Worst Instances of Vampirism in media [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Brother Oni

2012-10-01, 06:43 AM

I was under the impression that Discworld played it fairly straight, with vampires choosing to lose some of their vulnerabilities also losing some of their advantages.

In Twilight's case, I believe the author stated she didn't do any research on vampires and just made them up as she saw fit.

On other fictional vampires:

The Anne Rice vampires, with one notable exception, are under no illusion it's a curse. The exception is Lestat, who revels in his vampirism (even while retaining his vulnerabilities, at least pre-Queen of the Damned).

Similarly, you have the old World of Darkness vampires with various vulnerabilities, but only the really powerful ones losing the traditional sunlight vulnerabilities (the less said about the live action series, the better, which would definitely fall under your 'worst instances').
I'm not sure whether the Kuei-jin (oriental vampires) from oWoD would fall under your 'worst instance' category, since they're just basically weird.

Finally, there's the old Hammer horror films which sometimes use various old legends of vampires as their inspiration instead. In one notable film, Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter, the eponymous protagonist spends about the first half of the film trying to work out which type of vampire he's hunting since "as many species of vampire as there are beasts of prey".
Another Hammer film (I think) I forget the name of, has a small family of vampires which are immune to fire and sunlight, but are afflicted by apathy and indolence (I remember they still retained other vulnerabilities, but I can't recall what).

Most powerful vampires I can think of right now are in Hellsing. Alucard is ridiculously powerful in there. Indestructible, carries his personal army around in his body and tons of other goodies.

I think there's a difference between 'ridiculously powerful' and 'ignoring all their lore'.
I've got no problem with accepting Alucard as a 'proper' vampire as rather than mope around bewailing his cursed existence, he revels in what he is and the power he has, with Integra barely keeping him on his leash at times.

Friv

2012-10-01, 06:48 AM

I hate it when Vampires are essentially superpowers in media.

So its not even a curse, its a bag of goodies.

I don't mind changes to the mythos, but if your going to make them immune to sunlight you may as well just call them supermen.

*couDraculagh*

Anyway, there is clearly one adaptation more terrible than any other...

Tomb of Dracula (http://www.google.ca/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=3M0&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1680&bih=911&tbm=isch&tbnid=Da7JICsLhMZqQM:&imgrefurl=http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/10/20/dracula-sovereign-damned-anime/&docid=kbVY01FcrNI16M&imgurl=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/media/2010/10/dracburger.gif&w=500&h=272&ei=LIJpUO7qIYqryQGEh4Fg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=353&vpy=161&dur=454&hovh=165&hovw=305&tx=163&ty=97&sig=111825136017746570265&page=1&tbnh=99&tbnw=182&start=0&ndsp=42&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:74)

Eldan

2012-10-01, 06:52 AM

The sunlight vulnerability, as far as I know, only came about with Hollywood movies. I can't think of any vampire legends where they are affected much by it. (Though they often only come out at night, so it might just not be mentioned).

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-01, 06:59 AM

*couDraculagh*

Yeah. Im a total ditz. :smalltongue:

Brother Oni

2012-10-01, 07:02 AM

*couDraculagh*

Not really. Taking the novel version, while powerful, he still has limitations (sunlight, inability to cross running water, must sleep on earth from his homeland, etc).
Even the Bram Stoker's Dracula version retains most of the traditional weaknesses, such as consecrated items.

The Blade version retains the sunlight flaw though (however his physical capabilities are significantly upped).

The Wes Craven version turns him into Judas Iscariot and makes his weakness hanging (and massive exsanguination), although retains notable depictions of vampire lore, such as knots and the compulsion to count things.

Most of the other depictions I can think of, plays it mostly straight.

Actually, there's the Sesame Street Count von Count - no vulnerability to sunlight, no requirement to feed on blood. About the only thing that makes him a vampire is the compulsion to count and his looks. :smalltongue:

GolemsVoice

2012-10-01, 07:26 AM

What about Count Chocula?

hamlet

2012-10-01, 07:31 AM

Not really. Taking the novel version, while powerful, he still has limitations (sunlight, inability to cross running water, must sleep on earth from his homeland, etc).
Even the Bram Stoker's Dracula version retains most of the traditional weaknesses, such as consecrated items.

To be sure, Dracula was weakened by sunlight in the Stoker novel. He was reduced in overall power and limited to what I'm sure a particular Whedonian vampire would term "a few gypsy tricks."

Plus, in that novel, Dracula was pretty much a metaphorical cypher for other things first, and a vampire later.

dehro

2012-10-01, 07:52 AM

Discworld has some of this, but its treated tongue and cheek, so no offence.

the funny thing with Discworld is that any given race is "the toughest around" at any given time only when it happens to be the villain of that book.
werewolf are almost indestructible in one book..in the next it's trolls who are basically impervious to anything because fangs and such don't really pierce stone.. then the elves..then it's vampires who are tough enough to do untold ammounts of damage.. until they're eaten by a cat.
I don't know if it's even possible to assign stats to the various races as to determine who is toughest..because it chances depending on plot needs.

Traab

2012-10-01, 08:14 AM

There is a series of books called The Cleric Quintet. In the last book, Kierkan Rufo becomes a master vampire. Generally speaking the vamps are fairly standard, but the master vamp named in the spoiler can turn into green mist to avoid physical damage, can summon wolves, can create either vamps subserviant to him, or turn those he kills into zombies. He was even able to take over the edificant library, pretty much THE holiest spot in lore at the time. It would be like walking into the vatican and declaring, "This place belongs to satan now", AND MAKING IT HAPPEN! He desecrated it so completely, even the most powerful priest of the main god the place was devoted to, could barely even use his holy power inside. He was even able to stand up to daylight during the grand finale. Simply because he was that damn powerful. Oh yeah, he took at least one magical and blessed weapon to the heart, and proceeded to remove it from his body by forcing the arm of the person holding it to remove it. Said person was physically the strongest being not a vamp in the quintet, and he totally overpowered this person capable of shattering massive stone blocks with their face, while having a magic dagger in his heart.

All that being said, the lesser vamps had the standard weaknesses to sunlight, holy water, blessed items, but the master was basically able to either ignore, or just be somewhat weakened by any of them.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-10-01, 08:28 AM

the funny thing with Discworld is that any given race is "the toughest around" at any given time only when it happens to be the villain of that book.
werewolf are almost indestructible in one book..in the next it's trolls who are basically impervious to anything because fangs and such don't really pierce stone.. then the elves..then it's vampires who are tough enough to do untold ammounts of damage.. until they're eaten by a cat.
I don't know if it's even possible to assign stats to the various races as to determine who is toughest..because it chances depending on plot needs.

The thing with Discworld is that the villain of each book tends to just be the Worst Person out of their respective species/profession, and they tend to kick ass because of their attitude and Villainous Plan as much as their capabilities. Not to mention the needs of narrative causality. Also, most of the time when a particular issue is made with someone's species abilities, it's usually the first time they're introduced to the reader or the point of view characters, or the first time they're seen in full power mode, before the cynicism of the Discworld's general population gets its turn to figure out how to mug them.

On a different subject that's still not really on-topic, I always thought of Twipires more as blood-drinking animate statues than "vampires". Doesn't make the books any better, but...

Frozen_Feet

2012-10-01, 08:30 AM

Vampirism is a curse, but not always to the one who becomes a vampire. In many legends, the vampire was essentially a possessed corpse, with no connection to the personality of the human when he was alive - the vampire instead existed to torment former family and relatives of the deceased. But these sorts of vampires were closer to "demons" or "zombies" than the modern vampire archetype.

Back on topic, I can't name any specific vampire story I hate, but I hate it when vampires are used as trite sexual methaphors or titillation - forgetting their other identities as cannibalistic predators and rotting corpses. Basically, everytime a vampire is treated with "ooh, how dark and sexy" instead of "Jesus Christ it's a disgusting monster trying to eat me!", I'll start rolling my eyes.

dehro

2012-10-01, 08:43 AM

I can't name any specific vampire story I hate

I can.. Twilight :smallbiggrin:

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-01, 08:44 AM

Vampirism is a curse, but not always to the one who becomes a vampire. In many legends, the vampire was essentially a possessed corpse, with no connection to the personality of the human when he was alive - the vampire instead existed to torment former family and relatives of the deceased. But these sorts of vampires were closer to "demons" or "zombies" than the modern vampire archetype.

No thats totally also alright. Curse a city to fall to an vampire plauge: Cool.

Back on topic, I can't name any specific vampire story I hate, but I hate it when vampires are used as trite sexual methaphors or titillation - forgetting their other identities as cannibalistic predators and rotting corpses. Basically, everytime a vampire is treated with "ooh, how dark and sexy" instead of "Jesus Christ it's a disgusting monster trying to eat me!", I'll start rolling my eyes.

It gets unbearable when they even start saying "Its US that are the monsters! The vampires just want to be wuved!"

willpell

2012-10-01, 08:52 AM

I am fine with vampires as sexual metaphor, I am fine with vampires as superpower, and I am fine with different kinds of vampires. What I am not fine with is the manga "Priest", in which vampires were never human. They're just monsters that roam around in the desert or something. Underworld kinda gets a little of this nuisance from me too, suggesting that a vampire is just like a werewolf only bat instead of wolf, and not shapeshifting, and vulnerable to sunlight instead of silver, but somehow they're still both two lineages from a single progenitor. W/e.

Dresden Files has a pretty screwy vampire situation from what I hear. Supposedly the Red Court are actually these giant bat monsters who wear human skin as a disguise? And the White Court drink emotions instead of blood, but somehow this still kills people? I don't get it.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-10-01, 08:53 AM

It gets unbearable when they even start saying "Its US that are the monsters! The vampires just want to be wuved!"

I think that basically comes from people starting to use vampires as trite metaphors for sexual minorities, as opposed to their original "modern" role, starting with Stoker, as trite metaphors for sexual criminals.

And I guess it also comes from just a general use of vampires and other supernatural folklore lately as just people, but different. Vampires are alien, other, and exotic while still looking basically human, which inevitably results in groups of people either hating them or finding them obsessively fascinating.

hamlet

2012-10-01, 08:57 AM

willpell

2012-10-01, 09:04 AM

I think that basically comes from people starting to use vampires as trite metaphors for sexual minorities, as opposed to their original "modern" role, starting with Stoker, as trite metaphors for sexual criminals.

I'm comfortable with the idea either that vampires represent the seductive appeal of forbidden fruit or that they use sexuality as a lure to capture their prey. Any variation of the vampire sex motif is pretty cool with me, though presentation is everything.

Bayonet Priest

2012-10-01, 09:19 AM

Dresden Files has a pretty screwy vampire situation from what I hear. Supposedly the Red Court are actually these giant bat monsters who wear human skin as a disguise? And the White Court drink emotions instead of blood, but somehow this still kills people? I don't get it.

I think Dresden Files does vampires pretty well. There are several different groups of them but all of them are essentially humans possessed by a different type of demon.

Black Court vampires are the classic corpse vampires, they are the most powerful vampires physically and magically but also the most susceptible to the standard vampire weaknesses. They are almost extinct ever since the White Court got tired of their **** and had Bram Stoker write Dracula to disseminate info on how to kill them.

Red Court vampires are blood drinkers. They are the most numerous type and basically farm humans for blood and converts. They look human but that is only a flesh mask they wear. Underneath that they are indeed disgusting, bloated vampire bat monsters. They also have a narcotic saliva that keeps their prey compliant.

White Court vampires are emotion eaters. They are the most humanlike of all the vampire types we know about so far and are consequently the weakest. Because they are so humanlike though they don't have to worry about sunlight or crosses or any of the usual things that off vampires. Each House of WCV feeds on a different emotion, House Raith feed on lust, House Malvora feed on fear, and House Skavis feed on despair. They don't necessarily have to kill their victims when feeding on them but it is apparently a much better meal if they do.

There is also a Jade Court but we don't really know anything about them yet. Supposedly they will be making an appearance eventually.

It's basically a kitchen sink way of including all sorts of different depictions of vampires into one setting. Personally I think it works very well. One thing it never forgets though is that they are monsters, even the sexy ones are Monsters with a capital M.

willpell

2012-10-01, 09:22 AM

Monsters I agree with, but it annoys me when they have to be made by demons. Can't there be other kinds of evil that have nothing to do with Hell? The vampire strikes me as being very much a mundane terror, like an evolutionary mutant who preys on humanity so that we no longer dominate the ecosystem (and is in turn preyed on by something else, possibly werewolves, which in turn are preyed on by something still nastier). All of which doesn't necessarily make them supernatural, let alone extraplanar. Demons should be their own thing, not automatically having their fingers in all the other pies.

Traab

2012-10-01, 09:23 AM

I read a harry potter fanfic that made vamps the disgusting cursed wretches they are. First off, they are animated dead bodies. That means they rot. So unless they hang out in the desert, they get moldy, and nasty and eventually they fall apart. Thats the basis there for the "cant cross running water" thing. They are insanely terrified of getting wet as that will speed up their eventual death by rotting. Its not a huge help to whoever they are attacking right then, but toss a bucket of water on them before you die. That way they will fall apart faster later on. :p

Bayonet Priest

2012-10-01, 09:26 AM

Monsters I agree with, but it annoys me when they have to be made by demons. Can't there be other kinds of evil that have nothing to do with Hell?

Demon in Dresden Files is a pretty generic catch all term for bad supernatural being from the Nevernever who isn't fae. Hell has little to do with it in this case, although they do have their own demons in the form of Fallen Angels.

Eldan

2012-10-01, 09:26 AM

In the Dresden Files, there are huge numbers of different supernatural creatures. There are three or four different creatures all called "Vampires" by mortals, but they have little in common and are not directly related.

Black Court Vampires are intelligent, rotting corpses animated by dark magic. They are extremely strong, vulnerable to sunlight, holy items and so on, they can create thralls, and they eat flesh.

Red Court Vampires are slimy, disgusting monsters that vaguely resemble bats. They can coat themselves in a human skin as a disguise, but physical damage or sunlight damages that skin. They drink blood, and their saliva is an addictive drug to humans.

