# Is vampire fiction considered fantasy?



## JRV (Aug 25, 2009)

I was just hoping to get the opinions of other science fiction and fantasy fans about the vast amount of vampire fiction on the shelves these days. I feel like some of my favorite authors have had to be left out to make way for this relatively new trend.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 25, 2009)

I suppose it all depends on what you consider to be science fiction or fantasy. Richard Matheson's *I Am Legend* gives a plausible scientific basis for vampirism; while, on the other hand, many vampire tales have a tinge (at least) of fantasy in the "heroic fantasy" sense (Brian Lumley, for instance, has some of this in some of the Necroscope series; Les Daniels' Don Sebastian novels also have a tinge of that at times; Chelsea Quinn Yarbro and Suzy McKee Charnas have a definite sff take on the theme; George R. R. Martin, with his *Fevre Dream*; Colin Wilson's *Mind Parasites* -- sf again; Dan Simmons' psychic vampires in *Carrion Comfort* -- ditto; and so on)... not to mention the simple fact that the majority of them are fantastic tales.

If, on the other hand, you are restricting fantasy -- a terribly broad field, remember -- to only the "epic fantasy", pre-industrial world where magic works sort of thing, then few can quite fit into that, it's true....


----------



## JRV (Aug 25, 2009)

Valid point! I could be trying to impose my ideal of fantasy onto everyone else, but I just hate to see less and less of the authors I enjoy and more of the same cookie cutter vampire fiction. I hope that anyone who loves this genre can also find their favorite authors, but I wish the book stores would just make more room for these books instead of trying to squeeze them all onto three or four shelves. As to your suggestion that the vampire exists in many different fantasy novels, you are very right. In the C.S. Friedman series I just finished, the idea of one being living off the life energy of others is one of the main themes. This is true of quite a few of the novels I have read.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 25, 2009)

JRV said:


> I just hate to see less and less of the authors I enjoy and more of the same cookie cutter vampire fiction


 
"Aye, there's the rub", as some obscure playwright or other once put it....

I can easily sympathize, as I get more than a little tired of the imitations out there. As I've noted elsewhere (ad nauseam, I'm sure), it reminds me a bit too much of what went on with the Gothic novel, which was quite innovative in the beginning... until nearly every Tom, Dick, and Harry who could hold a pen thought they could write the things by copying the same tropes, incidents, and even passages... at which point, the whole thing collapsed into moronic unintentional self-parody and sheer bathos. Only some two centuries later are we finally really beginning to sort the wheat from the chaff on _that_ one; and I'd hate to see the same happen with either fantasy fiction, vampire fiction, or sf....


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 25, 2009)

I'd stake my life on the fact that vampires come under 'Horror'  and as such have no place in this forward thinking, uplifting, hope inspiring family friendly site. 

Cast out these demons. Bring the holy garlic water. Cross them off the site.


----------



## Vladd67 (Aug 25, 2009)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I'd stake my life on the fact that vampires come under 'Horror'  and as such have no place in this forward thinking, uplifting, hope inspiring family friendly site.
> 
> Cast out these demons. Bring the holy garlic water. Cross them off the site.



Make a guy feel welcome why don't you


----------



## mygoditsraining (Aug 25, 2009)

JRV said:


> this relatively new trend.



Actually there was a significant surge in literary vampires that predates even Bram stoker's classic (189- - looking through a bibliography, I have 1899, but Wikipedia states 1897); _Lord Ruthwen_ was published in 1819 (attributed to Byron but written by Dr Polidori, his companion and physician), and following the 1819 and 1820 translations into French by Faber and Pichot respectively, it ushered in a vogue for vampiric melodrama in the French and English literary and theatrical arenas.  A 'vaudeville folly' from the Parisian stage in 1820 included the comment;

Vampires! They come from England...there's another nice present those gentlemen have sent us!"


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 25, 2009)

Vladd67 said:


> Make a guy feel welcome why don't you


 
I expect TEIN didn't realise he was talking out loud. (It's maybe best if you take his words as idle reflections.)


