What is/isn't a vampire to you?

[PhunkyPhazon]

Essentially, they're intelligent zombies that suck blood and can't be in sunlight for whatever reason. They may or may not turn into bats, as far as I'm concerned that isn't a necessity.

Why? Vampires (or any other kind of monsters, for that matter) don't exist, they can be whatever you want them to be. There are no rules to imagination.

Exactly, which is why I'm going to take a less-then-popular opinion and say that I have nothing against the vampires in Twilight...well, the concept of them anyways. Vampires that try to blend in and lead somewhat normal lives, creating some kind of Harry Potter-esque secret society hidden from ours? I actually think that sounds awesome, and there's a lot of potential in that idea.

But that potential just hasn't been explored properly. At all.

 

[DoPo]

The most famous image of a vampire is a pale guy in a cape and fangs. I can't for the life of me remember the woman that wrote the first Count Dracula book, but she was the Stephine Meyer of the 1900s. Before that, vampires were far more beast like and looked like they would kill your ass.

Everything from Twilight to Blade are just different interpretations of the same idea.

Woman? First Count Dracula book? There is only one book written by Bram Stoker, who is a man. Unless you mean Anne Rice, who wrote the Lestat character (from Interview With a Vampire and the rest). Even then, that mostly came about in the 80-90s, not as far back as the 1900s. But Lestat isn't really known for a cape, though, that would be more of a Dracula thing.

Real live vampires are...

Wait, those are a thing? Do you mean the guys that have that disease (porphyria?)? If so, I'd hardly call them "real life vampires". As I recall, they can even take meds to stave it off (not in all cases, but still) and drinking blood isn't really a thing that is likely to help them out.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Woman? First Count Dracula book? There is only one book written by Bram Stoker, who is a man. Unless you mean Anne Rice, who wrote had the Lestat character (from Interview With a Vampire and the rest). Even then, that mostly came about in the 80-90s, not as far back as the 1900s. But Lestat isn't really known for a cape, though, that would be more of a Dracula thing.

...For some reason I thought Bram Stoker was a woman. Not sure why...

 

[FalloutJack]

*Looks it up*

I really hope I don't, given that apparently that's the disease known for madness and oddly-pigmented feces.

Plus I said transfusions, the medical procedure. Actually drinking blood doesn't do much for you medically unless your digestive system will get something out of it.

 

[Genocidicles]

Isn't the original folklore like a corpse that's been possessed by a demon or something? Sounds way cooler than douches in leather going around sexing everything up and angsting about drinking blood.

 

[DoPo]

Plus I said transfusions, the medical procedure. Actually drinking blood doesn't do much for you medically unless your digestive system will get something out of it.

Yeah, I know, but as I recall back in the day drinking blood was considered a cure by some. The reasoning went something like this - there is something wrong with the blood, so just get more. Not that it was really useful but we're talking about quite a long time ago. And folk cures of the type "Well, a friend of the brother of my aunt told my grandmother...", which aren't known for their scientific backing.

Anyway, who were the real life vampires?

 

[DoPo]

Isn't the original folklore like a corpse that's been possessed by a demon or something? Sounds way cooler than douches in leather going around sexing everything up and angsting about drinking blood.

Erm, it depends on which folklore you're talking about. It varies wildly between cultures.

 

[Genocidicles]

Erm, it depends on which folklore you're talking about. It varies wildly between cultures.

Well I honestly have no idea, so nevermind I guess.

 

[FalloutJack]

Plus I said transfusions, the medical procedure. Actually drinking blood doesn't do much for you medically unless your digestive system will get something out of it.

Yeah, I know, but as I recall back in the day drinking blood was considered a cure by some. The reasoning went something like this - there is something wrong with the blood, so just get more. Not that it was really useful but we're talking about quite a long time ago. And folk cures of the type "Well, a friend of the brother of my aunt told my grandmother...", which aren't known for their scientific backing.