White Court vampires look physically human, except when they draw on their power, which makes their eyes and skin glow silver. They are humans possessed by a supernatural creature similar to a succubus. They have the power to cause a specific emotion in humans (lust, fear or ... something third, I forgot) depending on their family. As long as you feel that emotion, they can drain your life energy, until you die. Fun fact: they run the US porn industry.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-01, 10:14 AM

I don't mind changes to the mythos, but if your going to make them immune to sunlight you may as well just call them supermen.

Complain to Bram Stoker then.

Vampires are monsters that prey upon humanity. Them being supermen is rather a return to form in my book. The curse was rather more existential to begin with, they weren't cursed to be pitied or punished or whatever, they were a curse upon their prey and upon your soul should you become one of them.

(Also most powerful vamp... probably Evangeline A.K. McDowell... Alucard is kinda lacking in firepower)

darkblade

2012-10-01, 10:15 AM

Demon in Dresden Files is a pretty generic catch all term for bad supernatural being from the Nevernever who isn't fae. Hell has little to do with it in this case, although they do have their own demons in the form of Fallen Angels.

That gets confusing sometimes but Dresden Files' Hell is pretty much just Fallen Angels. Demons are just evil or non-sentient and hungry monsters.

The Glyphstone

2012-10-01, 10:24 AM

No, Hell in the Dresdenverse does have Demons.

Hell = Demons and Fallen Angels. Remember Chauncy the informant demon?

Nevernever = Fae, Spirits and occasionally Ghosts (either of which can be more powerful than demons).

Outside = Outsiders (duh).

Any of which can be equally malevolent, though the only place you're likely to find something genuinely benevolent (to some degree) is the Nevernever.

Mewtarthio

2012-10-01, 10:26 AM

It's also worth noting that Red and Black Court vampires used to be human. The disguise that Red Court vamps wear resembles the human they were before the change.

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-01, 10:30 AM

Complain to Bram Stoker then.

You have been ninjaad and denied already.

Vampires are monsters that prey upon humanity.

Except they used to be human. Thats my point.

Them being supermen is rather a return to form in my book.

Not realy. Its part of the seduction, but its not just supermen.

upon your soul

Exactly what I mean.

I don't mind superpowerful vampires if there is a reason why they are that.

If they are meant to bring suffering to others I understand why they would need powers. If they are meant to suffer themselves then they should be cursed.

Ramza00

2012-10-01, 10:35 AM

Gankutsuou which is an anime retelling of the Count of Monte Cristo sett in the 51st century made the Count into practically a vampire. Unfortunately it made him a worse character than the book. Sometimes trying to make something more cool only makes it worse.

It isn't a bad anime or a bad retelling of the dumas story but the vampire bits are just too much and not useful and thus detract from the story.

Bayonet Priest

2012-10-01, 10:37 AM

Raimun

2012-10-01, 10:41 AM

I agree. Vampires have to have glaring weaknesses to balance their immortality and power.

However, I think it's okay if some rare vampires can ignore them. For example, in Angel (and Buffy?) there was that ring that let a vampire to walk in daylight and Warhammer has Abhoras, an ancient vampire knight who sated his bloodlust once and for all after drinking the blood of an elder dragon.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-01, 10:57 AM

You have been ninjaad and denied already.

Dracula ran around at daylight. Yeah he wasn't as strong (IIRC the only explicit mention was that he wasn't able to shapeshift) and had other weaknesses but they are not so remotely as crippling as the whole burst into flames from the sun that hollywood made standard. Which is what you complained about specifically. Old Drac's weaknesses were more just ways to ward him off, because walls and weapons wouldn't.

The whole bursting in to flames thing is a notion I'd be happy to have staked in the heart then get its head chopped off by a kukri.

I don't mind superpowerful vampires if there is a reason why they are that.

If they are meant to bring suffering to others I understand why they would need powers. If they are meant to suffer themselves then they should be cursed.

Vampires are not meant to suffer themselves. Or not like that anyways, yeah maybe a little around the edges because all their power comes at the costs of "what really matters" or whatever.

Its all a big metaphor really, vampires gain power but in the "material" sense but what really matters can't be measured by superpowers so no matter how much they have its all dust in the end because they cannot escape the wages of sin spiritually.

There's suffering, but the suffering is of a deeper nature then "I'm a poor boy that can't go to the beach no more" thing so they don't need crippling weaknesses.

dehro

2012-10-01, 11:16 AM

I find it always rather funny when I read things like "vampires are..." "vampires can..." "vampires must/are meant"..
when it's quite clear that they aren't..they can't and they mustn't.. because..they don't actually exist. they only exist within the parameters estabilished by whoever is writing about them.
now we can call this person a moron if he's inconsistent with his own writing.. not if he gives the name vampire to something that doesn't resemble or adhere to the "rules" of vampires in any other named source.
we can hate how vampires with a pretence to have a resemblance to the "classic" vampire image (which is debatable in it's own right, if you want to nerd it out and you're particularily loyal to one source over others) are represented by one or two particular authors (I can't stand sparkly vampires)..but we can't NOT call them vampires in their own right.
the powers and weaknesses of vampires are purely subjected to the author's whim or plan.
provided the author is a decent writer..a vampire who is a descendant of the biblical Cain, one that has contracted it through a virus, one that was bitten by dracula or one who ingested something weird all have equal dignity
we should learn to accept this.

Traab

2012-10-01, 11:48 AM

I think the problem is, dehro, that there really isnt a rock solid foundation for vampires, but it feels like at least certain aspects should be, so when some author or movie director or whatever changes those basics, it offends people. Or its a matter of changing the general standards of what makes something a vampire too much, and then you might as well put horns on a swordfish and call it a moose.

dehro

2012-10-01, 12:13 PM

you might as well put horns on a swordfish and call it a moose.

let's!

I see your point and I occasionally agree with the sentiment..each of us has their own pet peeves.. on the subject of vampires for example, I've already said it, I don't like the sparkly vapid ones...or the oversexed ones.
I have strong sentiments about what a dwarf or an elf should be and look like.
the one described by Eoin Colfer in the in the Artemis Fowl books just isn't a dwarf the way I see it.. I just have never bothered to make my case about it..because it's a bit pointless. it works in the fowl-iverse.
it's when people start quoting stuff as if it was a science book and speaking in absolutes that the whole debate kind of sticks in my throat.

but that's just me..I've been let down by enough authors who did stuff to things I love to picture one way and changed it completely..and gotten angry about it too...that I've kind of lost enthusiasm for the debate.

Lappy9001

2012-10-01, 02:44 PM

Traab

2012-10-01, 03:39 PM

Depends on the vampire in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." They have very clear weaknesses (Sunlight, holy water, crosses, stakes, beheading) but they are fairly superhuman and can't be killed outside of those weaknesses. Most vamps don't care seeing as they essentially become demons, but the ones who are sane recognize it as a curse, but still may revel in it.

And apparently, all vamps inexplicably pick up kung-fu moves :smalltongue:

No vamp ever cares, except the ones who get their souls back. :p As for kung fu, I think its less they all know martial arts, and more that was the best way they could show that vamps are way stronger and faster than normal humans. I think vamp face and dust used up all their special effects, so no bullet time from the pov of the vamps. :smallbiggrin:

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-01, 03:54 PM

I see your point and I occasionally agree with the sentiment..each of us has their own pet peeves.. on the subject of vampires for example, I've already said it, I don't like the sparkly vapid ones...or the oversexed ones.
I have strong sentiments about what a dwarf or an elf should be and look like.

My reason is:

Why use Vampires?

And you know why?

Its BECAUSE their vampires. The reason people twist and turn them is BECAUSE of what they are.

Its like this:

A Person creates a fork. But he wants to sell it to people who likes spoons. So he turns the whole fork into a spoon with a few spikes at the top and sells it to people who like spoons as a fork.

And the people who likes spoons are amazed as they love forks now.

But they don't. The reason they are attracted to the forks is because its spoons dressed up like forks.

My point is that the reason people are attracted to vampires is BECAUSE thier dangerous.

If they where Angels then their not interesting.

But in order to pander to audiences, they make Vampires near angelic and just call them Vampires so that people can have the attraction of the vampire, without the actual point of the vampire.

This is insulting in my opinion.

dehro

2012-10-01, 04:33 PM

so basically vampires are sporks?

:smallbiggrin:

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-01, 04:47 PM

so basically vampires are sporks?

:smallbiggrin:

No Vampires are forks.

TwiPires are spives.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-01, 04:56 PM

Its BECAUSE their vampires. The reason people twist and turn them is BECAUSE of what they are.

I would gather from your post its REALLY less about vampire weaknesses or power levels more about how they are portrayed in their stories then yes?

Omergideon

2012-10-01, 05:08 PM

No vamp ever cares, except the ones who get their souls back. :p As for kung fu, I think its less they all know martial arts, and more that was the best way they could show that vamps are way stronger and faster than normal humans. I think vamp face and dust used up all their special effects, so no bullet time from the pov of the vamps. :smallbiggrin:

Probably, but the best in story explanation was that given a modicum of talent in throwing a punch, and superhuman abilities, even a rubbish fighter would look expert compared to a normal human.

Though there was that one Vampire in Angel, the one he sired after he got a soul, he did care and was bothered by what he was.

But if there is one aspect of vamps that annoys me is the common thing where the vampire who "atones" is considered put on and hard done by when they are untrusted by the common folk. Like how Vampires in True Blood are used as a metaphor for oppression, despite the majority being viscous murderers at best. IT just bugs me that years, or even centuries, of murder and bloodshed are swept aside cos they feel bad one day. Not that the atoning vamp story is bad. But at times casual killing is ignored and that bugs me.

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-01, 05:16 PM

I would gather from your post its REALLY less about vampire weaknesses or power levels more about how they are portrayed in their stories then yes?

Well the two are related.

Its not as much about the power as much as they are used as a device.

Change the mythos, change the levels of the stuff, but retain true to the core of what we have made vampires as a culture.

Don't exploit them to sell them to kids (We don't need blood. It just makes us badassier) or repressed moms (We don't need blood. It just makes us sexier).

Or whatever. Just do it with dignity!

But if there is one aspect of vamps that annoys me is the common thing where the vampire who "atones" is considered put on and hard done by when they are untrusted by the common folk. Like how Vampires in True Blood are used as a metaphor for oppression, despite the majority being viscous murderers at best. IT just bugs me that years, or even centuries, of murder and bloodshed are swept aside cos they feel bad one day. Not that the atoning vamp story is bad. But at times casual killing is ignored and that bugs me.

This stuff probably bugs me the most!

Jayngfet

2012-10-01, 05:39 PM

Dracula ran around at daylight. Yeah he wasn't as strong (IIRC the only explicit mention was that he wasn't able to shapeshift) and had other weaknesses but they are not so remotely as crippling as the whole burst into flames from the sun that hollywood made standard. Which is what you complained about specifically. Old Drac's weaknesses were more just ways to ward him off, because walls and weapons wouldn't.

The whole bursting in to flames thing is a notion I'd be happy to have staked in the heart then get its head chopped off by a kukri.

Vampires are not meant to suffer themselves. Or not like that anyways, yeah maybe a little around the edges because all their power comes at the costs of "what really matters" or whatever.

Its all a big metaphor really, vampires gain power but in the "material" sense but what really matters can't be measured by superpowers so no matter how much they have its all dust in the end because they cannot escape the wages of sin spiritually.

There's suffering, but the suffering is of a deeper nature then "I'm a poor boy that can't go to the beach no more" thing so they don't need crippling weaknesses.

"Vampire" can refer to any one of hundreds of various mythological monsters from around the world and books twice as thick as your arm have been written cataloging all the crazy variations that have popped up.

Claiming that you know the thoughts going consciously and unconsciously through the heads of everyone who's ever made up or added to these things going across about five continents and going back at least a few thousand years with perfect clarity is incredibly foolish. This isn't like DND where everything has it's own fantasy taxonomy and you can separate what comes from where easily so much as it's this giant muddied soup where the lines between vampires, lycanthropes, demons, and a hundred different more obscure things can become muddied beyond recognition.

Claiming they were always monsters without weakness or that they didn't suffer is ignorance of the highest caliber.

Dr.Epic

2012-10-01, 07:15 PM

Most powerful vampires I can think of right now are in Hellsing. Alucard is ridiculously powerful in there. Indestructible, carries his personal army around in his body and tons of other goodies.

But the abridged series is hilarious! Can't wait for episode 3!

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-01, 07:34 PM

"Vampire" can refer to any one of hundreds of various mythological monsters from around the world and books twice as thick as your arm have been written cataloging all the crazy variations that have popped up.

I know all about them and its Bram Stoker that codified the modern vampire which was then taken by media from there. The combined weight of legend influence comes to barely mentionable.

Tergon

2012-10-01, 08:18 PM

Well, I mean if you wanna get technical and take the myth back to its roots, the concept of a Vampire comes down to a human who has undergone a transformation after their death that compells them to feed upon other, non-transformed humans, and ensures they cannot be destroyed by normal means. It's the same base concept as werewolves, zombies, ghouls, ghosts, and a hundred other things that go bump in the night, and they probably all connect back to cultural taboos about cannibalism and meddling with corpses and wandering about after dark by yourself, all of which result in horrible chompy consequences for you, and result in a cursed version of you returning to plague your home and loved ones.

So if we're being picky and saying that a Vampire must be a certain style of thing, what traits are we saying make a Vampire unique for modern culture? I think it comes down to them being specifically undead as opposed to being another species, or being humans infected with a virus. They do not age, and they wither and grow weak if they don't feed on blood. They do not go out in the sun, either because it kills them or greatly weakens them. And they are vulnerable to beheading, burning, or having their heart staked.
Then you've got the other magical powers that vary wildly from one story to the next. Transformation into a bat, wolf, or a mist. Mind control and hypnosis. Whether you need wood or silver to hurt them. Vulnerability to garlic. The inability to cross running water. The uncontrollable urge to count things. Weakness to holy symbols. Needing permission to enter a person's house. Lots of others, in all combinations of the above and more. And that's without even going into the concept of whether a Vampire is inherently evil and predatory, or whether they can be noble creatures that seek to help the helpless and fight alongside the Scooby Gang, or just show an introverted young girl how to love.