Back on topic: while the word, vampire, will usually make people think what they're reading (seeing, hearing) is fantasy, this doesn't have to be so. If there are fantasy elements (e.g. transformations, invulnerability to certain weapons), it is fantasy. Where it is some sort of genetic condition (with the possibility of ad hoc "gene therapy" for further transmission) and the extra "powers" (if any) are merely realistic extensions of animal characteristics, then it could be SF, or even general fiction.


----------



## Vladd67 (Aug 25, 2009)

It's a sad reflection of the market these days that most vampire novels should be filed under teen romance or in the case of the later Anita Blake books soft porn. The creature of the night, a brutal ruthless hunter, has been reduced to a romantic fop, pouring out his angst to his teen followers.


----------



## Connavar (Aug 25, 2009)

I prefer to read vampire in horror fiction.  I Am Legend,Dracula type stories. 
Not in urban fantasy series or paranormal romance.

Just look for the type of vampire story you find your interest in.  You can read 1000s of quality Vampire stories without ever reading cookie cutter vampire as you called it.


----------



## Urien (Aug 25, 2009)

Supernatural horror is a sub-genre of fantasy. When vampires derive from some element of "magic" then it's fantasy. 

I am very tired of vampires; the teen 90210 vampire, he's like oh my god so totally sexy; the plethora of TV vampires... whatever mileage existed in the vampire sub-genre is been burned up awfully quickly.

I wish it would go away... or we can get back to the vampire as undead monster, as opposed to Lord Byron with a taste for blood.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 25, 2009)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I'd stake my life on the fact that vampires come under 'Horror'  and as such have no place in this forward thinking, uplifting, hope inspiring family friendly site.



Um, we do have a Horror section on this hope inspiring family friendly site.


----------



## Connavar (Aug 25, 2009)

Urien said:


> Supernatural horror is a sub-genre of fantasy. When vampires derive from some element of "magic" then it's fantasy.
> 
> I am very tired of vampires; the teen 90210 vampire, he's like oh my god so totally sexy; the plethora of TV vampires... whatever mileage existed in the vampire sub-genre is been burned up awfully quickly.
> 
> I wish it would go away... or we can get back to the vampire as undead monster, as opposed to Lord Byron with a taste for blood.



I dont care about subgenre here or there.  

Horror is a big field and i find some of types horror very interesting including vampire horror.

Not much interested in vampire in Harry Dresden type urban fantasy.  

People will eventually tire of teen vamps and their kind just avoid them.

They have a huge shelf in the bookstore these days but there is also a smaller shelf filled with rated vampire horror.  Those wont die out.


----------



## Rodders (Aug 25, 2009)

Although i would agree that initially it would be horror, the Vampire genre is very difficult to pin down over the recent years. I'd go as fare as to say that since Lestat came onto the scene it can be moved from horror, right the way through fantasy out the other end to romance.


----------



## JRV (Aug 25, 2009)

Thanks for giving me some more input on the subject, but I think I am still of the mind that vampire books should not be in the fantasy section! I am all for reading whatever you personally desire, but not at the expense of the fantasy reader. Bookstores already lump science fiction and fantasy together, hopefully just from a complete lack of understanding, so they should just put the vampire literature in with the horror and have done with it! No offense to any horror lovers out there!


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 25, 2009)

Rodders said:


> Although i would agree that initially it would be horror, the Vampire genre is very difficult to pin down over the recent years. I'd go as fare as to say that since Lestat came onto the scene it can be moved from horror, right the way through fantasy out the other end to romance.


 
Or comedy. Or children's literature:

Bunnicula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, Steve Gerber did this first, with his "Horrible Hellcow" story about Howard the Duck......


----------



## Urien (Aug 25, 2009)

A friend of a friend once said they had a Dr. Acula working on their oil rig in Nigeria. No doubt the good doctor was collecting blood samples for purely medical reasons.

