Let's discuss interpretations of vampires.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 12:05:18

MALK GET IN HERE.

Firstly, I submit this.

Secondly, I submit this.

Thirdly, how cool would it be if there was a work that detailed the life of Van Helsing from Dracula? Like, his life as an academic and making his initial discoveries about the undead. When he shows up in Bram Stoker's novel, he makes it clear that he has some degree of previous experience. That would make a pretty interesting work.

So, /ijbm/, how do you like your vampires? Fallen or ascended humans? Spirits or beasts in human form? Complete monstrosities? And why?

MillerCross · 2011-11-30 12:11:00

I prefer my vampires ashy and dead, thankyouverymuch.

All Nines · 2011-11-30 12:13:24

Vampires are definitely my favorite monsters. So long as they don't sparkle (normally I wouldn't make the obvious Twilight reference, but that's really the only type of vampire I can't conceptually tolerate, off the top of my head), I'm fine with them. Tribal hunters a la M:tG, supernatural humans with their own society and internal political struggles a la World of Darkness, monstrous individuals in history--almost anything, really.

IanExMachina · 2011-11-30 12:16:13

Complete monstrosities, like some of the older legends mentioned in your second link.

I find them much more compelling than any of the more human examples.

MillerCross · 2011-11-30 12:21:19

Tribal hunters a la M:tG

Not all Magic vampires are like the hunters from Zendikar.

In fact, Innistrad has both aristocratic hedonists who indulge in the occasional blood drinking while still being all high and might and animalistic vampires who do nothing but drink blood and hunt.

And then there's Szadek, from House Dimir. Who's basically a mind raping, secret hunting ninja.

/Nitpick

All Nines · 2011-11-30 12:34:37

I know. I wasn't going to dwell on M:tG specifically, and the tribal vampires from Zendikar are dominant when it comes to deck construction, as far as I can tell. Besides, the aristocratic, hedonistic type from Innistrad is probably easier to find in most vampire fiction than the always-savage ones.

CuteWithoutTheE · 2011-11-30 12:42:33

The sparkles are actually just really good glitter

it explains Ke$ha

Sadie · 2011-11-30 12:53:10

Ke$ha is a vampire?

IanExMachina · 2011-11-30 12:54:35

^

~~Well she certainly sucks.~~

~~Draining the music industry dry.~~

Etc

Malkavian · 2011-11-30 14:50:14

So I know it might suprise you all here, but I actually don't spend a lot of time thinking about vam- ahahaha sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face. I fuckin' love talking about vampires. Dracula is tied with Sherlock Holmes as my favorite Public Domain character of all time.

Also I think it's kind of silly when people say they prefer the 'original myth' vampires when the original myths vary from place to place and the original European myths of vampires tend to be more in line with our current view of zombies. Hell, the idea of sunlight and crosses being vampire banes are very recent, and the rape fetishism aspect of that was pretty much created by the repressed horndog Bram Stoker.

I like a lot of vampires: I like the suave supervillain, the bestial monster, the conflicted anti-hero, and even the vampire who falls in love with a human. ("Oh cheeseburger! Why must society shun our love?!") but to me being a vampire is about being one thing: a predator, as opposed to zombies who are parasites and the virus.

So their powerset usually isn't too important, so long as you keep to a couple of recognizable basics. Look at Hellsing. The only real reason we have to think Alucard is a vampire and not a Shoggoth Lord is his fashion sense and that one time he actually eats a person in the comic. However, Alucard is an ultimate predator and a monster reveling in his ability to destroy and terrorize.

I think one other thing that needs to be emphasized, something that Buffy and Let The Right One In did very well, is that vampires are not human. They might wear human skin, they might have emotions like a person, they might even have a conscience, but they are not people. They are something else entirely. It leads to my love of the idea of mad scientist vampires convinced they're the next stage in evolution.