With all of that to consider, I think it's just as hard to pin down the best version of a vampire, let alone the worst. I guess Dracula and Nosferatu are the two most widely accepted, probably followed by Buffy the Vampire Slayer? But of course even those kind of jump around from one version of the mythology to the next.
I guess the worst by far has to be Twilight, by taking the "drinks blood" and "does not age" concepts and then discarding everything else before turning the predator into a lonely Romeo. But that's been said already.
Following that, I think it'd be Supernatural. I love the show, I do, but their Vampires are wildly different as humans infected with a virus that gives them retractable fangs and a thirst for blood, who can go out in the sun and are vulnerable to beheading or being poisoned with dead man's blood. If we're comparing those to traditional vampires, they're definitely a bizarre portrayal.
And I think another lousy one, again following the "vampire virus" concept, would be 30 Days Of Night. The vampires here are a weird blend of feral and intelligent, range from being impossible to kill to being slaughtered by driving over them with a tractor, and apparently being infected means that you turn into a vampire within an hour or two, which just seems... I don't know, wildly impossible to keep a secret? Every victim who wasn't killed outright would turn, the vampire population would explode.

Mind you, having said all that, I know one thing deep in my heart: I'll take Viral Vampires over Fast Zombies any day. Viral Vampires can at least be a clever spin on the mythology. Fast Zombies are just an awful concept.

dehro

2012-10-02, 01:43 AM

Well the two are related.

Its not as much about the power as much as they are used as a device.

Change the mythos, change the levels of the stuff, but retain true to the core of what we have made vampires as a culture.

Don't exploit them to sell them to kids (We don't need blood. It just makes us badassier) or repressed moms (We don't need blood. It just makes us sexier).

and why not?
the fact that you and I don't like it (don't get me wrong, I don't like it either) really doesn't cut it as a reason against doing these things.
simply put, there is no copyright to infringe or unified source of legend/history/tradition to refer back to. People are free to sex up their vampires as much as they want. The only way to avoid having your knickers twisted in a knot over this is not to read these "books" and sneer at them from a distance, like I do.

I know all about them and its Bram Stoker that codified the modern vampire which was then taken by media from there. The combined weight of legend influence comes to barely mentionable.
yeah.. no
Bram Stoker did his research and was well aware that there were plenty of "vampiric myths" and just chose the ones he liked best to suit his novel.. he didn't codify anything..he just wrote a highly successful novel which you are choosing to accept as only valid treatise/bible on the subject.
Your choice..but you can't expect everybody else to abide by it. (I prefer Polidori)
this sounds like those people who protest that Elves must be the way Tolkien described them or shouldn't be called Elves.. again, no.
elves pre-existed Tolkien in folklore and had as many different shapes, powers and sizes as there are populations the myth existed in.

I guess Dracula and Nosferatu are the two most widely accepted, probably followed by Buffy the Vampire Slayer?
honestly, Buffy may be a huguelly successful show, but it's way down the list of sources I would think of as "most widely accepted" representation of a vampire.
maybe that depends on either me being of the wrong generation, or coming from the wrong country...
we tend to forget when we say things like "everybody knows"....that that what everybody knows varies wildly over the centuries and even more wildly according to where everybody is, or is from.

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-02, 01:45 AM

and why not?

Cause I don't like it. THEREFORE ITS WRONG ON EVERY MORAL AND PRACTICAL AND OBJECTIVE LEVEL!

AND ANYBODY WHO THINKS OTHERWISE DESERVES DEATH

:furious:

dehro

2012-10-02, 01:49 AM

Cause I don't like it. THEREFORE ITS WRONG ON EVERY MORAL AND PRACTICAL AND OBJECTIVE LEVEL!

AND ANYBODY WHO THINKS OTHERWISE DESERVES DEATH

:furious:

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

willpell

2012-10-02, 01:52 AM

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-02, 02:55 AM

yeah.. no
Bram Stoker did his research and was well aware that there were plenty of "vampiric myths" and just chose the ones he liked best to suit his novel.. he didn't codify anything..he just wrote a highly successful novel which you are choosing to accept as only valid treatise/bible on the subject.
Your choice..but you can't expect everybody else to abide by it. (I prefer Polidori)

Here's the thing all the other ones... they don't matter to vampires because they haven't had any kind of big effect on the completely modern vampire mythos.

If a Jiang Shi shows up at all its probably as a distinct type of creature. And you ask someone that doesn't know what a Jiang Shi is to identify say Hsien-ko then they will probably go with zombie. Which is arguably more accurate.

While major sources these days is the way the myth has evolved in pop-culture since Dracula (particularly Nosferatu) its the single biggest influence and why we even know the word vampire. There are others of course its the codifier not the Ur-example, but you don't see people endlessly bringing Varney to new media all that much do you?

Being older does not mean important. Leif Ericksson is an interesting footnote... but its Columbus that has the historical weight because its what got built on in the long run.

this sounds like those people who protest that Elves must be the way Tolkien described them or shouldn't be called Elves.. again, no.
elves pre-existed Tolkien in folklore and had as many different shapes, powers and sizes as there are populations the myth existed in.

So help me elves either run as the fairy/fae type tradtions... or ARE much like Tolkien's elves.

They're basically separate creatures at this point, with one invented by Tolkien that people use to invoke Tolkien.

I'd say dwarves are similar... but dwarves are all the same.

Going back to the Dresden Files and derailing a bit, the White Court feeds on emotions, but why only those three emotions? Lust, fear, and despair? Why not anger, or happiness, or sadness, or jealousy? As best I can figure, them being motivated to "farm" only those three emotions seems to be solely designed as a way to enforce the "noir" genre.

Given Madrigal its seems that the bounds are more traditional and/or personal.

I suspect though they'd only feed on "dark" emotions since what they do is dark. Also point out that fear, despair, and lust do a lot to paralyze the prey. Arousing anger would probably get a White Court beat up. And doubtful the underlying philosophy of the Dresdenverse lets them cause happiness.

Which can be seen to enforce the noir end, but I think how Butcher clearly strives to play with greys but makes it clear black and whites are still out there is worth mentioning... and in the end more important.

Jayngfet

2012-10-02, 04:14 AM

Here's the thing all the other ones... they don't matter to vampires because they haven't had any kind of big effect on the completely modern vampire mythos.

If a Jiang Shi shows up at all its probably as a distinct type of creature. And you ask someone that doesn't know what a Jiang Shi is to identify say Hsien-ko then they will probably go with zombie. Which is arguably more accurate.

While major sources these days is the way the myth has evolved in pop-culture since Dracula (particularly Nosferatu) its the single biggest influence and why we even know the word vampire. There are others of course its the codifier not the Ur-example, but you don't see people endlessly bringing Varney to new media all that much do you?

Being older does not mean important. Leif Ericksson is an interesting footnote... but its Columbus that has the historical weight because its what got built on in the long run.

You see, this is your problem, this has always been your problem in every argument, and it'll probably be your argument in every future argument because you never learn no matter how much you get called out on it but:

Nobody specified any damned time period or degree of importance anywhere. In fact, this thread was created with the idea of every source being important if it applies. You saying that thousands of examples don't count simply because they don't fit with your idea and a few other people's idea of a vampire is kind of galling.

I mean, Lief Ericson may not be as famous but he was damn well the first example of a westerner in the Americas that we know of. I mean evidence suggests that some Asian sources were aware of it beforehand but he's the earliest western source and I believe(though may be wrong) the first individual we know the name of to get there. Facts are not popularity contests and cited sources can't be disregarded because they don't fit your viewpoint.

Your entire argument right now is just "Every story running counter to what Scowling Dragon wants is the right way. Everything else doesn't count because it doesn't fit in my argument." and this is a terrible way to argue and would get you laughed out of any credible establishment. If I've misinterpreted you feel free to correct me but please, don't come in here and insult things we like with circular troll-logic and expect to be taken seriously.

dehro

2012-10-02, 04:27 AM

let me re-iterate.. Polidori.

also, what Jayngfet said.

So help me elves either run as the fairy/fae type tradtions... or ARE much like Tolkien's elves.

They're basically separate creatures at this point, with one invented by Tolkien that people use to invoke Tolkien.
yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..
and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.

Jayngfet

2012-10-02, 04:31 AM

dehro

2012-10-02, 04:33 AM

The thing is, we never really hear Soras give any real metric for what does or doesn't count for this or that. It'd be great if he could give us numbers or sources, so we could get an actual discussion going.

not me, thanksalot..lol.. if you have enough sources (and we have the interwebz) you can make 'em say anything you like..and it will all sound un-counterable in your head anyway.

Morph Bark

2012-10-02, 04:37 AM

I like my vampires as immortal god-titans living in the twilight and sucking out the souls of any who come near, destroying life by their presence and requiring at least siege weapons to take them down.

EDIT:

yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..
and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.

Just out of curiosity (even though this is rather off-topic), what 6-7 "vastly different depictions of elves" are you thinking of?

Jayngfet

2012-10-02, 04:38 AM

not me, thanksalot..lol.. if you have enough sources (and we have the interwebz) you can make 'em say anything you like..and it will all sound un-counterable in your head anyway.

Yeah, which is why you use sources, so people can read them and argue to the point otherwise. That's how civil discussion generally gets done, or should anyway, since then you're arguing about facts, or at least a hard set check-able thing, instead of just lobbing opinions around.

I mean when something can be proven one way or the other, you have an argument one side can actually win. It doesn't need to be your side, but it's something that progress can be made on.

Killer Angel

2012-10-02, 04:45 AM

not me, thanksalot..lol.. if you have enough sources (and we have the interwebz) you can make 'em say anything you like..and it will all sound un-counterable in your head anyway.

While this is somehow true, a source (and the goodness of it) gives weight to your argument. And the vast number of sources at our disposal, is exactly the reason why you should use them to support your thesis.

Edit: for example, now I could cite ^Jayngfet's post, as proof of ninjas' existence.

dehro

2012-10-02, 04:57 AM

all you say is undoubtedly true..but since the subject of this debate would be a mythological creature that goes back basically all the way to when the first dog dug out an arm of the first of our ancestors to be burried in a shallow grave.. I fear that there cannot be a definite answer that doesn't strongly mix opinion with facts..no matter how heavy the tome you end up quoting may be.

Drascin

2012-10-02, 05:02 AM

Well, Nasuverse vampires are... strange.

They do seem to unanimously dislike the sunlight (some it hurts, some it simply does not let them access their full power), and most seem to have the craving for blood, but other than that... it's kind of every man for themselves.

You have the Dead Apostles, who are the more vampireish in themes of predation, unnaturalness, and living through the death of others, but one of them is an (un)living story and disaster wrapped in a blood-obsessed jackass genie, another is a chaotic mass of flesh-eating beasts, a third is a psychotic man who hacked the universe so he could go around hijacking bodies and become immortal, and so on and so forth. However, Dead Apostles are quite clearly monsters for the most part, so at least there's that.

And then you have the True Ancestors, who are... well, kinda like vampirized gods more than anything. They got made from blueprints from the god/goddess/whatthehellEVER of the moon, and inherited his/her/its desperate craving for blood and dislike of the sun - but other than that, they're actually more like Gaia's weapons than undead affronts against the natural order and are more "supposed" to be there according to the "natural" order than humans are, instead of the reverse.

SmartAlec

2012-10-02, 05:05 AM

Going back to the Dresden Files and derailing a bit, the White Court feeds on emotions, but why only those three emotions? Lust, fear, and despair? Why not anger, or happiness, or sadness, or jealousy? As best I can figure, them being motivated to "farm" only those three emotions seems to be solely designed as a way to enforce the "noir" genre.

They're referred to as a species of vampire, but it's clear the White Court are actually succubi. They try to keep their theme.

The Black and Red Courts are Stoker vampires and Anne Rice vampires (with a monstrous twist) respectively.

One interpretation of vampire that's pretty curious is that of D&D, with vampires being powered by the negative energy plane.

dehro

2012-10-02, 05:07 AM

Just out of curiosity (even though this is rather off-topic), what 6-7 "vastly different depictions of elves" are you thinking of?

uhm..Shakespeare, Eoin Colfe, Tolkien, Terry Pratchett, elf-like creatures in folklore which in turn have at least 2 or 3 different characterisations, depending on what country's folklore you're looking at

you could argue that those all fall under the 2 groups Soras has listed..but I do find that they are very different in nature, in purpose, in level of badassery, in powers, behaviour.. in role in the tales they're in.. so no..I can't really accept such a broad summation

Socratov

2012-10-02, 05:33 AM

The problem with mythical races and creatures si the fact that they depend on the teller of the myth or story. to know why a certain creature was depicted in a certain way, you first need to udnerstand the message that the story is meant to convey. if it's a warning you will notice that the creatures are absurdly strong in their domain (for example Bram Stoker's Vampires), but when placed in a certain environment (for the same vampires the dreaded sunlight) they are easy to beat or dead allready. The fact that those same vampires can't come into your house uninvited teaches us a coupel of lessons: go out during the day. stay in during the night and don't invite strange people into your home. Garlick? A very healthy vegetable. Religious symbols? if you are a devout person you will find support from the big man (men/woman/women). Running water? rivers and lakes often were used as boundaries between countries. Not only that, but they were a source of fresh water which made living (you need water to stay alive and it helps grow food) possible. Your heart? Even in medieval times and before, people knew that your heart was one of the most important parts of the body. Put a stake through and surely you won't be able to hop around in a happy fashion. Drinking blood makes you live forever? IN a world where people die from bloodloss all the time (fights with piercing and slashing weapons) blood must surely mean the essence of life.

Now for Twilight (to be honest I havent seen the movies or read the books, but furtunately I know female persons so I have at least a slight grip on the general story). In Twilight we get the whole invitation thing, the 'too good to be true' appearance (hypnotism or glamouring), the drinking blood and thus living forever, no other sustenance required. I distill out of this the following: some prospect boyfriends are too good to be true. If you start anything with them you might have to sacrifice more then you are willing to do. Living forever with your love might be all fun and good, but be careful what you wish for... You might get wat you want and lose what you need.
(for the record I thill think the following on this so-called vampire: he lives in the woods, he flies, he sparkles. Ergo he must be a f*****g fairy!)

The fact that you don't like the aspects of the creature the story is warning you for doesn't make some appearance of said creature in such a medium bad of you choose to ignore the 'why' said creature is described in such a fashion. So instead of 'hating the way they described X in Y', go 'hating the Z, Q is warning me against in Y'.

