What vampires MUST be

[Torkuda]

Despite knowing that it?s incredibly silly, this is a subject that interests me. In the years following Twilight many people have started arguing about what are the essential elements of the vampire mythos. Before it was thought that, since vampires don?t exist, we can pretty much declare that they are whatever we want them to be. However in recent years people have started to insist that this is not so.

Personally I have had experiences with this. Perhaps that should be a secondary to this subject. Is this an acceptable vampire mythos for a sci-fi series:

Created in the 1500s by a race of aliens wanting to harvest humans as food, the vampires were humans with dragon DNA injected into them. The dragon DNA was supposed to make them more powerful and more compliant, as dragons were reptiles and therefore far less psychologically independent. At first the vampires served their alien overlords and started gathering human children for them to feast on. However over time reptilian mechanical psychology began to battle human emotional psychology. The more passionate or fierce the emotion the better chance it had of surviving as the two natures battled and eventually, the vampires became either cold blooded killers, or hyper idealists, in both cases becoming monstrous. The vampires are sentient and nothing about them requires them to be ?evil?, they just have issues with anything even resembling subtlety.
The vampires have healing powers, but no need to drink blood. They have super strength and speed but no fear of sunlight. They?re often ferocious killers, but generally have no interest in romancing boring humans even if they are into romance. They?re nigh immortal, but can be killed by any natural means that can?t be countered by their very considerable healing powers. Finally, they can morph into completely feral winged monstrosities.
(In my series of course, the ?vampires? are not the original ?vampires?. They have just come to be called that as part of an elaborate cover up for mutants living among us.)

I?ve been given plenty of hate on this and even those who don?t hate the story told me this should be probably a werewolf myth. Honestly, I never thought it mattered. When Lord Maelstrom kidnaps a human child in one of my stories, drains his blood and forces it through the pluming of his girlfriend?s house while dumping the body in the tub? I figured that was bringing horror back to the mythos. Folks have agreed that this is scary, but just not vampires. Thoughts?

 

[Heronblade]

The vampire mythos is quite... broad, but the three primary constants are a weakness to sunlight, a need/desire for blood, and being at least technically undead.

Secondary attributes vary, and include things like weaknesses to holy objects, garlic, Arithmomania (an obsession with counting things), hypnotizing ability, being unable to enter a home unless invited, a wide variety of superhuman abilities (speed, strength, flying, psionics), and affinity with and/or ability to turn into wolves and/or bats.

Given that what you describe discards all of the primary attributes, I'd say that no, it does not apply for the label. Even the monstrosities featured in Twilight are closer. What you've got would be better described as a race of gene modified shapeshifters. If you wanted to tie it into an old mythos, perhaps you could call them weredragons? Wyverns or Manticores might also be a possibility you could look into

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's no such thing as "the vampire mythos". Burning in sunlight was invented by early vampire movies, having fangs by the humourous Varney the Vampire in the 1800s.

But take those away, and people will complain forever.

In any case, blood drinking dead people is very vague, enough that loads of different cultures have something that fits that general description.

 

[Heronblade]

There's no such thing as "the vampire mythos". Burning in sunlight was invented by early vampire movies, having fangs by the humourous Varney the Vampire in the 1800s.

But take those away, and people will complain forever.

In any case, blood drinking dead people is very vague, enough that loads of different cultures have something that fits that general description.

Actually, blood drinking undead individuals who avoided sunlight have featured in myths stretching all the way back to Ancient Greece and Rome. We have reason to believe that the legend stems from early cases of porphyria, a disease for which the only treatment at the time would have been the ingestion of large quantities of blood. The disease also tends to cause photodematitis, severe skin reactions to sunlight. I think the fangs were indeed a recent addition, but there is definite history to this concept.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's no such thing as "the vampire mythos". Burning in sunlight was invented by early vampire movies, having fangs by the humourous Varney the Vampire in the 1800s.

But take those away, and people will complain forever.

In any case, blood drinking dead people is very vague, enough that loads of different cultures have something that fits that general description.

Actually, blood drinking undead individuals who avoided sunlight have featured in myths stretching all the way back to Ancient Greece and Rome. I think the fangs were indeed a recent addition, but there is definite history to this concept.

Avoiding sunlight, sure, being nocturnal, sure, but actually bursting into flames when sunlight catches them, not really.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Not written by Stephenie Meyer (if there's an 'a' in there somewhere, I don't care...) I would presume to be the most popular answer around here.

Anyway, as both the previous repliers have noted, there is no 'universal canon vampire', since different cultures attach different qualities/attributes to them. Chinese vampires are a completely different kettle of fish from the archetypal Romanian one...

