Hey everyone, it’s Fantasy Friday, and that means it’s time to Blog for a Beer. (click here for the rules.)
This week we’re interested in hearing your thoughts on vampires — specifically your feelings on how the popular conception of vampires has changed down the years, from folklore to Dracula to Lestat to Angel to the newest, hottest vampire to grace the shelves: Mr. Sparklypants himself, Edward (of the Twilight series). If you’re not familiar with the Twilight series (the fourth book just came out a couple of weeks ago), you can get the overview from Wikipedia or in-depth summaries and discussion on LiveJournal (where else?).
I’d never heard about the Twilight series until a few months ago, and now I can’t escape mentions of it with the new book out and a movie on the horizon. A bemused Borders employee explained to me that teen girls just loved the series and that the vampires therein were different from regular ones because, instead of being killed by sunlight, it caused them to sparkle, instead. Yes, that’s right, Edward twinkles like a diamond in the sun.
A friend who happened to be with me at the time expressed disdain for the way authors causally toss aside “essential” elements of vampire nature. Even though I’m not particularly fond of this whole sparkling business, I pointed out to her that Anne Rice did something similar in the 70′s, and now the vision of what a vampire is has been shaped by her books. Vampires aren’t the mindless monsters of folklore, or even the bloodthirsty heathens of Dracula. Vampires might choose to feed on animals, are totally interested in looking pretty, and spend a lot of time brooding on their nature and being emo.
Twilight’s Edward is clearly a descendant of Lestat, Louis, and their ilk. And is even a cousin of Buffy’s Angel, who similarly became entranced with a girl and who was, in essence, the perfect, perfect boy (except for the fangs… and the turning back into a soulless monster… and, well, nevermind).
Sherwood Smith has been reading vampire novels and talks about the connections between sex, violence, and vampires in popular lit.
One of the biggies facing us humans is the dichotomy between sex and violence. The word ‘dichotomy’ implies a branching: how much of our sexual drive derives out of violence? How do we deal with the atavistic response to violence being sexy, and sex being violent?
[...]
Different writers have explored vampires, imagining all kinds of types. Barbara Hambly’s were the most alien that I recall, while still being civilized. Some horror writers (mostly male) have given us terror-inducing vampires, all ugly distortions of humanity, blood-red eyes and ripping claws, swooping down to leave victims not in a lascivious swoon, but in steaming, eviscerated death. None of these are as popular as the image of the suave vampire in a tuxedo, or evening dress, (or jeans and a black t-shirt) forever young, casually strong, with super-powered attraction that can be switched on and off by a flick of mental effort. Their limitations are few: no sun, and the blood thing. Oh yes, and crosses.
[...]
It’s been interesting to see how the limitations have been gotten around–some can eat, some can breathe, there are half-vampires–some can deal with sun–the animal blood and blood bank thing–all ways to keep the power but turn vampires into nice guys. Into vampire heroes. It’s really interesting to me that it’s mostly (maybe all? I haven’t read everything out there, just the most popular things) women writing vampire heroes. What’s going on here? Is there a whole ‘instinct to civilize’ thing going on with the sexy vamps who can be good bad guys (or bad good guys), or is it the female sexual exploration thing that is now (sort of, in many circles) okay? Or both? I’m reading stories with vamps that are not just really sexy, but who suffer human emotions, specifically love. Who struggle with emotional issues–with being outcasts from regular life, who are isolated in the teeming city, who have to deal with mortal questions.
Obviously the vampire as Nice Guy (or even Nice Guy™) resonates with a lot of readers and viewers — Angel (on Buffy), Nick from Forever Knight, Edward, Louis. Vampire as Nice but Slightly Dangerous Guy also resonates — Angel (on Angel), Spike, Lestat.
But where do you think this trend is going? What will vampires be like in another 10 years? Still sparkling in the sun? And, more pointedly, is the current trend a good thing? Or have we already de-fanged the vampire too much in order to indulge in the sexy danger that is a hot guy with a lust for blood (and heaving bosoms)?
And by non-chemical addictions, I mean of course external chemicals. Yes, I know that the body produces chemicals that reinforce addictive behaviors.
I think the drug-saliva is just more fast acting and universal than a purely psychological addiction. It works for situations where the hero is being bitten and must fight the drug’s effects. In long-term addiction storylines, the more psychological approach is often more interesting.
On a related note, what do people think of the Scification (neologism?) of vampires? Even in non-SF works vampirism is very often referred to as a virus (and spread like one) and numerous powers/weaknesses are explained in scientific terms (rapid healing, photosensitivity etc.) Completely unscientific aspects like not reflecting in mirrors have been almost universally abandoned.
Ah, well, writers of quality vampire fiction quickly realized they had to get rid of the non-reflection thing. I mean, how else are you going to describe a character except find a contrived reason for them to look in a mirror and think about their own appearance? Hello! Duh.