Edit: The dresdenfiles: those emotions are the safest to use (little retaliation), can be stacked while using, can work addictive in the long (or indeed even short) run and have a lasting couterpart: Lust<>love, fear<>courage, despair<>hope which can protect or abolish the effect. lesson: don't lust but love who you're with, don't fear but overcome it to gain courage and continue to hope to not fall to despair. The emotions used are what makes us mortal, and thus serve as some amount of life force (and thus can be fatal when fed upon too much). The red court uses the old blood=lifeforce recipe and the black coart goes all out with plain old necromancy (literally stealing the literal life force). By using more risky measures (seduction for the whites, drinking blood for the reds and necromancy for the blacks) one gains more powers, but also more vulnerabilities.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-02, 05:54 AM

Nobody specified any damned time period or degree of importance anywhere. In fact, this thread was created with the idea of every source being important if it applies. You saying that thousands of examples don't count simply because they don't fit with your idea and a few other people's idea of a vampire is kind of galling.

They don't "count" as it were because they largely aren't examples of vampires. They could be relevant in a study of folklore pointing out recurring devices in human storytelling, but even if one supposes a common origin many of them have separated from time and culture. But knowing about hopping corpses or those weird south Asian flying heads won't tell you anything about modern vampire stories.

Using base fact without consideration of their relevance is ignorance of the highest caliber.

I mean, Lief Ericson may not be as famous but he was damn well the first example of a westerner in the Americas that we know of. I mean evidence suggests that some Asian sources were aware of it beforehand but he's the earliest western source and I believe(though may be wrong) the first individual we know the name of to get there. Facts are not popularity contests and cited sources can't be disregarded because they don't fit your viewpoint.

Who's disputing fact?

Fact =/= Important =/= Relevant

Which is the point, they can be related but are not synonymous.

Your entire argument right now is just "Every story running counter to what Scowling Dragon wants is the right way. Everything else doesn't count because it doesn't fit in my argument." and this is a terrible way to argue and would get you laughed out of any credible establishment. If I've misinterpreted you feel free to correct me but please, don't come in here and insult things we like with circular troll-logic and expect to be taken seriously.

Hardly but I came into because I was miffed at the implication that Vampires somehow need the sunlight weakness. That one is a pet peeve of mine because I would like to see it vanish from the mythos. Or trimmed from the "burst into flame" standard. Though I've seen vampire stories with it that aren't bad by any means with them.

There's certainly a fair bit of variation in the details of the vampire myth, but its still a distinct modern mythos with a pretty specific evolution. Most settings put a specific spin, but its like flicking switches on the same panel. At the thematic level though its even closer.

At any rate the vampire is something which diverged from folklore because of Dracula. No not 100% of course, this is literature absolutes are purest nonsense, but with the major percentage being the modern evolution of the vampire started by Stoker, then Dracula, then the other books like Carmilla etc, and then European folklore (Eastern at that) with maybe a single digit or less left for broader influences on humanity through time.

yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..

Such as?

Bear in mind I don't consider say HP's House Elves some kind of terribly distinctive take. They are still very much drawing from fairy traditions, though a closer fit could probably be found under a different name

Though they are more distinct then the trillion and three variation of Tolkien elves in Forgotten Realms alone.

and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.

Hey want to know what was a joke?

But since you went all serious.... such as?

dehro

2012-10-02, 06:39 AM

Bear in mind I don't consider say HP's House Elves some kind of terribly distinctive take.

I do.
and that's about where my argumentation ends. It's impossible to compare sources, if personal opinions about those sources have any weight in the debate.

as for different takes.. I have replied to this in a previous post.

Prime32

2012-10-02, 07:43 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobgoblin

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-02, 08:19 AM

I do.
and that's about where my argumentation ends. It's impossible to compare sources, if personal opinions about those sources have any weight in the debate.

as for different takes.. I have replied to this in a previous post.

Hardly if someone was arguing against House Elves because they aren't like Tolkien it would be a silly and baseless claim, because there are two distinct established types.

I don't consider HP's a distinctive from any other "faires called elves" largely because fairies are a more loosely defined and variable group. However while they may have different names and look there's still going to be that distinct "weird" inhuman character of the Fair Folk. The variation seems to be rather the point, but you generally know it when you see it.

Heck to take this full circle its maybe not so baseless give the Tolkien model exclusive rights to being elves. On the grounds that elf meaning anything but that just isn't distinctive enough. I personally would extend some rights to a pre-existing and well established source, provided there isn't a conflict by having both together at the same time.

Thinker

2012-10-02, 08:21 AM

gooddragon1

2012-10-02, 08:28 AM

No examples here but a justification:
Anyone who saw the movie Avatar (with blue people) may know that people are looking up to characters that are more than Human in capability. Note the rise and popularity of all the superhero movies. So the fact that Twilight gives vampires no real drawbacks is actually what the populace is interested in at the moment.

Mewtarthio

2012-10-02, 02:23 PM

I really hate Carmilla. It's a short story about a lesbian vampire of unparalleled beauty who uses her abilities to seduce young women. She can't be harmed by sunlight, weapons, or the like, she can turn into a demonic cat, and can pass through closed doors, though she still must sleep and typically does so at night.. She hates Christian hymns and symbols, but they don't seem to do her any harm. The only way to defeat her is to find her tomb and destroy the body.

A vampire hunter mentioned in the story managed to kill one of Carmilla's progenitors with conventional swordplay. Carmilla herself is quite scared of mortals with weapons, and she generally flees when confronted. Really, the only reason she's able to prey on Laura for so long is that everyone involved is horribly, horribly genre blind.

(Though I'm not sure how Carmilla is relevant. That story predates Dracula by a good quarter-century, so it can't really be a "corruption" of the vampire mythos)

Jayngfet

2012-10-02, 03:00 PM

They don't "count" as it were because they largely aren't examples of vampires. They could be relevant in a study of folklore pointing out recurring devices in human storytelling, but even if one supposes a common origin many of them have separated from time and culture. But knowing about hopping corpses or those weird south Asian flying heads won't tell you anything about modern vampire stories.

Using base fact without consideration of their relevance is ignorance of the highest caliber.

Then why is it whenever an encyclopedia of Vampires or undead in general, or any kind of paper or document at all, has time to cite any of them at all they always seem to take the time to point out their similarity to Vampires? You're saying they aren't but for many of them literally any printed word from people who's writings have far more weight than yours say they are.

Who's disputing fact?

Fact =/= Important =/= Relevant

Which is the point, they can be related but are not synonymous.

You don't get to decide what's relevant. You also don't get to decide what does and doesn't count simply because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

Hardly but I came into because I was miffed at the implication that Vampires somehow need the sunlight weakness. That one is a pet peeve of mine because I would like to see it vanish from the mythos. Or trimmed from the "burst into flame" standard. Though I've seen vampire stories with it that aren't bad by any means with them.

There's certainly a fair bit of variation in the details of the vampire myth, but its still a distinct modern mythos with a pretty specific evolution. Most settings put a specific spin, but its like flicking switches on the same panel. At the thematic level though its even closer.

At any rate the vampire is something which diverged from folklore because of Dracula. No not 100% of course, this is literature absolutes are purest nonsense, but with the major percentage being the modern evolution of the vampire started by Stoker, then Dracula, then the other books like Carmilla etc, and then European folklore (Eastern at that) with maybe a single digit or less left for broader influences on humanity through time.

I won't deny a large amount of Dracula influence, but the same eastern european myths also influenced non-vampires and other examples HAVE popped up in media regularly enough that they can't simply be outright ignored, even if there isn't a proportionate amount of representation. Unless you happen to be saying that Vampires based on European myth "count", which I think displays a good amount of prejudice on your part.

Bear in mind I don't consider say HP's House Elves some kind of terribly distinctive take. They are still very much drawing from fairy traditions, though a closer fit could probably be found under a different name

This is your problem. Claiming that they're the same because they follow an incredibly broad sweeping set of traditions, while ignoring that they come from a seperate set of roles in those traditions that gained more prominence during a separate time period is, quite frankly, stupid.

You can't say they're the same as most other folklore elves in media because they're vastly different from many other examples.

SoC175

2012-10-02, 03:39 PM

take over the edificant library, pretty much THE holiest spot in lore at the time. It would be like walking into the vatican and declaring, "This place belongs to satan now", AND MAKING IT HAPPEN! He desecrated it so completely, even the most powerful priest of the main god the place was devoted to, could barely even use his holy power inside. IIRC the head priest had him at the brink of destruction in a heartbeat and he only survived because a jealous lesser priest snapped and stabbed his superior in the back just as he was about to destroy the pesky vampire

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-02, 04:28 PM

Then why is it whenever an encyclopedia of Vampires or undead in general, or any kind of paper or document at all, has time to cite any of them at all they always seem to take the time to point out their similarity to Vampires? You're saying they aren't but for many of them literally any printed word from people who's writings have far more weight than yours say they are.

Maybe because people that write encyclopedias like to draw connections with familiar things? And with the right context that can be relevant. Even within more familiar mythology you can often draw similarities. Compare and contrast the vampire and the succubus/incubus. In practice they use plenty of the same themes.

The "problem" to use that term loosely is that humanity is on the whole not that creative. Completely separate humans will produce similar ideas. There's the school of thought that there are something like no more then like 7 (or whatever) stories period. Thing like the Hero's Journey structure and all that.

While not untrue the problem with such generalism should/does have limits. As "They're all the same" which that sort of analysis lend itself too is lovely but its no suitable tool to understand say True Blood and what its working form. Or any other specific example. One could start at the most universal level but going down to the more specific taxonomy of the work would have increasing specific branches.

You don't get to decide what's relevant. You also don't get to decide what does and doesn't count simply because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

What's relevant is what is relevant.

I just point it out.

The problem with the vampiric (as opposed to vampire) myths around the world isn't that they are untrue its that they aren't relevant because they are of insignificant influence on the modern vampire myth. Bringing them out doesn't help one understand what vampires in modern media are. Ergo its irrelevant.

There's not a serious debate in western media over whether vamps should be stiff corpses that need hop around versus detachable flying heads. So those myths are not relevant.

(Well maybe in places where the disparate myths are welded together, I know jiang shi sometimes drink blood from imported vampire myths... but the reverse is so far even less often the case. And this is welding functionally separate myths together anyways)

I should also point out you are trying to declare what's relevant same as me.

I won't deny a large amount of Dracula influence, but the same eastern european myths also influenced non-vampires and other examples HAVE popped up in media regularly enough that they can't simply be outright ignored, even if there isn't a proportionate amount of representation. Unless you happen to be saying that Vampires based on European myth "count", which I think displays a good amount of prejudice on your part.

Vampires are based on european myth, codified by Dracula, and then evolved in pop-culture are what is meant by vampire. You just don't HAVE outside influences on that chain.

I find trying to ignore or minimalize very irritating. Its a tendency to blindly take anything that isn't one-hundred percent absolute platonic truth and culturally stewing it not until there's a healthy stew mix... but until it all turns to tasteless gruel.

We can know things.

We can make distinctions on what is or isn't something.

This is your problem. Claiming that they're the same because they follow an incredibly broad sweeping set of traditions, while ignoring that they come from a seperate set of roles in those traditions that gained more prominence during a separate time period is, quite frankly, stupid.

You can't say they're the same as most other folklore elves in media because they're vastly different from many other examples.

HP ones are dubiously elves (given they fit other fairies with a different name better) but the very fluidity of fairy terminology gives it a sort of weight. Or maybe an exception. If you want to be less inclusive then one is left with saying that they aren't elves, they're hob/brownies/goblins with elf written on a piece of paper taped over the name plate.

Of course the slashes are why I don't do that and why elf is. Fairy's are more sweeping because there's more that has to be covered to arrive at useful analysis. Its an area of myth that is over-saturated with variation. Its a place where generalization is required to have get to any kind of understanding in a timeframe like here.

And of course to return to the original point of the tangent... none of those fit Tolkien's elves who in contrast to sweeping fairy tradition are more specific creatures. If I had to put it in a single trait it would be the Tolkien elves are human. They don't do things for strange little reasons that just are, like responding to gifts of clothing. Their 'magic' is really just a skill. They are more like 'real people' with a couple of differences and some advanced knowledge.

The objection that something isn't an elf because it doesn't follow the Tolkien model is still silly. However that model (and its variations) are the still the most coherent model. And that's pretty sweeping too, just no one has chosen to argue that Moon and Sun elves from Forgotten Realms are significantly different takes on elves yet. Look one type is blonde and extra arrogant, the other is pale with dark hair and arrogant. Totally. Different.

However since you can't discuss elves as a type with such distinctions they are filed right off.

dehro

2012-10-02, 04:52 PM

the ease with which you sweep what you like and tell others that they cant' sweep what you don't want to be swept is quite something..
and I'll refrain from commenting on the "what is relevant is relevant, I just point it out" bit..because it's not in my character to get worked up about people over the internet.
if it was..I'd probably be seething.

that said, I'm done with this. clearly we're in disagreement..actually no..clearly you are in disagreement with just about anybody else who doesn't see things exactly your way..
your manner of swapping sources, facts and opinions around to further your arguments leaves me a bit incredulous as to your intellectual honesty, and I don't see any further chance of constructive debate.

good day

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-02, 05:03 PM

the ease with which you sweep what you like and tell others that they cant' sweep what you don't want to be swept is quite something..

You can sweep all you damn well like and I will agree and disagree accordingly.

Both broader definitions and more specific definitions are called for depending on particular context.

I'm not seeing much actual asserting of points, be they arbitrary, useful or otherwise.

Thus far you two have been arguing less for what vampire are and more that they can't be anything because they are everything. If that last bit sounds circular to you then have something of why I disagree with the idea.

Morph Bark

2012-10-02, 05:34 PM

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-02, 05:40 PM

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

Point of order!

I did not.

I brought up Ericsson and Columbus!

(Also I am a he, the ponytar isn't exactly suggestive though, can't make out the head shape)

Jayngfet

2012-10-02, 06:23 PM

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

It's mainly another example people keep bringing up, and it's a perfect one to use against Soras here simply because he's made sweeping generalizations on the subject in this thread, which are immediately contradicted by others.

Really though I have much better things to do with my time than try to argue with somebody who's proven time and again they can't handle mature discussion or talking things out like an adult. I'm going to suggest Soras be ignored indefinitely or until he can back up his arguments with things that aren't opinion and nothing else.