The vampire mythos is quite... broad, but the three primary constants are a weakness to sunlight, a need/desire for blood, and being at least technically undead.

Ah, now see... even there, the 'universality' breaks down. Only the third one applies to Chinese/Japanese vampires, which are (I know Chinese ones are) OK in daylight, if uncomfortable, while they don't need/want blood, just living creatures to relieve of their life-force, and only in recent media is there a tendency to make them more western in needing blood.

A strain of Japanese vampire is more like succubi, rather than 'vampire'...

*shrug*

 

[Heronblade]

There's no such thing as "the vampire mythos". Burning in sunlight was invented by early vampire movies, having fangs by the humourous Varney the Vampire in the 1800s.

But take those away, and people will complain forever.

In any case, blood drinking dead people is very vague, enough that loads of different cultures have something that fits that general description.

Actually, blood drinking undead individuals who avoided sunlight have featured in myths stretching all the way back to Ancient Greece and Rome. I think the fangs were indeed a recent addition, but there is definite history to this concept.

Avoiding sunlight, sure, being nocturnal, sure, but actually bursting into flames when sunlight catches them, not really.

I won't claim that some details have not changed, all myths change over time. In nearly all myths, even the Chinese/Japanese variants Sckizoboy mentions, vampires have a weakness to sunlight. Whether they are simply weakened, trapped, burned, turned to smoke/mist, or simply struck dead on the spot, it remains one of the few relatively consistent aspects.

The vampire mythos is quite... broad, but the three primary constants are a weakness to sunlight, a need/desire for blood, and being at least technically undead.

Ah, now see... even there, the 'universality' breaks down. Only the third one applies to Chinese/Japanese vampires, which are (I know Chinese ones are) OK in daylight, if uncomfortable, while they don't need/want blood, just living creatures to relieve of their life-force, and only in recent media is there a tendency to make them more western in needing blood.

They are still weakened by and avoid sunlight. As for the other aspect, I'd say that that is an example of a myth bending to fit the beliefs of a culture. Both creatures take the life force of others in order to sustain themselves. The Europeans believed it to be bound up in blood. China and Japan had a more... ethereal view, and associated that with Yang qi instead.

 

[Torkuda]

Really, I was just coming up with a sci-fi explanation and writing out the overkill sexualization. (Okay, so it's still BS to science, but that's vampires in a nutshell.) I took away all the weaknesses because vampires have too many these days to be respectable antagonists, especially if they live along side other mutants. I took away blood sucking because I wanted to have real controversy surrounding these creatures, not to just label them as ridiculously obvious bad guys.

Their morphed states do look like vampires, they are immortal, and many of them are incredibly intelligent, having battled back their feral natures over time. Essentially they look, act and talk like European style vampires.

 

[Torkuda]

Anyone else found that lately, because of all their weaknesses, vampires just aren't scary?
Let's do a run down:
The bible
Holy water
running water
spilled rice
garlic
not being invited in
decapitation
wooden stakes
silver
the sun
dead man's blood
crucifixes

You know what all these things have in common? They are all incredibly easy to obtain. Nothing about these monsters seems monstrous to me when all I have to do is throw a bucket of water at them or cross two sticks. They're even supposed to be easy as hell to recognize so in the end, where is the fear factor?

 

[Thaluikhain]

ive always found it interesting that the three things that are universal myths across cultures are the vampire, the ghost and the shapeshifter.

Well...I'd say the part human part animal thing (unless you count a vampire as that). Not so much as an obvious hybrid like a mermaid or centaur, but a bestial human.

 

[Torkuda]

On vampires, I think they're changing because of society. Vampires used to represent depraved sexuality, and thus were considered evil. But this doesn't disturb us as much anymore, if at all, so now old fashioned vampires are becoming school girl fantasies.

On the other hand, violence scares us, perhaps now more than it did in other ages because we've only gotten out of the two worst wars in the history of mankind some sixty years ago, and the Cold War directly after could arguably be seen as just as nasty. Thus in order to keep being seen as evil, vampires are becoming feral or insidious creatures of murder and blood lust.

Often in literature or on movies, the point of vampires is to push us to looking at an extreme representation of evil, and rethinking whether it indeed has to be evil. Well that's the point of my vampires and that's why I chose to make them feral instead of supernatural.

 

[Elate]

Drink blood. In my opinion, that's it. The rest is oh so much dressing on top. I base this on the main thing vampires are related to, that being vampire bats, because, you know, there is something that does exist outside of mythology that does drink blood, avoid light, and has lots of bat imagery surrounding it (being a bat.)

..Did nobody even think about that one for a moment?

