, or act human and thus become a monster, seems to fit the inner turmoil that vampirism exemplifies.
I quite like Oblivions approach really, the need for blood is to remain human. Not drinking blood just enhances the vampiric 'attributes' which also includes weakness to sunlight, fire and silver. The choice is to be a monster and look human, or act human and thus become a monster, seems to fit the inner turmoil that vampirism exemplifies.
yeah she wasn't bad, tho the first three books were good, the fourth sucked and the fifth wasn't bad, i stopped reading after Memnoch the Devil.IamSARAhearMYgrr said:
as for me i'd say Bram Stoker's Dracula defines a vampire. weakness in the sun, fear of holy symbols, ability to transform and the need to drink blood
as for tv shows look for one call Forever Knight it's a pretty good for a Canadian tv show
Bram Stoker's Dracula is also a very boring book. I read it in English Lit, and ugh - I wish I read the "good parts" version. It's the painstaking description and archaic words.