Back to the original point, I think the Monster Hunter series had a nice take on vampires. They CAN be killed, like any other form of undead, but they're fierce as hell, like any other form of undead beyond the most brainless and shiftless zombies. The amount of firepower brought to bear against even newly formed Vampires tends to be ...excessive. It helps that they look like they justify it at every turn, since instead of two neat little mosquito bites they feed by tearing open the entire throat. Because fangs like that aren't just for neat little wounds. It's also amusing that about half their body count comes not from prey hunted, but from vampire fanboys who assume they aren't so bad.

They do however get killed fairly regularly. With proper cleverness and enough VERY big guns it tends to be something very much achievable.

Closet_Skeleton

2012-10-02, 06:54 PM

I don't really care about how a work of fiction represents vampires, only whether or not I enjoy that work of fiction. So despite preferring more folklore based vampires for my own settings I'm happy to enjoy irreverent works like Karin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Manga/Karin?from=Main.Karin).

I refuse to hate Twilight because:

1. I've never been unfortunate enough to know anyone who liked it and wasn't completely aware of its flaws.

2. I've never read it and hate being told to hate things just because its popular to.

3. I really can't see the difference any more between people who hate Twilight for being a bad influence on young/middle aged women and people who hate Harry Potter for promoting Satanism.

I think that basically comes from people starting to use vampires as trite metaphors for sexual minorities, as opposed to their original "modern" role, starting with Stoker, as trite metaphors for sexual criminals.

Dracula's an evil eastern/central/southern European immigrant, so its not like Stoker wasn't using him to represent a minority.

Underworld kinda gets a little of this nuisance from me too, suggesting that a vampire is just like a werewolf only bat instead of wolf, and not shapeshifting, and vulnerable to sunlight instead of silver, but somehow they're still both two lineages from a single progenitor. W/e.

The distinction between vampires, werewolves and witches tends to be pretty thin in folklore. Often a vampire is just a dead witch or werewolf, and shape shifting powers are incredibly common while anything exactly the same as the modern concept of a werewolf is pretty much absent.

All that being said, the lesser vamps had the standard weaknesses to sunlight, holy water, blessed items, but the master was basically able to either ignore, or just be somewhat weakened by any of them.

I always preferred the variant to this where the really powerful vampires are more bound by the weaknesses and its the younger weaker ones who can get away with walking around in sunlight.

IT just bugs me that years, or even centuries, of murder and bloodshed are swept aside cos they feel bad one day. Not that the atoning vamp story is bad. But at times casual killing is ignored and that bugs me.

The last series of the (original British) Being Human had a nice take on that, where the 'good' vampire has lived a very long time and has a tendency to spend a century as an evil monster, then feel guilty and go all pacifist for 50 years before relapsing and becoming a monster again. Nobody who knew him as a monster has any sympathy for him and just expects him to go evil again at the drop of a hat.

Which might just have been a parody/stab at Whedon's Angel.

Bram Stoker did his research

so well that he describes Romania's greatest folk hero as a Hungarian. The name Dracula comes from a Hungarian order of merit given to Vlad the Impaler's father, but that doesn't make either of them Hungarian any more than (honorary) Sir Steven Spielberg is British or French.

Your choice..but you can't expect everybody else to abide by it. (I prefer Polidori)

My problem with Polidori is this:

Take any friend. Describe the events the happen to the protagonist of The Vampyre to him/her.

I really hate Carmilla.

The only way to defeat her is to find her tomb and destroy the body.

That's pretty much the standard way to kill vampires if you read any actual folklore. Carmilla was a lot better researched than Dracula, which was basically a rip off of Carmilla with a ton of Irish witch lore added in (yeah, most of Dracula's powers/weaknesses aren't actually based off vampires at all). All the vampires in Dracula save for the title one also die in the exact same way and Dracula himself is only a variant (killed by knives while his coffin is transported on a cart).

Vampyr (1932) is an interesting film loosely based of Carmilla that basically ignores all the movie stereotypes and goes straight for a folkloric basis.

A vampire hunter mentioned in the story managed to kill one of Carmilla's progenitors with conventional swordplay. Carmilla herself is quite scared of mortals with weapons, and she generally flees when confronted.

Nah, Carmilla acts tired and weak all the time, but she only 'flees' after completely and utterly subduing a hardened soldier in a matter of seconds (with some kind of strength draining touch, which is the closest fictional equivalent I can find to the ridiculous level drain on touch power of D&D Vampires).

I'd like to ask both sides of the argument going on here what they think elves have to do with vampires? Mainly Soras, considering she brought it up and keeps returning to it.

Elves have a lot to do with Vampires actually, fairies and the undead not really being separate in Gaelic lore. The Baobhan Sith is a blood sucking Scottish fairy that may or may not also be a kind of ghost.

Thinker

2012-10-02, 08:27 PM

A vampire hunter mentioned in the story managed to kill one of Carmilla's progenitors with conventional swordplay. Carmilla herself is quite scared of mortals with weapons, and she generally flees when confronted. Really, the only reason she's able to prey on Laura for so long is that everyone involved is horribly, horribly genre blind.

(Though I'm not sure how Carmilla is relevant. That story predates Dracula by a good quarter-century, so it can't really be a "corruption" of the vampire mythos)

Carmilla was attacked with a sword and escaped unharmed. She seemed to flee because she was worried about being harmed by conventional weapons, but never seemed to be actually affected by those weapons. Her progenitors were destroyed because their bodies were destroyed in their tombs.

I brought it up because there were instances of the OP's issues with vampires even before the seminal work of vampire fiction.

Lord Seth

2012-10-02, 09:14 PM

Mewtarthio

2012-10-03, 12:26 AM

Carmilla was attacked with a sword and escaped unharmed. She seemed to flee because she was worried about being harmed by conventional weapons, but never seemed to be actually affected by those weapons. Her progenitors were destroyed because their bodies were destroyed in their tombs.

I was thinking about this:

“The stranger, having seen all this, came down from the steeple, took the linen wrappings of the vampire, and carried them up to the top of the tower tower, which he again mounted. When the vampire returned from his prowlings and missed his clothes, he cried furiously to the Moravian, whom he saw at the summit of the tower, and who, in reply, beckoned him to ascend and take them. Whereupon the vampire, accepting his invitation, began to climb the steeple, and so soon as he had reached the battlements, the Moravian, with a stroke of his sword, clove his skull in twain, hurling him down to the churchyard, whither, descending by the winding stairs, the stranger followed and cut his head off, and next day delivered it and the body to the villagers, who duly impaled and burnt them.
Granted, the hunter had a vastly superior tactical position in that fight, but weapons can still hurt those vampires. As I recall, Carmilla herself mostly just evades attacks before fleeing.

I brought it up because there were instances of the OP's issues with vampires even before the seminal work of vampire fiction.

Ah. That makes sense, then.

While I haven't read the book itself because the thing is apparently longer than War and Peace, from what I've heard about it, Varney in Varney the Vampire (another story that predated Dracula) was pretty indestructible also. It took falling into a volcano to actually kill the guy.

Don't let the length of the book put you off. Let the terrible, terrible writing style do that for you, instead. Varney's powers are wildly inconsistent. In one chapter, he gets "killed" by a single bullet until he regenerates in the moonlight. In another, he takes a bullet without flinching, then gives the bullet back to his assailant and offers to let him try another shot.

Tergon

2012-10-03, 01:41 AM

My personal distate for Twilight is twofold. Firstly, have you ever tried to read those books? I'm sorry, but they are just awful. I'm not saying I could do better, not by any means, but the plot drags on in a predictable direction using stupid cliches with one-dimensional characters and no real story beyond "A loves B but oh no there is a secret keeping them apart." The story doesn't have to involve Vampires for me to dislike that. It could be a contemporary piece about a Catholic girl loving a devout Muslim boy, or it could be set in space about a human girl loving an alien boy, or it could be set in the middle ages about a peasant girl loving a noble boy. I would still find the plot achingly, grindingly boring, and that's without touching the fact that I just found it to be a really badly-written story. Again, I don't know if I could do better, but... well, I'm not an architect, but if I saw a house that looked like it was going to collapse, I'd say the guy who designed it did a bad job. Same concept with a badly written book, I'll say the author really didn't impress me.

The other reason I don't like it is because of how Vampires are portrayed, but it's not necessarily that I think Vampires need to work a certain way. Or rather, it is, but not quite so blunt as that.
What I dislike is an author wh's not creative enough to come up with a new concept for a story, but is arrogant enough to steal and then warp an existing concept. Twilight wasn't a creative new spin on the Vampire mythology. The characters very specifically state that the mythology is wrong, and that real vampires work differently in the Twilight universe. And that's just... lazy. Yes, okay, Vampires dying in sunlight is a concept that came from Nosferatu, but they were always weakened by it, which is why they came out at night. They always had weaknesses and strengths that could be exploited. There are, for want of a better term, rules to how Vampires work, even if those rules may vary slightly from creation to creation. And above all else they were always predators.
I don't like the idea of taking two parts of the mythology (Immortal, drinks blood), mixing in a bunch of random crap (sparkly in sunlight, super speed and strength), taking away all vulnerabilities short of being dismembered or incinerated, and saying "No, still totally counts, see?" Because I'm sorry, it damn well doesn't. A cat has two eyes and sharp teeth; that doesn't mean I can say it's basically a shark. The creatures in Twilight are not recognizable as vampires for any reason beyond immortality and the fact that they feed on blood. So why bother to call them Vampires at all? Why not call them Fey, why not call them Old Ones, why not call them Snazzwogglers form the planet Darfingus? Any of these work just as well without trying to cash in on the Vampire mythology that the story explicitly and deliberately discards. Calling them Vampires when all of the mythology surrounding Vampires until then has been ignored is, quite simply, lazy. It's just using a name the reader might be familiar with to draw them in, and it's pointlessly complicating the existing and traditional mythology by applying the name Vampire to something that doesn't really fit it.

In short, I dislike Twilight because I just plain don't like it. And I don't like their version of Vampires because I think it's poorly handled. So as much as there are people out there who might abuse the story or the movies just on principle, I'm speaking as a self-admitted horror nerd and buff who gave this a legitimate chance and found it to be just plain awful.

Socratov

2012-10-03, 01:53 AM

Cikomyr

2012-10-06, 05:50 AM

Eldan

2012-10-06, 07:03 AM

:smallbiggrin:

something funny just occurred to me: in Dresden it is said the White court had Bram Stoker write Dracula so people could put a stop to black court vampires. What if Twilight is the one issued for extermination of the white court?

:smallbiggrin:

(insert conspiracy Keanu meme where appropriate)

Unlikely, really. Stoker makes Dracula rather undesirable, and lists his weaknesses. Meyer makes the White Court (if htey are the white court) wonderful and sexy, and makes them much harder to kill than the real ones are.

Yora

2012-10-06, 07:13 AM

As much as I love Mass Effect 2, Morinth is a very strong contender for my own most disliked vampire outside of Twilight.

Strangely, others of her kind that are shown later on seem to be relatively normal people who just happen to carry a lethal sexual disease, but Morinth is just silly.

Traab

2012-10-06, 09:09 AM

let me re-iterate.. Polidori.

also, what Jayngfet said.

yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..
and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.

Honestly? I can only think of a couple main forms of elves. Tolkein-esque elves. Ancient, beautiful, wise, yadda yadda. Or the fae. Chaotic, mischievous, some good, some evil, random assortment of appearances, just as likely to take advantage of a stupid wish said out loud as they are to do you a favor, that sort of thing. There are a few different sets, like the drow for example, and a few tweaks on the standard elf, like for example, david webers elves are near suicidally depressed beings because of what amounts to PTSD. But for the most part, those are the two main types of elves I see. A few details changed do not create an entirely new elf, you can still see the baseline that was drawn from.

And that, to me, is the real issue with new vamp hate. Its like suspension of disbelief in a way. You can only stretch the material so far from the source before the acceptance snaps. Its hard to draw a firm line in the sand and say, "On this side I can accept the vamp description. On this side, no, its too much." As everyone has a different tolerance for these kinds of things. And yes, there are far more sources than bram stoker, the problem is, unless you are big into vampire lore, or otherwise have had access to the more obscure or lesser known myths, bram stoker style vamps ARE the baseline. Just as much as tolkien and the fae are the baseline for elves. So departing too far from the dracula style is treated as creating a race of hairy rage monsters that like to rape pillage and plunder, and calling them elves. Its just a huge 'wtf?!" moment for most people that wouldnt likely earn a lot of acceptance.

Yora

2012-10-06, 11:47 AM

Chambers

2012-10-06, 11:56 AM

I always thought the Ringworld vampires were an interesting spin on Vampirism. It's been a while since I've read it, but I recall them as having a hypnotic song/scent type thing that made anyone that heard/smelled it want to rish. That's how they'd catch their prey - with their pants down.

Closet_Skeleton

2012-10-06, 12:48 PM

bram stoker style vamps ARE the baseline.

Hammer/Universal Pictures or Anne Rice vampires are way closer to being the baseline. Mainly due to people not actually reading (just about) Victorian novels.

Tiki Snakes

2012-10-06, 01:03 PM

Without thinking of any specific sources, I'd say the defining traits of vampires being drinking blood, turning the living into vampires, and being killed by sunlight or a stake in the heart.
Also hating garlic, but that's such a minor thing that I wouldn't call it defining, just very common.

I'd say Vampires that feed off Life-Force itself and other spins are common enough that I wouldn't personally limit it to blood as such.
Undead creatures that feed parasitically on the Living and usually have strong thematic link to the Night. Sunlight, Stakes to the heart etc are less important. Garlic is rarely anything more than a gag.

Kitten Champion

2012-10-06, 02:26 PM

Traab

2012-10-06, 02:43 PM

123456789blaaa

2012-10-06, 07:28 PM

WARNING: huge megapost ahead that deals mainly with clearing up some misconceptions about the dresden files. Should I spoiler it?

<snip>
Dresden Files has a pretty screwy vampire situation from what I hear. Supposedly the Red Court are actually these giant bat monsters who wear human skin as a disguise? And the White Court drink emotions instead of blood, but somehow this still kills people? I don't get it.

The red court is inspired by the mayan bat god Camazotz (you can see the same type of thing in the movie “dusk till dawn”):

In Maya mythology, Camazotz (alternate spellings Cama-Zotz, Sotz, Zotz) was a bat god. Camazotz means "death bat" in the K'iche' language. In Mesoamerica the bat was associated with night, death, and sacrifice.