 

[Mangod]

I'll just make the statement that Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines (and the RPG it's based on) is the stick I measure all other vampire fiction against. Usually not to "other vampire fiction" benefit.

 

[Torkuda]

Drink blood. In my opinion, that's it. The rest is oh so much dressing on top. I base this on the main thing vampires are related to, that being vampire bats, because, you know, there is something that does exist outside of mythology that does drink blood, avoid light, and has lots of bat imagery surrounding it (being a bat.)

..Did nobody even think about that one for a moment?

Weren't vampire bats called "vampire bats" AFTER vampire mythology already coined the term "vampire"? I'm not saying bats didn't scare the piss out of humans before that, I'm just thinking that in that particular case, one name preceded the other.

 

[DanielBrown]

We have reason to believe that the legend stems from early cases of porphyria, a disease for which the only treatment at the time would have been the ingestion of large quantities of blood. The disease also tends to cause photodematitis, severe skin reactions to sunlight. I think the fangs were indeed a recent addition, but there is definite history to this concept.

The fang thing also came from porphyria, iirc. The gums dies, or retracts, which causes the teeth to look a lot longer.

OT: I don't really think vampires and sci-fi blend well. I'm quite biased however as I don't care much for sci-fi to begin with.
Not sure why vastly superior aliens would need to genetically alter humans to get help with gathering their blood though. They should be more than able to do it themselves. Drinking blood is also the key feature to what I'd call a vampire, as well as being undead and at least cautious of the sun light. Take all that away and you got something else.
Eh, just echoing what Heronblade said in the first post actually. Can't be said better.

 

[Spiridion]

My personal criteria for a vampire generally has three requirements.

1) Weakness to sunlight. Not necessarily bursting into flames, but at least losing some of their strength/powers or being weakened to the point of death after several hours of exposure.

2) Surviving off of the life-force of living creatures. Blood can be the medium through which this is absorbed, or it can be tapped more directly. An example from recent urban fantasy could be the White Court from the Dresden Files who are considered vampires, but drain the life force more directly by inciting and feeding off of specific emotions. There's also the vampires in the Hollows who feed off of blood as a means of draining the energy from the auras (basically the protective lining of one's soul) since when they die they lose their souls and can't generate their own aura any longer.

3) Practical immortality or advanced longevity. Either the inability to die from aging or an extended lifespan.

Two is probably the most important because it's generally what allows for vampires to be painted in shades of moral grey if not outright black. Personally I enjoy representations of vampires when they're Capital D Damned and also when they're pretty much as morally grey as the rest of us with the addition of a predatory nature to struggle with. The increases life-span also tends to lend to this struggle since I'd imagine it would be hard for anyone to maintain emotional connections after a few centuries.

And especially if they're going to still have the strength/speed/durability, weakness to sunlight is a good way to help level the playing field as it doesn't need to instantly kill them, just wear them down a bit. It's really the only weakness I would consider necessary, any additional weaknesses should be dependent on internal mythology.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I think there are several main points that vampires can have a selection of. The only one that would be arguably vital is probably the need to drink blood/drain energy. The rest are not necessarily vital, but really at least some aspects of them should appear in a fictional vampire:

Very strong
Aversion to sunlight
Aversion to holy objects
Evil/demonic in nature
Ability to shapeshift (most commonly bat)
Increased sexuality
Don't ageing
Can be killed from stake to the heart/decapitation

I'm sure I've missed some important ones, and the list is probably debatable, but I would expect a vampire to have the main energy draining point, and for at least a few of the list to make appearances or be referenced, even if it's just to avert a point.

 

[Elate]

Drink blood. In my opinion, that's it. The rest is oh so much dressing on top. I base this on the main thing vampires are related to, that being vampire bats, because, you know, there is something that does exist outside of mythology that does drink blood, avoid light, and has lots of bat imagery surrounding it (being a bat.)

..Did nobody even think about that one for a moment?

Weren't vampire bats called "vampire bats" AFTER vampire mythology already coined the term "vampire"? I'm not saying bats didn't scare the piss out of humans before that, I'm just thinking that in that particular case, one name preceded the other.

No I don't think so, I looked up the Etymology of the word, and it dates back to around 1600, vampire bats are mostly found it south America, which was explored around 1500. The actual roots of vampire date back further than that, but I think it's likely, based off their usage that they meant more evil/wicked, and thus the bat started coming under similar terms which changed the word vampire to what we know now.

Much how gay meant to be happy, and now the word after being used for something else has changed meaning entirely, though in a much shorter time span.

Of course, this is just my view, I have no basis other than comparing dates and such.