Anyway, who were the real life vampires?

People say all kinds of remedies, and as Dara O'Briain would say, the ones the science found useful became medicine and the others were like chicken soup.

Still, the real ones? I dunno. Some actually say Vlad, but that might've just been revolving around his business with the Turks. There are people in this century, this decide, who have the problem and that's why I responded to the thread that way.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Anything that doesn't sparkle. That should go without saying.

Oh and they should at least look somewhat inhuman and menacing, and be vulnerable to garlic/crosses/wooden stakes, ect.

 

[MammothBlade]

Strictly speaking, an undead human which is dependent on blood, immortal in some way, and is harmed by sunlight whilst retaining complete sapience. I'm not too concerned about the rest, vampirism can be interpreted in several different ways.

I'm interested in the view of vampires as conflicted, damned, or existential paradoxes. Their human life is forfeit, and in exchange they will wander forever in a world of darkness. Vampires are free from death, but somehow lost.

This statement applies to pretty much all forms of story telling:
If you are too stupid to come up with your own fucking ideas or feel that you actually have a truly good idea for a story involving vampires/zombies/werewolves/etc then you MUST stick to what that particular item/monster/etc actually is. You don't get to fucking cherrypick what you do and don't like and keep the name, if you want to cherrypick the traits of those idea that's fine, but you should change the fucking name.

Why? Vampires (or any other kind of monsters, for that matter) don't exist, they can be whatever you want them to be. There are no rules to imagination.

Lies.... vampires are real.

 

[Rawne1980]

Vampires are like this....

 

[DoPo]

I like folklore so ive spent litterally years lookinging into universal myths like vampires and shapeshifters. one thing i did find is that pretty much every single culture world wide has a legend of a person who died who comes back to suck the blood or energy of the living. the other details may change back that base remains the same.

i like the chinese hopping vampire

Oh, gosh, that one is hilarious. Or maybe terrifying, if you actually meet one, but hilarious to read about.

And yeah, I have noticed the trend for "vampires" across cultures. Pretty generally, a mythological vampire, seems to be a person (or looks like one), most probably evil, who somehow subsists on the living.

And from looking into various other vampire fiction, I can only describe non-folklore vampires as a person (or looks like one), less usually evil, who subsists on the living.

So, I don't get what issues people have with vampires not being vampires. It only seems that they've become less randomly evil over the centuries.

 

[PinkiePyro]

drinks blood and is harmed by sunlight, garlic, and holy objects

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I basically point to any vampire in the Twilight saga and say, "Definitely not that."

More specifically, there is a general checklist that classifies a monster as a vampire:
* They have fangs that are capable of piecing flesh and drinking blood.
* If a vampire bites a mammal or causes the mammal to ingest vampire blood, the mammal will become a vampire.
* Vampires have no heart beat, and therefore, are technically corpses, never aging and can live forever.
* They are capable of having superhuman strength, speed, stamina, and dexterity. Some ignoring pain and even regenerate their injuries.
* Bright lights irritate their skin and impair their vision, so they are active in night and sleep/hide during the day.
* Sunlight irritates their skin and can cause them to completely burn up into ashes.
* Vampires may be allergic to garlic and religious symbols or blessed articles can irritate and kill them.
* Traditionally, vampires can be killed by driving a wooden stake into their heart.
* Vampires can also be vanquished by chopping their heads off.
* Vampires may be adept in magic, allowing them to hypnotize their victims, shape shift, and preform blood rituals.

These may or may not all apply, but I believe that these are the bare essentials.