Camazotz is formed from the K'iche' words kame, meaning "death", and sotz', meaning "bat".

In the Popol Vuh, Camazotz are the bat-like monsters encountered by the Maya Hero Twins Hunahpu and Xbalanque during their trials in the underworld of Xibalba. The twins had to spend the night in the House of Bats where they squeeze themselves into their own blowguns in order to defend themselves from the circling bats. Hunahpu stuck his head out of his blowgun to see if the sun had risen and Camazotz immediately snatched off his head and carried it to the ballcourt to be hung up as the ball to be used by the gods in their next ballgame.

The white court are inspired by the anne rice “seducer” vampire. When they drain emotion they are actually draining life force as well (which is why they can kill their prey).

The more you know…

I think Dresden Files does vampires pretty well. There are several different groups of them but all of them are essentially humans possessed by a different type of demon.
<snip>
There is also a Jade Court but we don't really know anything about them yet. Supposedly they will be making an appearance eventually.

It's basically a kitchen sink way of including all sorts of different depictions of vampires into one setting. Personally I think it works very well. One thing it never forgets though is that they are monsters, even the sexy ones are Monsters with a capital M.

You are actually wrong about the demon part. Were did you get that idea from? Nothing we have seen in the DF verse indicates that any of the vampires have anything to do with demons. I suppose you could make an argument for the White court since they have a spirit of Hunger inside them and big nasties from the nevernever are often referred to as demons but that’s the only court I can think of. Plus white court vamps aren’t “possessed” by their Hunger. Most of the time they are in full control of it and only give in when they draw on their power too much.

Interestingly there are actually 7 vampire courts but the ones that I didn't mention are little more than mosquitos (in terms of general influence, not personal power).

You are a little wrong on the "sexy ones are still capital M monsters". A huge part of the DF universe centers around Free Will. The white court vampires actually still have free will and they keep their souls (unlike the other courts) except when they draw on their Hunger too much. This is why Thomas can try to be a good guy.

That gets confusing sometimes but Dresden Files' Hell is pretty much just Fallen Angels. Demons are just evil or non-sentient and hungry monsters.

No, Hell in the Dresdenverse does have Demons.

Hell = Demons and Fallen Angels. Remember Chauncy the informant demon?

Nevernever = Fae, Spirits and occasionally Ghosts (either of which can be more powerful than demons).

Outside = Outsiders (duh).

Any of which can be equally malevolent, though the only place you're likely to find something genuinely benevolent (to some degree) is the Nevernever.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, demons can mean both "generic nasty from the nevernever (the spirit world) or an actual demon from hell.

Don't forget Gods and their servants in your list either.

Going back to the Dresden Files and derailing a bit, the White Court feeds on emotions, but why only those three emotions? Lust, fear, and despair? Why not anger, or happiness, or sadness, or jealousy? As best I can figure, them being motivated to "farm" only those three emotions seems to be solely designed as a way to enforce the "noir" genre.

Let me confirm this quote:

<snip>
Given Madrigal its seems that the bounds are more traditional and/or personal.

I suspect though they'd only feed on "dark" emotions since what they do is dark. Also point out that fear, despair, and lust do a lot to paralyze the prey. Arousing anger would probably get a White Court beat up. And doubtful the underlying philosophy of the Dresdenverse lets them cause happiness.

Which can be seen to enforce the noir end, but I think how Butcher clearly strives to play with greys but makes it clear black and whites are still out there is worth mentioning... and in the end more important.

Is completely true and confirmed by Word of God( though there was a WoG that a White Court vampire could "feed on the warm happy feeling that people get when they’re holding a puppy". That may have just been a joke though).

It has also been confirmed by WoG that the White court can "mix it up" but you start to have this "you are what you eat effect". This is probably why the Raiths (the lust feeders of the White Court) see the Skavis and Malvora (depair and fear feeders respectively) as degenerate.

They're referred to as a species of vampire, but it's clear the White Court are actually succubi. They try to keep their theme.

The Black and Red Courts are Stoker vampires and Anne Rice vampires (with a monstrous twist) respectively.

One interpretation of vampire that's pretty curious is that of D&D, with vampires being powered by the negative energy plane.

The different "classifications" of supernatural predators are somewhat fluid in the DF verse. I actually made a thread asking what qualified a group of supernatural predators to be called a vampire court here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,34006.0.html). I highly suggest you check it out as I think it was very enlightening.

The Black Court are actually stoker vamps and and the classical "rotting monsters that rise from the grave" vamps that were around way before stoker wrote his book. The Red Court on the other hand are inspired by Camazotz (see above post for details). I'd say the White Court was way more influenced by Anne Rice vampires than the RC vampires.

McStabbington

2012-10-06, 10:22 PM

As Terry Pratchett said, "There are as many types of vampire as there are disease; some are virulent and deadly, and some just make you walk funny and avoid fruit."

The vampire changes most depending on what story you want to tell. Romance tends towards the tragic figure cursed by awesome who represents danger, lust, and uncanny charisma -- their weakness and strengths are less central than their character development. Action vampires usually enter the realm of the grotesque in appearance and monstrous in character -- their strengths and weaknesses are obviously more significant seeing as they'll be your mobs for that evening. Then there's Gothic Horror which incorporates the two to create a better class of monster.

Oddly enough, Dresden has one "Court" for each of 'em.

The only issue I have is with internal consistency.

Vampire stories have evolved in ways that parralel superhero stories, when you think about it. One of the reasons why Superman was so popular in the 30's and 40's, for instance, was simple wish fulfillment. If getting scarred, paralyzed or permanently injured by diseases like polio, or shot to death and blown up in Europe and the Pacific is an everyday part of your lived reality, who wouldn't want to imagine themselves as having super-healing and bulletproof skin? But once those worries go away and are replaced by the more mundane angsts of adolescence, Superman gets replaced in popularity with a more angsty, brooding Batman.

Similarly, vampire myths used to emphasize disease, rot and the corruption of the soul. In a time when plague, cholera and smallpox are very real immediate threats, and one of the great solaces is the prospect of a disease and war-free afterlife, it's pretty natural to fear that you could be attacked by a dead body that would drain and waste you before damning your soul and reanimating your body in the process. It's perfectly in keeping with the traditional association between disease and God's wrath. But as those fears have receded from our everyday worries, our vampires have changed along with them.

Back on the OT, though, I find the Buffyverse vampires annoying, largely because Whedon keeps trying to play up the dangers of vampires when all they really are in his universe are generic mooks. Given the absurd levels of chaotic stupid seen by those vampires, there really shouldn't have been any vamps more than a week old in the Buffyverse. And why the heck does dying give you a yellow belt in kung fu?

Melayl

2012-10-06, 10:23 PM

You are actually wrong about the demon part. Were did you get that idea from? Nothing we have seen in the DF verse indicates that any of the vampires have anything to do with demons. I suppose you could make an argument for the White court since they have a spirit of Hunger inside them and big nasties from the nevernever are often referred to as demons but that’s the only court I can think of. Plus white court vamps aren’t “possessed” by their Hunger. Most of the time they are in full control of it and only give in when they draw on their power too much.

IIRC Thomas refers to [the vampire supernatural side of himself] as a demon. So does Harry. But, again IIRC, it is specifically mentioned that it has nothing to do with Hell/Fallen Angel demons.

123456789blaaa

2012-10-06, 11:11 PM

<snip>
You are actually wrong about the demon part. Were did you get that idea from? Nothing we have seen in the DF verse indicates that any of the vampires have anything to do with demons. I suppose you could make an argument for the White court since they have a spirit of Hunger inside them and big nasties from the nevernever are often referred to as demons but that’s the only court I can think of.
<snip>

IIRC Thomas refers to [the vampire supernatural side of himself] as a demon. So does Harry. But, again IIRC, it is specifically mentioned that it has nothing to do with Hell/Fallen Angel demons.

I'm not sure you need to remember considering basically all of what you just posted was said in the part of my post that you quoted :smalltongue:.

Kitten Champion

2012-10-06, 11:40 PM

Similarly, vampire myths used to emphasize disease, rot and the corruption of the soul. In a time when plague, cholera and smallpox are very real immediate threats, and one of the great solaces is the prospect of a disease and war-free afterlife, it's pretty natural to fear that you could be attacked by a dead body that would drain and waste you before damning your soul and reanimating your body in the process. It's perfectly in keeping with the traditional association between disease and God's wrath. But as those fears have receded from our everyday worries, our vampires have changed along with them.

That and the fears of sexual violation and corruption of the innocent. The idea of being penetrated or absorbed by an alluring and predatory demon was a pretty popular and widespread fear, evidently. Given the number of myths which represent this theme in various cultures.

The fact that the popular folklore of numerous cultures connect violence, disease, sex, death, and evil into a single monstrous figure is unsurprising I suppose. But with the sexual revolution, the Victorian sentiments about sex have become somewhat antiquated, and relatively easy for writers to use them for the purposes of titillation rather than moralizing.

McStabbington

2012-10-07, 02:56 AM

That and the fears of sexual violation and corruption of the innocent. The idea of being penetrated or absorbed by an alluring and predatory demon was a pretty popular and widespread fear, evidently. Given the number of myths which represent this theme in various cultures.

The fact that the popular folklore of numerous cultures connect violence, disease, sex, death, and evil into a single monstrous figure is unsurprising I suppose. But with the sexual revolution, the Victorian sentiments about sex have become somewhat antiquated, and relatively easy for writers to use them for the purposes of titillation rather than moralizing.

Actually, that's something that came later. Until Bela Legosi's interpretation of Dracula, I can't really recall anyone associating vampires directly with sex, for the same reason they didn't associate the story of Billy Goat Gruff with sex. Namely that it's sex with a dead, rotting corpse, and therefore a desecration of oneself and the dead of the highest order in every religion I'm familiar with. Forget the fact that it's evil incarnate and also trying to kill you; sex with the dead is one of the few sexual perversions that is as universally abhorrent as sex with prepubescent children and sex with animals.

One of the things that's both extremely interesting, and incredibly important to remember about myths is that their meanings change to fit the times. But the corrolary is that the myths of the past and the myths of the present are very different, even if they're ostensibly the same stories. Ghost stories now and ghost stories 300 years ago, for instance, are completely different because our conception of ghosts and their conception of ghosts are completely different. Prior to the Romantic era, ghosts were just evil spirits that inhabited a place. Now, they're souls that got lost and didn't cross over. The idea that someone would think to research a haunted house's history to search for incidents of violence or suicide wouldn't make sense in a ghost story 300 years ago, because that's not what ghosts were. Similarly, the idea that vampires are metaphors for the dangers of seduction and sex wouldn't make sense, because that's not what vampires were. That shift is entirely a post-Romantic, and more specifically a post-Hollywood addition to the vampire myth.

Kitten Champion

2012-10-07, 03:24 AM

Actually, that's something that came later. Until Bela Legosi's interpretation of Dracula, I can't really recall anyone associating vampires directly with sex, for the same reason they didn't associate the story of Billy Goat Gruff with sex. Namely that it's sex with a dead, rotting corpse, and therefore a desecration of oneself and the dead of the highest order in every religion I'm familiar with. Forget the fact that it's evil incarnate and also trying to kill you; sex with the dead is one of the few sexual perversions that is as universally abhorrent as sex with prepubescent children and sex with animals.

One of the things that's both extremely interesting, and incredibly important to remember about myths is that their meanings change to fit the times. But the corrolary is that the myths of the past and the myths of the present are very different, even if they're ostensibly the same stories. Ghost stories now and ghost stories 300 years ago, for instance, are completely different because our conception of ghosts and their conception of ghosts are completely different. Prior to the Romantic era, ghosts were just evil spirits that inhabited a place. Now, they're souls that got lost and didn't cross over. The idea that someone would think to research a haunted house's history to search for incidents of violence or suicide wouldn't make sense in a ghost story 300 years ago, because that's not what ghosts were. Similarly, the idea that vampires are metaphors for the dangers of seduction and sex wouldn't make sense, because that's not what vampires were. That shift is entirely a post-Romantic, and more specifically a post-Hollywood addition to the vampire myth.

It would depend upon your definition of vampire, erotic demons with the capacity to drain life exists in Eastern and Western folklore for some time now.

Though more generally, it's not literal sexual intercourse I'm referring to. The figurative projection of the act of penetration and absorption are entrenched pretty hard. Of the unwanted and violent kind, naturally.

Melayl

2012-10-07, 08:16 AM

I'm not sure you need to remember considering basically all of what you just posted was said in the part of my post that you quoted :smalltongue:.

That's what happens when I post too late at night...

willpell

2012-10-07, 10:54 AM

The red court is inspired by the mayan bat god Camazotz (you can see the same type of thing in the movie “dusk till dawn”):

Ah! Thanks for pointing that out, it all makes sense now.

The white court are inspired by the anne rice “seducer” vampire. When they drain emotion they are actually draining life force as well (which is why they can kill their prey).

Meh, this is handwavey and a bit cheap IMO, tying back into me thinking they exist to enforce Noir by randomly making life suck in the setting universe...it works if you're into that sort of thing which I'm really not. If I were writing them, I'd either make the White Court physically-harmless parasites (though still manipulative jerks who destroy lives on a whim), or I'd say that they kill the victim by dessicating them or something. Lifeforce or soul or whatever doesn't really impress me as something that you can kill a person by taking away, given that it is at most tenuously detectable in them in the first place.

You are actually wrong about the demon part. Were did you get that idea from? Nothing we have seen in the DF verse indicates that any of the vampires have anything to do with demons.

It was in the Wikipedia article, I claim zero responsibility. It might also have been in the TV series, which I have watched, while the books I have not read.

Interestingly there are actually 7 vampire courts but the ones that I didn't mention are little more than mosquitos (in terms of general influence, not personal power).

Have they ever given names for the last 3 (after White, Black, Red and "Jade" - argh, I hate it when a series is inconsistent)? Butcher might not want to develop the last three but I sure as heck do.

It has also been confirmed by WoG that the White court can "mix it up" but you start to have this "you are what you eat effect". This is probably why the Raiths (the lust feeders of the White Court) see the Skavis and Malvora (depair and fear feeders respectively) as degenerate.