On that note, if you're doing the 'tragic antihero' vampire, it has to be unpleasant to be a vampire. Yeah, he can have the superpowers and fight crime, but it needs to be a constant reminder that he stands apart from society. With Angel, all of his physical limitations frequently came up, his 'vamp face' frightened even his friends, and his life was just shit because he was a monster fighting other monsters, while humans distrusted him. Mitchell in Being Human was a blood junkie to the point where it stopped being a metaphor and started being drug addictions as drama, not to mention his incredibly poor impulse control. This is a place where Twilight really fails. Ignore being sparkly. There is no visible downside to being a vampire, which would be okay if they were soulless monsters, but as friendly neighborhood Nosferatu they feel uninteresting.

On a side note? That scene where Bella concludes that Edward Cullen must be Spider-man then decides vampire? Dangerously close to my thought process.

One more thing that I really don't like in vampire fiction is when they have scientific explanations. I can think of two series I've forgiven for this: Trinity Blood and the Blade films, so it's not the hugest thing ever. The thing is that, just like I think Scooby-doo monsters always need to be real as a reassurance of a rational world, that's exactly what vampires cannot be. If they're just people with a blood disease and aversion to UV radiation that suddenly makes them a lot less scary. It makes them another type of animal as opposed to real monsters.

I might comment more later.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 14:55:59

So I know it might suprise you all here, but I actually don't spend a
lot of time thinking about vam- ahahaha sorry, I couldn't keep a
straight face. I fuckin' love talking about vampires.

Ahahaha, dude, you had me there for a second.

Completely sincerely.

MillerCross · 2011-11-30 15:12:45

One more thing that I really don't like in vampire fiction is when they have scientific explanations. I can think of two series I've forgiven for this: Trinity Blood and the Blade films, so it's not the hugest thing ever. The thing is that, just like I think Scooby-doo monsters always need to be real as a reassurance of a rational world, that's exactly what vampires cannot be. If they're just people with a blood disease and aversion to UV radiation that suddenly makes them a lot less scary. It makes them another type of animal as opposed to real monsters.

What about Daybreakers?

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 15:13:36

Speaking of Trinity Blood, I found the anime to be horrible.

I haven't read the manga, though.

Malkavian · 2011-11-30 15:13:41

^^I actually still haven't seen that.

^I very much enjoyed the anime, not the least for the animation and (superheroes aside) a very faithful use of Christian love.

The light novels are where it's at, though.

Forzare · 2011-11-30 15:14:57

Daybreakers is awesome.

And I really liked I Am Legend, which had a lot of the scientific vampire stuff going on, too.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 15:16:54

^^ The characters just irked me. They fell into the pretty common anime pitfall of expecting my sympathy without earning it through characterisation. Also, having a super vampire that feeds on other vampires seemed liked boring one-upmanship to me.

The visuals were pretty badass, though.

Malkavian · 2011-11-30 15:24:36

^So then you don't like Blade?

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 15:37:15

I like Blade just fine, but then again there's a few key differences. One of the biggest is that Wesley Snipes hunts vampires with modern technology, a tactical sword and a shitload of one-liners. I was never that emotionally attached to the films -- I just love them for being entertaining. Another thing is that Blade himself was something of a genetic accident rather than a developed weapon.

On the other hand, Trinity Blood was clutching at every opportunity for forced drama. The humour was nice, but I would've felt much more strongly for the characters if they had a more pedestrian baseline of characterisation before launching into all the emotional stuff. And having the super vampire explained through exposition and being categorised the way it was? Ehhhh.

Blade was a freak accident that chose his own path. For all the flaws of the Blade movies, that's a reasonably strong basis for characterisation.

On the other hand, Trinity Blood's thing is the Catholic Church using an advanced breed of their enemy to fight the regular scourge. Hellsing does that better and with more diversity via having the Catholics and the Protestants, as well as tying more effectively into mythology and literature. Plus, the characterisation is likewise diverse enough that I don't feel weighed down by drama when it happens.

Malkavian · 2011-11-30 15:45:13

That's actually not what Trinity Blood is about, but the novels do a much better job of explaining that. Trinity Blood is much more about Christianity than it is about Gothic literature (though there is some of that as well) and the characters really aren't monster hunters so much as they are peace-keepers.