 

[Nieroshai]

With the core of a vampire being any humanoid being that needs blood to survive, almost all modern interpretations are valid. The term "vampire" is pretty much this. So yes, Edward is a vampire. The mythological vampire, however, was undead. It was an animated corpse that kept itself animate by consuming blood. Presumably the blood rejuvenated it. Some tales even were devoid of any kind of weakness to the typical fare, sunlight and holy things. A lot of the myths had vampires portrayed as bestial predators who were only passably human. Other than these core rules, anything goes in being a vampire. What we need is categories: what kind of vampire is it? The Cold Ones seemingly made of stone in Twilight? The aristocratic, manipulative murderers in Lestat's tales? The sorcerous nosferatu in Dracula? The fallen Carpathian supermen of the "Dark" series? The ravenous beasts in 30 Days of Night and other tales? Simply humans with porphyria? Are they biological or magical? Perhaps World of Darkness (the RPG system) does it best by featuring a plethora of different vampire breeds.

 

[Nieroshai]

Funny story, I had a course in college called "Vampires: Blood and Empire". Very educational. Real live vampires are...

{1} A bit pale.

{2} Merely annoyed or sickened by the sun.

{3} As mortal as we are, plus maybe anemic and often light-sensitive.

{4} Living, but with certain conditional drawbacks.

{5} Not immortal or any more long-lived than we are.

{6} Not healers by any greater extent, sometimes bleeders.

{7} About as varied in strength and speed as everyone else.

{8} Requiring blood regularly as their circulatory system is irregular to the point of needing new blood transfusions here and there.

I'm afraid the myth has really given them all a helluva reputation. Many people suffering from the true vampirism are irritated by everything in literature. Even seeing past it, some still connect it all to Vlad The Impaler, who supposedly hated the sun and drank blood while watching his enemies get impaled to death during his campaign against the Turks.

The big problem with this: drinking blood does not put it in the veins. It puts it in the colon. You can make up for an iron deficiency (porphyria) by consuming it, but not refresh your veins.

 

[Nieroshai]

I basically point to any vampire in the Twilight saga and say, "Definitely not that."

More specifically, there is a general checklist that classifies a monster as a vampire:
* They have fangs that are capable of piecing flesh and drinking blood.
* If a vampire bites a mammal or causes the mammal to ingest vampire blood, the mammal will become a vampire.
* Sunlight irritates their skin and can cause them to completely burn up into ashes.
* Traditionally, vampires can be killed by driving a wooden stake into their heart.

Edited for the point.

If these are must-haves, and without them there is no vampirism, Dracula was not a vampire. He shape-shifted his fangs. He had elongated (wolf-like, you say?) canines, but when he fed, he mysteriously left a snake bite behind. This isn't a simple error, it's pointed out.
Dracula didn't feed on people's blood to turn them. He ritualistically fed them his own blood.
Dracula was stunned by light, it never damaged him.
Dracula put up a hell of a fight, after being staked, and had to be dismembered with bowie knives.

I hate to defend Twilight, but people's reasons for hating it have nothing to do with its flaws. How are the Cold Ones not vampires? They are undead, and they drink blood, which are literally the only qualifications to being a vampire. Sparkling is creative license. Stupid creative license, but nothing that rules out vampirism.

 

[FalloutJack]

NOM

Hold on there, fella. I was addressing this very thing with Dopo if you were watching.

The first thing is that I said transfusion, the medical procedure to put blood into veins. The second thing is that we're not sure really if it's porphyria (which I said I hope not on grounds of madness and purple feces). Lastly, the only reference I made to actually drinking blood was what was started by Vlad Tepes supposedly doing it (mostly for effect and cruelty if not just liking it) as he watched people die of impalement. That's not even vampirism. That was to instill a horrified reaction from the Turks.

 

[Dandark]

Im usually happy for writers to modify their idea of a vampire somewhat but I usually think of a vampire as....

Needing to drink blood.

Having a weakness to daylight, I am happy to see them adjust this so that they may not instantly burst into flame but daylight needs to have some significant negative effect on them so they can't stay out in it for too long.

At least one of them must be European, this is mandatory.

Other than this I am usaully happy with whatever they want to do with it but I tend to prefer the really powerful kinds, I really enjoyed the Carpathian series by Christian Feehan, I liked the vampires in that.