Okay, this I buy totally. Perhaps they destroyed the Happy-Puppy Vampires out of spite to "prove" that only negativity was strong enough to survive? That would definitely be thematically fitting in my settings, where hypocrisy and sour grapes are some of the most defining traits of what I regard as evil.

McStabbington

2012-10-07, 11:45 AM

It would depend upon your definition of vampire, erotic demons with the capacity to drain life exists in Eastern and Western folklore for some time now.

Though more generally, it's not literal sexual intercourse I'm referring to. The figurative projection of the act of penetration and absorption are entrenched pretty hard. Of the unwanted and violent kind, naturally.

Incubi/Succubi and vampires are completely different in the medieval mind. One is a demon that corrupts the immortal soul of mortals. One is a re-animated dead body, usually of a criminal, blasphemer or especially immoral person, that feeds voraciously on the living. To say they're the same because they have some similar effects on their victims is like saying that humpback whales and Leviathan meant the same thing to medieval sailors because they're both big and live in water.

The idea that a vampire could be a tragic figure is entirely a 20th century invention. And it wasn't until they started being portrayed as tragic figures that people started seeing them in an erotic light. If you had tried to tell the story of Buffy and Angel to peasants in the Renaissance era, they would have thought you were talking about a lunatic with the morality of a pedophile. They would listen to that story with the horror most people have when they read Lolita.

Eldan

2012-10-07, 12:06 PM

Tiki Snakes

2012-10-07, 12:24 PM

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-07, 02:25 PM

Edit: Where's the seven courts from? I don't recall ever hearing that in the book. Harry was already quite surprised when Shiro mentioned four courts, since he had never heard of Jade, only the four coloured courts.
Fun thing about the Jade Court: they feed on memories.

Where did you get them feeding on memories from?

The only possible quasi-legit source from either of those would be either the RPG or Word of Jim from somewhere. The RPG does more speculation then anything and is not technically canon as far as I know, I remember them speculating Spring and Autumn for potential fairy plot-hooks which isn't saying those actually existed in the Dresdenverse for all the Fomor could be read as supporting it.

And from the horses mouth... if it was direct or you have something linkable okay but otherwise I've heard enough weird stuff to doubt indirect sources for the Dresdenverse.

Neither of these is mentioned in books. Jiang Shi (the evident inspiration for the Jade Court) would feed on chi if IIRC in most Chinese mythos, not memories. Not me something I know too much about though.

Morph Bark

2012-10-07, 02:30 PM

Kitten Champion

2012-10-07, 04:01 PM

Incubi/Succubi and vampires are completely different in the medieval mind. One is a demon that corrupts the immortal soul of mortals. One is a re-animated dead body, usually of a criminal, blasphemer or especially immoral person, that feeds voraciously on the living. To say they're the same because they have some similar effects on their victims is like saying that humpback whales and Leviathan meant the same thing to medieval sailors because they're both big and live in water.

The idea that a vampire could be a tragic figure is entirely a 20th century invention. And it wasn't until they started being portrayed as tragic figures that people started seeing them in an erotic light. If you had tried to tell the story of Buffy and Angel to peasants in the Renaissance era, they would have thought you were talking about a lunatic with the morality of a pedophile. They would listen to that story with the horror most people have when they read Lolita.

No, what I'm doing is like comparing Thor to Indra. Two mythological figures -- the vampire and the succubus -- rooted in the same precursors. Lamia, Lilith, Empusa - human eating, blood drinking harlots of Greek myth who come from a still older archetypes in all likelihood. Then, going Eastward to India and South East Asia where the Vampire myth is synonymous with sexual deprivation and female empowerment. The Slavic region was rife with sexualized vampire folklore, both male and female, who were fertile figures partly due to the presumption that the dead were sexual, given that they have erections post-mortem.
The supernatural harlot and blood drinking corpse were split into different iconography in Western Europe but they carried the same projections of anxiety about sexual violation. Something which was obvious in retrospect to the 20th century.

123456789blaaa

2012-10-07, 04:05 PM

Ah! Thanks for pointing that out, it all makes sense now.

No problem :smallbiggrin:.

Meh, this is handwavey and a bit cheap IMO, tying back into me thinking they exist to enforce Noir by randomly making life suck in the setting universe...it works if you're into that sort of thing which I'm really not. If I were writing them, I'd either make the White Court physically-harmless parasites (though still manipulative jerks who destroy lives on a whim), or I'd say that they kill the victim by dessicating them or something. Lifeforce or soul or whatever doesn't really impress me as something that you can kill a person by taking away, given that it is at most tenuously detectable in them in the first place.

Well actually in the DF verse you can detect a soul. Souls and Free Will are a MAJOR part of the setting.

I don't think the WC feed on souls for reasons I'll elaborate in a below post but the soul is detectable in the DF verse.

Also, you keep saying "noir". The DF books are barely noir at all (the main character makes star wars references for cryin out loud) though I can see how you might think so.

It was in the Wikipedia article, I claim zero responsibility. It might also have been in the TV series, which I have watched, while the books I have not read.

I was actually responding to Bayonet Priest and not you but while were on the subject do you think you could quote the section? I couldn't find it anywhere in the Wikipedia page.

Also if you do plan to read the books (Dooo eeet) do not give up after reading books 1 and 2. I see so many people do this and it breaks my heart. The first two books aren't "bad" they are actually good but they do not even touch the amazing that is the later books (keep in mind that this was Jim's first published series). The series starts to pick up by the third book and really gets into swing by book 4.

Have they ever given names for the last 3 (after White, Black, Red and "Jade" - argh, I hate it when a series is inconsistent)? Butcher might not want to develop the last three but I sure as heck do.

The african court has been unoffically named the Ivory Court by fans. I see no reason why Jim wouldn't use it.

Almost no info has been given on any of the other courts. Even the Jade court has very little information given and Jim says they will only show up (if they do at all) in the Big Apocalyptic Trilogy at the end of the series (because they are "very busy not getting involved").

<snip>
Willpell: Lifeforce/soul is actually often a major-ish plot point in the books. Harry gets the power of Soulfire from an Archangel, which gives him the power to burn up his own soul to power magic. And there's more than that, scattered everywhere.

I actually don't think lifeforce and soul are the same thing. In Ghost Story it's implied that losing your soul is a really big deal and I think Jim would have let us know if the WC were freaking soul eaters.

Edit: Where's the seven courts from? I don't recall ever hearing that in the book. Harry was already quite surprised when Shiro mentioned four courts, since he had never heard of Jade, only the four coloured courts.
Fun thing about the Jade Court: they feed on memories.

See my reply to Morph Bark.

And where the heck did you hear about the JC feeding on memories? In all my time reading the books/reading the forums/reading the various Word of Jim's I have never come across this except in a series of fanfiction called the broken series. Perhaps that's where you got it from?

FTFY. Also, the wiki article (http://dresdenfiles.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire_Courts).

The wiki (and me) actually got it from the Word of Jim compilation here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21772.msg947683.html#msg947683) where it says "Jim mentioned at ConDFW that there were a total of seven courts, but the final three were little more than mosquitoes".

If you've read most of the books I highly reccomend giving the whole Word of Jim compilation a read through. It is full of great, interesting information.

Eldan

2012-10-07, 04:10 PM

Where did you get them feeding on memories from?

Shiro again, since he's the only one who mentions them, off-hand. I think he said that, though I might be mis-remembering.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-07, 05:07 PM

Shiro again, since he's the only one who mentions them, off-hand. I think he said that, though I might be mis-remembering.

Yeah so help me I wasn't looking for that in particular but I read that book maybe a month back (re-reading) and don't recall it. They are the Jade Court, they are Asian, they are verrry secretive, and they respect the Accords. That's was it.

Xondoure

2012-10-08, 01:21 AM

Yeah so help me I wasn't looking for that in particular but I read that book maybe a month back (re-reading) and don't recall it. They are the Jade Court, they are Asian, they are verrry secretive, and they respect the Accords. That's was it.

Looks like the Jade Court got to you then. :smalltongue:

willpell

2012-10-08, 07:02 AM

Well actually in the DF verse you can detect a soul. Souls and Free Will are a MAJOR part of the setting.

A mage can maybe, but an average person cannot. And generally I would assume most of the people the WCVs feed on aren't mages.

Also, you keep saying "noir". The DF books are barely noir at all (the main character makes star wars references for cryin out loud) though I can see how you might think so.

As I understand the term "noir", the TV Dresden definitely qualifies; it's not all in grayscale or anything, but it's definitely got that hard-boiled-detective, "Life's not a nice place sweet cheeks" kind of gritty-awesome-hopeless-sexy-cynical attitude going on. The first Dresden book was originally titled "Semiautomagic"; that's plenty Noir right there.

I was actually responding to Bayonet Priest and not you but while were on the subject do you think you could quote the section? I couldn't find it anywhere in the Wikipedia page.

The main DF page doesn't have it, it's on List of Dresden Files Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Dresden_Files_organizations#Vampire_Co urts). "Their power derives from an internal demonic essence they call the "Hunger" which acts like a battery". I thought the Red Court were also explicitly demons but the use of the phrase "demonic form" in that article is probably just poetic, not taxonomic.

Also if you do plan to read the books (Dooo eeet) do not give up after reading books 1 and 2.

I don't have time to read a lot of books, so if those books aren't great perhaps I should just skip them. From what I hear the later books get metaplot-heavy; where would you recommend I jump in to have the best quality as a stand-alone book?

The african court has been unoffically named the Ivory Court by fans. I see no reason why Jim wouldn't use it.

Well it would mean another material besides Jade, but Ivory = White so I find it unsatisfying. I would want there to be a Green Court, a Gold Court, maybe a Gray Court, I dunno maybe Violet for the last one. Blue seems wrong somehow.

Almost no info has been given on any of the other courts.

Yeah I got that, I'm running with the stuff JB intentionally didn't. IMO there's so much vampire lore that three courts just don't cut it; even 7 courts aren't really enough. Heck I ended up deciding that VTM's 13 clans were insufficient.

Brother Oni

2012-10-08, 12:17 PM

Yeah I got that, I'm running with the stuff JB intentionally didn't. IMO there's so much vampire lore that three courts just don't cut it; even 7 courts aren't really enough. Heck I ended up deciding that VTM's 13 clans were insufficient.

Does that include the expanded bloodlines (http://www.patman.org/wod/clans/wodclans.asp) and oriental vampires (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Kuei-jin)?

Mewtarthio

2012-10-08, 12:18 PM

A mage can maybe, but an average person cannot. And generally I would assume most of the people the WCVs feed on aren't mages.

You've never felt exhausted and emotionally drained before? Incidnetally, Butcher is not the first person to come up with the idea of "psychic vampires" that leave their victims mentally rather than physically drained.

The main DF page doesn't have it, it's on List of Dresden Files Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Dresden_Files_organizations#Vampire_Co urts). "Their power derives from an internal demonic essence they call the "Hunger" which acts like a battery". I thought the Red Court were also explicitly demons but the use of the phrase "demonic form" in that article is probably just poetic, not taxonomic.

It's poetic. Incidentally, Thomas is the only WCV I can think of who characterizes his "Hunger" as a separate demonic entity. It's entirely possible that it's just a delusion he maintains to seperate himself from the baser needs that he's ashamed of. His bretheren treat their hunger for psychic energy the same way that humans treat their hunger for food, and the average WCV is quite the gourmand.

I don't have time to read a lot of books, so if those books aren't great perhaps I should just skip them. From what I hear the later books get metaplot-heavy; where would you recommend I jump in to have the best quality as a stand-alone book?

Grave Peril. That's the first book that involves the larger factions of the setting. Plus, a good chunk of the major supporting characters are either introduced in that book or have their relationships with Harry significantly re-defined in it. Plus, it's a definite step up in quality over the first two books.

Eldan

2012-10-08, 12:31 PM

The books are pretty short and very fast-paced. I usually read a new one over a weekend, with one or two weekday evenings attached.

Starbuck_II

2012-10-08, 12:50 PM

I don't like the idea of taking two parts of the mythology (Immortal, drinks blood), mixing in a bunch of random crap (sparkly in sunlight, super speed and strength), taking away all vulnerabilities short of being dismembered or incinerated, and saying "No, still totally counts, see?" Because I'm sorry, it damn well doesn't.

Nope. I repeat Nope.
The two parts of mythology are (Immortal, drinks blood, Super Strength, speed), mixing in a tiny bit of crap (sparkly in sunlight).
You just hate the sunlight thing.

Almost all vampires are shown in fiction as strong and fast. Blade, Angel, etc does the same thing.

In short, I dislike Twilight because I just plain don't like it. And I don't like their version of Vampires because I think it's poorly handled. So as much as there are people out there who might abuse the story or the movies just on principle, I'm speaking as a self-admitted horror nerd and buff who gave this a legitimate chance and found it to be just plain awful.

You can only kill a Twilight vampire by dismembering... this is in the book.

Now the fact that every vampire gets random psychic powers like 2E AD&D D&D game is weird, but eh.
I mean, Vampire Bella can see the future. Bella's baby can create force fields.

I am curious why there are no Hollywood Eastern Vampire Movies? Like the Hopping Vampires or other ones.

Sure, Hoppers seem silly, but they are considered vampires.

Brother Oni

2012-10-08, 01:25 PM

I am curious why there are no Hollywood Eastern Vampire Movies? Like the Hopping Vampires or other ones.

Sure, Hoppers seem silly, but they are considered vampires.

You'd have to spend too much time explaining that they were and how they differ from western vampires, that a movie with them in wouldn't be viable. Everybody knows that vampires drink blood and are vulnerable to a wooden stake to the heart, garlic and crosses/holy water.
Fewer people know about chi draining corpses influenced by taoist magic, which are harmed by sticky rice and dog blood soaked string.

Plus they'd look so absolutely ridiculous to most western audiences that they wouldn't be scary at all.

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-08, 01:27 PM

Plus their more like Zombies.

Brother Oni

2012-10-08, 03:35 PM

Plus their more like Zombies.

I'm guessing you've only seen pictures of them, because they're nothing like zombies either in the movies or in folklore.

Read up on them, educate yourself: Jiang shi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Shi).

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-08, 03:38 PM

I'm guessing you've only seen pictures of them, because they're nothing like zombies either in the movies or in folklore.