As for the science angle, yeah, I mean, just because the real reason for vampirism is a virus, that doesn’t mean fiction about vampires needs to stick with that.
“Completely unscientific aspects like not reflecting in mirrors have been almost universally abandoned.”
It seems to vary a lot. Buffy, with its idea of vampires as a type of demon, clearly takes an unscientific approach. St.Germain has to carry earth from the place where he was born. And there’s, of course, the much more “logical” vampires which could exist in our own world which can be explained as a virus.
How ever, I would caution about the word “universally.” Many other cultures have vampire myths that, if exploited more often, would often show some very unscientific characteristics. Latin American folklore is rich with “sucking” female creatures that eat babies. It’s just that Westerners are more familiar with Dracula and its kindred (no mirrors, shadows, crucifix). But for example, would you know how to deal with an Ole-Higue?
“But for example, would you know how to deal with an Ole-Higue?”
Thanks to Wikipedia, I now would. Unless Wikipedia is working with the Guyanese demons to lure us into a false sense of security.
It is interesting that the grain-counting thing is one of the few similarities to European vampires.
I’m trying to think of non-European vampires in fiction. Chinese (hopping) vampires have become a bit more well known these days, but I’ve come across only a small number of other types. I lauded Jim Butcher in my first post for incorporating three versions of vampires in his books, but now I’m thinking what we really need is a United Nations for the Undead.
Is there going to be a winner this week? I counted 11 participants.
woo! crazy week and a miscommunicaton made us late (again, yes, again) awarding our winner for this (last) week’s BfaB. The conversation was wonderful, wide-ranging, and highly enjoyable. If I could give you all 410, I would. But the prize ultimately goes to Rae, because “The Clinton Chronicles: Blood for Hillary” makes me giggle, “she-vamp” taken down by “the man” is SO true, and her other commentary was just as insightful and fun. But props should also go to Nora, Ide, Randy, Clint, Silvia, and Michael.
A big thank you! I must also give some big-time props to Nora, Ide, Randy, Clint, Silvia, and Michael. This was a super fun blog, and highly educational. You all know your vamp-lore!
Thank you K. Tempest, and everyone else.
All my best,
Rae
*I lauded Jim Butcher in my first post for incorporating three versions of vampires in his books, but now I’m thinking what we really need is a United Nations for the Undead.*
There is actually a fourth vampire court – the Jade court, which are Oriental. They haven’t turned up yet though, just been mentioned in passing.
*I did come across a short story once that took #3 to an extreme. Vampires invaded American by attacking Jewish communities first and all the silly Jews died because they didn’t have crosses. It kind of sickened me. (Plus, if the vampires were smart, wouldn’t they have attacked Asia first?)*
There’s a scene in The Fearless Vampire Killers (I think) where someone is attacked by a Jewish vampire and gets out their cross, only to be told “You have got the wrong vampire…” and get bitten anyway.
Good debate, I wish I’d caught it.
Good points Cheryl, I forgot about the Jade court. I believe the Jewish vampire bit is an old joke, but it raises an interesting idea about the effect of the faith of the vampire (rather than the vampire slayer).
So here’s what I realized about Non-western vampires. It’s not just that they are rare in fiction, appearing usually as a one-time occurence, but they also tend to not have undergone the same civilizing effect as the European variety. Where are the romantic hero hopping vampires or the conflicted, guilt-ridden Ole-Higue? Other than the Kindred of the East RPG I don’t think I’ve ever seen any complexity given to these brothers and sisters in darkness. It’s time for a change, I say. Let’s send all the demons to high school! That should set things straight.
*So here’s what I realized about Non-western vampires. It’s not just that they are rare in fiction, appearing usually as a one-time occurence, but they also tend to not have undergone the same civilizing effect as the European variety. Where are the romantic hero hopping vampires or the conflicted, guilt-ridden Ole-Higue?*
The difference comes in that the western vampire evolved in a specific set of cultural and literary circumstances, specifically those of 19th century Romantic fiction. At the time it was fashionable for young men with a certain amount of wealth to go on the Grand Tour – basically a road trip of Europe, which was popularised by Lord Byron.
John Polidori wrote a story called “The Vampyre” which was probably the first to feature the vampire as we know it: pale, aristocratic, not sparkly, and with a tendency to travel a lot. “The Vampyre” was attributed to Byron (who Polidori knew), and there were all sorts of comparisions of the vampire and him. The literati were at the time (as now, I suppose) quite closely connected and so the whole thing snowballed from there.
There’s obviously more to it, but I don’t want to turn this into an essay! There’s a good account of it in Christopher Frayling’s “Vampyres” if anyone’s interested, plus it has some good old vampire stories to boot (pretty much the ones he talks about).