Quite honestly, I like Trinity Blood better. Hellsing gets much too bogged down in its obsession with bloodbaths which can be fun, but mean the show itself lack anything concrete a lot of the time.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 15:48:54

I interpret Hellsing to be a discussion concerning the nature of physical desire, taking all the classic vampire tropes and rearranging them within a more modern social and sexual context.

Malkavian · 2011-11-30 15:52:28

I always took it to be a play on the man against the monster dichotomy, asking what was a man and what was a monster.

Sadly, it never goes as far as I wanted it to.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 15:55:37

Yeah.

My interpretation is probably more lenient. <_<

Ironweaver · 2011-11-30 16:22:31

Malkavian mentioning the original (Serbian) vampire myths makes me happy.

There was a pre-Christian myth that a person left dead without proper burial rites (with the only proper rite being cremation) would rise from the dead as a lumbering, red-faced creature filled with some kind of a foamy substance instead of bones, extraordinary strength and an instinct to destroy and consume every living creature they come upon. So, yes, pretty similar to zombies.

One of the reasons why most of the Serbian population remained pagan until the early 13th century was that they were afraid of an eventual vampire invasion in case they convert, since Christianity forbade cremation. In the end, the Serbian Archbishop managed to spread Christianity by incorporating many old pagan beliefs, rites and rituals, basically creating a hybrid religion.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-30 16:26:24

The more I learn about Serbia, the more it seems like an awesome place to set some kind of fictional work.

> Christian conversion.
> Vampires actually rise from the grave.

Fuck yeah. I'd watch that.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-11-30 16:28:38

That's pretty awesome.

All Nines · 2011-11-30 16:43:38

"This is a place where Twilight really fails."

I wasn't gonna dwell on Twilight, but I agree entirely. I mentioned sparkling specifically because it epitomizes what's wrong with them. There's also copping out and allowing them to feed off animals. But how am I gonna catch a wild--oh wait, superspeed and super strength. No moral quandaries to think about, and no weaknesses to factor into everyday life.

"One more thing that I really don't like in vampire fiction is when they have scientific explanations"

I disagree on that point. I feel that scientific mutation as the cause of vampirism is perfectly doable; it doesn't have to make them feel any different in execution. The plot still needs to emphasize how transformation has rendered the victims inhuman and required them to take on a predatory aspect to survive, but good vampire stories do that anyway.

Icalasari · 2011-11-30 16:57:33

I guess that's why the werewolves were the only thing in Twlight that remotely appealed to me. They had some drawbacks (eg minimal privacy, destined to fight with vampires or be shunned, etc.)

Anyways, I like all sorts of vampires. Bestial, suave, scientific, magic...

I think my favourite would be a variation of the suave ones (older they get the less weaknesses affect them, they make prey turn by feeding them their blood, command over other undead upon reaching an old enough age)

It's pretty neat how vampires are pretty much another name for undead (heck, one type of vampire I read about apparently comes from a dead werewolf. So a werewolf becomes a vampire. That's pretty neat)

Hmm... I wonder if the Wendigo would count as a vampire? It is a powerful cannibalistic spirit...

Ironweaver · 2011-11-30 17:02:14

Speaking of which, stuff like this makes me think paganism is simply way cooler, at least aesthetic-wise.

Malkavian · 2011-11-30 18:37:57

My main problem with SCIENCE! Vampires is that it makes them rational, and rationality is the enemy of fear.

Hell, that's one of the underlying themes of Stoker's Dracula.

All Nines · 2011-11-30 18:55:13

Not necessarily; depends on what kind of fear the author means to invoke.

And I'd have to reread Dracula, but it wasn't too long ago, and I remember it being a fair bit duller than I expected. Not that that has bearing on its influence on the horror genre, but I just wanted to point out that I don't hold it up as a paragon of literature.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-11-30 18:56:29

I find that in general, there are three options when it comes to fear: a feeling of irrationality, a feeling of hopelessness and jump scares.

Two of these options are effective.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Let's discuss interpretations of vampires.

Comments