Well I did see a old movie about them. Don't remember the name.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-08, 03:40 PM

Brother Oni

2012-10-08, 03:55 PM

I know I thought this girl (http://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters2/leilei-namco.jpg) was some kind of Chinese flavored zombie for a long time.

Not that that's accurate per say but given that there is zero prescence for jiang shi in the West... they do still come a bit closer to zombies.

Technically speaking, Lei Lei's is a weird kyonshi (Japanese jiang shi) influenced character (her back story is a bit of a mess).

The only reason why they're called 'chinese zombies' is that there isn't a well known western equivalent (revenants come close to what jianshi are, but who knows what they are outside of folklore buffs?), so they get labelled as such like a square peg in a circular hole, using the big hammer of 'no reference frame'.

123456789blaaa

2012-10-08, 04:16 PM

A mage can maybe, but an average person cannot. And generally I would assume most of the people the WCVs feed on aren't mages.

So? :smallconfused:.

Also Mewthario's post:
You've never felt exhausted and emotionally drained before? Incidnetally, Butcher is not the first person to come up with the idea of "psychic vampires" that leave their victims mentally rather than physically drained.

is exactly what I was trying to say when explaining how WC vamps drain their victims. Haven't you ever raged so much or had so much fun that afterwords you felt empty and drained? Wasn't it really hard to muster up emotion afterwords?

As I understand the term "noir", the TV Dresden definitely qualifies; it's not all in grayscale or anything, but it's definitely got that hard-boiled-detective, "Life's not a nice place sweet cheeks" kind of gritty-awesome-hopeless-sexy-cynical attitude going on. The first Dresden book was originally titled "Semiautomagic"; that's plenty Noir right there.

I could maybe kinda see this for the first few books (it would be really light though) but after Grave Peril? Naw. The DF files isn't really isn't that cynical or hopeless at all (compared to the works of say...Dashiell Hammett). I mean, theres a scene in Dead Beat where Harry freakin [REDACTED]. That scene is very not noirish. It's also the scene that most people refer to when they want to show someone why the DF is so awesome.

I don't have time to read a lot of books, so if those books aren't great perhaps I should just skip them. From what I hear the later books get metaplot-heavy; where would you recommend I jump in to have the best quality as a stand-alone book?

Mewthario's reccomendation is pretty good but I personally think Summer Knight would be good as well. The supporting characters get reintroduced almost every book they appear in so you won't really be that lost if you skip GP. I think Summer Knight is also even better than GP in terms of writing quality so it would make a better first impression. They're both about equal in terms of introducing you to the series.

Willpell if you do decide to read the rest of the series I highly reccomend reading the first two after you're done. One of the things I love about the DF is that minor things that are introduced in the first books get expanded on and referenced even as far as the 10th book. They also contain vital hints for theorizing. Remember that they aren't bad books. They just look bad in comparison to the rest of the series.

Well it would mean another material besides Jade, but Ivory = White so I find it unsatisfying. I would want there to be a Green Court, a Gold Court, maybe a Gray Court, I dunno maybe Violet for the last one. Blue seems wrong somehow.

Eh I think ivory is sufficiently different in appearance than white that it wouldn't be the same.

Yeah I got that, I'm running with the stuff JB intentionally didn't. IMO there's so much vampire lore that three courts just don't cut it; even 7 courts aren't really enough. Heck I ended up deciding that VTM's 13 clans were insufficient.

Keep in mind that there are many creatures with vampiric properties that aren't part of a Vampire Court. The distinction is important. The creatures in the Courts have a few things in common that other vampire like creatures do not (these observations were gained in the thread I linked earlier).

Here are a few points raised in the thread:

Cass:
"The distinction may be made because that group says so and has the support of the other Courts-- e.g. an association of creatures gains enough power (and/or numbers) and approaches the other Courts about being recognized as a Court. There's probably some aspect of mutual alliance, and almost certainly some sort of organization to keep fighting over territory to a minimum involved as well.

It may also be in how the group/species works: so far, the three Courts that we've seen in any detail have relied on humans not just for food but for reproduction/propagation. That may be a unifying factor, here: vampires need humans for more than just food; they must be very, very opposed to wiping humanity out as a species. Things like ghouls strike me as more opportunistic in what they eat (and I don't even want to think about reproduction...) and things like the grendelkin (from Heorot) that do require humans to breed might be too few or too scattered/disorganized for being a Court. (Additionally, I don't remember what the grendelkin was eating-- whether it was explicitly and exclusively humans or whether it was anything unlucky enough to be caught.)

Um. Just my thoughts on the subject. :smallsmile:"

Sheaman373:
"Interesting points. A further distinction may well be the manner in which they eat. Notice, that in all three cases that we know of in any detail, they don't really eat humans so much as feed off of them. A ghoul (who are canonically able to interbreed with humans, btw, since WoJ states that the ghouls that we know are the offspring of the WN superghouls and humans ) will actually consume parts of the humans they eat, but both BC and RC vampires will only drink the blood, and WC only drain life force. Barring a bite or two, the body is left whole. This may be considered a distinction enough of a supernatural predator that they get their own classification as "Vampire."

Seidmadr:
"Well, all the vampires have the following in common:
Ageless (Blampires and rampires are actually undead, whampires are just immortal)
Feed off of humans. (Blood for the first two, emotions for the latter)
They come from human stock. (Blampires and rampires turn people, whampires are born human and get turned in their puberty)

They have also been organized in courts, based on family trees, so they share organisational traits as well.

This might have been enough to lump them in together. They might even have seen the similarities themselves and been the ones to define the difference."

It's poetic. Incidentally, Thomas is the only WCV I can think of who characterizes his "Hunger" as a separate demonic entity. It's entirely possible that it's just a delusion he maintains to seperate himself from the baser needs that he's ashamed of. His bretheren treat their hunger for psychic energy the same way that humans treat their hunger for food, and the average WCV is quite the gourmand.

This is a very interesting hypothesis. I first saw in on the DF boards actually. Still, while is certainly has merit I don't think it's true because we have a WoJ that Mab could "rip the Hunger out of him".

Closet_Skeleton

2012-10-08, 04:36 PM

Jiang shi are more like vampires than zombies because zombies eating people was invented by a misinterpretation of a film from 1968.

I am curious why there are no Hollywood Eastern Vampire Movies? Like the Hopping Vampires or other ones.

Sure, Hoppers seem silly, but they are considered vampires.

Not to mention all the various Malaysian and the odd Indian vampire who actually drink blood, unlike Jiang shi..

Though usually when people use 'asian vampires' they just make them up, like Kuel Jin who aren't really that much like Jiang shi apart from the 'life force' thing, at least not as much as the Cainites are like modern western vampires.

Starbuck_II

2012-10-08, 05:17 PM

Side note:

You've never felt exhausted and emotionally drained before? Incidnetally, Butcher is not the first person to come up with the idea of "psychic vampires" that leave their victims mentally rather than physically drained.

Is it wrong to drain people without their permission? Not like fully drain because some here and there....everyone in my family can do it...

In fact, when we were younger my mom used to drain us kids my mom admits.

I did it throughout Hiigh School when I felt tired to others around me. Sometimes I just drained the lights on the ceiling but that can causes it to flash out (and that draws attention).

Does that make my family part vampire?

123456789blaaa

2012-10-08, 05:42 PM

Side note:

Is it wrong to drain people without their permission? Not like fully drain because some here and there....everyone in my family can do it...

In fact, when we were younger my mom used to drain us kids my mom admits.

I did it throughout Hiigh School when I felt tired to others around me. Sometimes I just drained the lights on the ceiling but that can causes it to flash out (and that draws attention).

Does that make my family part vampire?

Well, the reason WC vamps are bad is because the act of draining emotions causes the victim to get addicted and mentally damaged.

Metahuman1

2012-10-08, 06:27 PM

Ok, relating to some bad Vampire Media. Disney has a live action TV show titled My Baby Sitters A Vampire . What little I've scene of it tends to indicate it's pretty horrible.

Though to be fair, I can't really imagine Disney doing anything good with Vampires that doesn't involve the Marvel Comics Universe.

Bayonet Priest

2012-10-08, 09:00 PM

@1234etcnumbersguy

I'm almost 100% certain that Thomas's hunger is referred to as a demon at some point in one of the books. I guess I just assumed that the other vampire types were caused by demons like the WCVs. As for Monster vs Mortal, Nature vs Free Will, eh you got me there. I meant monster in a colloquial sense but by saying "capital M" I confused my point. I meant more to suggest that they were really bad dudes, they really want to eat you. But you're right that they seem to maintain free will unlike Red Court vamps (who seem to go real bad when they finally give in and turn)

willpell

2012-10-08, 10:23 PM

Does that include the expanded bloodlines (http://www.patman.org/wod/clans/wodclans.asp) and oriental vampires (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Kuei-jin)?

The Kuei-Jin aren't Kindred, so no, but the bloodlines do count as additional "clans" differing only in size. Even they aren't enough though. I ended up expanding them and some variant clans and a few innovations from Requiem, and the resulting number is at least 27 and more likely 39.

@ Psychic Vampires - Yeah I've heard of the concept, but it's more of a New Agey thing and IMO it feels out of place next to actual bump-in-the-night monsters. Also I find it very hard to imagine someone dying of emotional exhaustion (even physical exhaustion is unlikely to do more than make you pass out for 12 hours or so); at worst maybe a coma seems feasible, but more likely you'd recover without harm, unless the "blah factor" was so intense that it drove you to suicide, and I'm inclined to doubt that would happen in more than a small percentage of cases. Bottom line I don't think the idea gives the human psyche enough credit for resilience; it's our bodies that are squishy, not our minds. Mentally, we can adapt to pretty much anything given a little time, unless we're inherently neurotic in the first place, in which case the trigger is just an excuse for a breakdown you were already planning to have. (This is one of the problems I have in the Cthulhuverse as well; HPL was a fragile and twitchy fellow by his own admission, and most of the scenarios which terrify his victims wouldn't have much effect on anybody who has a normally healthy mind.)

(ROFLs at Blam, Ram and Whampires. This is the biggest argument against inventing more Color Courts...they wouldn't pun right because the names start with letters that don't sound funny.)

turkishproverb

2012-10-09, 12:12 AM

I am curious why there are no Hollywood Eastern Vampire Movies? Like the Hopping Vampires or other ones.

Sure, Hoppers seem silly, but they are considered vampires.

Holywood? no. But try Mr. Vampire some time. :)

McStabbington

2012-10-09, 12:29 AM

No, what I'm doing is like comparing Thor to Indra. Two mythological figures -- the vampire and the succubus -- rooted in the same precursors. Lamia, Lilith, Empusa - human eating, blood drinking harlots of Greek myth who come from a still older archetypes in all likelihood. Then, going Eastward to India and South East Asia where the Vampire myth is synonymous with sexual deprivation and female empowerment. The Slavic region was rife with sexualized vampire folklore, both male and female, who were fertile figures partly due to the presumption that the dead were sexual, given that they have erections post-mortem.
The supernatural harlot and blood drinking corpse were split into different iconography in Western Europe but they carried the same projections of anxiety about sexual violation. Something which was obvious in retrospect to the 20th century.

That's . . . an incredibly dubious assumption. It's true that the Indo-European languages are connected, but they're connected in how they pronounce words. There's nothing necessary about similar pronunciations that result in them meaning the same things, which is what we're really talking about. Since we're talking primarily about languages that pre-dated writing by thousands of years, the theory that Indo-European languages have related semantic as well as grammatic content is based on the sketchiest of logic and absolutely zero empirical evidence.

Moreover, you're missing my main thrust. We do have empirical data about the superstitions of European peasants in the period between 500 - 1500 C.E. And that empirical data says that regardless of where they came from or what the origins of these superstitions were, succubi/incubi and vampires were very, very different from one another and how we view both today. Succubi weren't undead. Vampires weren't erogenous. They had wasting effects on their victims that were a) kind of similar, and b) reminiscent of diseases, but one point of similarity doesn't make two things identical. Witches may be made of wood, as we all know, but that doesn't make them Trojan Rabbits.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-10-09, 12:44 AM

@ Psychic Vampires - Yeah I've heard of the concept, but it's more of a New Agey thing and IMO it feels out of place next to actual bump-in-the-night monsters. Also I find it very hard to imagine someone dying of emotional exhaustion

You missed the point that the emotion things is is someway more a means to an end as what's being taken is one's lifefore/soul which is closely linked to emotions and magic in the Dresdenverse. The one victim examined that we know was killed by excessive lust feeding didn't have a heart attack because her sex drive was on overload... she had no medically discernible cause of death.

As well ask what do more typical vampires get out of blood? Certainly not nutrition. The metaphor for life itself is not an uncommon one.

(Also its basically noted that what the White Court does to cause sensation in feeding is beyond say drugs in effectiveness. And its drugs cause addiction because people aren't on the whole up to fending it off mentally)

Socratov

2012-10-09, 01:45 AM

You missed the point that the emotion things is is someway more a means to an end as what's being taken is one's lifefore/soul which is closely linked to emotions and magic in the Dresdenverse. The one victim examined that we know was killed by excessive lust feeding didn't have a heart attack because her sex drive was on overload... she had no medically discernible cause of death.

As well ask what do more typical vampires get out of blood? Certainly not nutrition. The metaphor for life itself is not an uncommon one.

(Also its basically noted that what the White Court does to cause sensation in feeding is beyond say drugs in effectiveness. And its drugs cause addiction because people aren't on the whole up to fending it off mentally)
spoilered because of minor details in the books
indeed, as highlited in Ghost story: "You are a soul and you have a body" (straight from Archangel Uriel) where sould is equal to identity, memories and life force. The fact that your soul gets drained by draining blood (where blood would act as a catalyst), or by rampant lust (where emotions actually give access to the soul) is moot. Even in 'making' a baby it's commented on the fact that to create life you need to invest some of your own (2 people pouring a bit of soul into the new baby). Further on that, it is said that when a moment occurs with your true love (which isn't as common as you should think)you both exchange a bit of soul and leaves a mark that can burn the Raiths. Suggesting that through passion you can exchange some of your lifeforce. that would actually be a nice explanation of the sense of simultanious exhaustion and mental elation one gets after the deed. Now if the Raiths would actually open a one way transaction you would only have exhaustion left. In a weird way it actually checks out.