Sadly my friend believed the tale until we all laughed at him. We were mean in those days.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 25, 2009)

Vladd67 said:


> Make a guy feel welcome why don't you


 

Ooops 

er.....


well....


Ah.... yes but....


Sorry


----------



## Rodders (Aug 26, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> Or comedy. Or children's literature:
> 
> Bunnicula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Of course, Steve Gerber did this first, with his "Horrible Hellcow" story about Howard the Duck......


 
LOL. Now you mention it, would Seseme Street's Count count

One answer. Ha ha ha.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 26, 2009)

Rodders said:


> LOL. Now you mention it, would Seseme Street's Count count
> 
> One answer. Ha ha ha.


 
*Tsk, tsk* You forgot to cue thunder and lightning....


----------



## thepaladin (Sep 3, 2009)

As noted by myself and others...horror is in general a sub-genre of fantasy so on the whole (other than I am Legend and the like) I would say vampire novels could be called fantasy.

Now for the "cute", "friendly", even "perky" vampires that are now littering the book stacks and shelves.....  GAG!

Please, let's keep "blood-suckers" in the "super-baddie" catigory. My rule of thumb, if it's undead...stake it. If I see one more parent seemingly aiming their kids at this drek I may convulse. When the child is old enough point him/her to Dracula.

 I'm a Harry Dresden fan, but the half brother bugs me. The one bright spot in that is that Butcher has structured the character as a type of Vampire who amounts to a possesed human and I suspect he may deal with it later (or not, of course...sigh) 

My own grown daughter is reading a couple of these "light romantic" type vampire novel series...I try to be open minded, but so far the best I can do is just...keep silent.  Help!


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 3, 2009)

No, I do NOT consider vampire fiction "fantasy". Not unless there's some kind of semblence of magic in there somewhere.


I don't know why they're considering horror as a sub-genre of fantasy. Personally, it's much more closely related to mystery/suspense, in my opinion. Besides, anything can be the subject of horror, including any number of real-world possibilities-don't slasher films show that?

No, I personally think that fantasy's last haven is magic. If people'll start considering "supernatural" as outright fantasy, well.....I don't know.


----------



## thepaladin (Sep 3, 2009)

I only take that stand because fantasy is by definition "fantasy" or "fanciful", "from the imagination. Thus imaginary creatures put stories in the fantasy realm...ghosts, vampires. werewolves, ghouls,..Cthulhu )) all clearly (I hope) imaginary. True there is a border cross over here...as in "Gothic" fiction. Thus I generally don't get too caught up in genres. I just read what I like.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 3, 2009)

Manarion, it sounds as if your definition of fantasy is a rather narrow, very contemporary one. Any look at a list of the classics of the field will reveal numerous exceptions to what you say above, yet these are the very books (and short stories) which defined the field.

There's also the question of "magic". What, to you, does the word signify? From my own understanding, "magic" can mean either a system devised to both invoke and control the supernatural, or simply that which is outside the rational, mechanistic laws of physics as we understand them. (Not to mention also signifying any adumbration of the supernal or numinous and its incursion into "reality".).... And in various works dealing with vampires, at least two of these -- and, in fact, quite arguably all three -- tend to apply....


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 3, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> Manarion, it sounds as if your definition of fantasy is a rather narrow, very contemporary one. Any look at a list of the classics of the field will reveal numerous exceptions to what you say above, yet these are the very books (and short stories) which defined the field.
> 
> There's also the question of "magic". What, to you, does the word signify? From my own understanding, "magic" can mean either a system devised to both invoke and control the supernatural, or simply that which is outside the rational, mechanistic laws of physics as we understand them. (Not to mention also signifying any adumbration of the supernal or numinous and its incursion into "reality".).... And in various works dealing with vampires, at least two of these -- and, in fact, quite arguably all three -- tend to apply....


 

"Magic" as is to be used in novels, I define as using the power and brain waves of one's mind to change, control, or disrupt one's environment, electrical charges, or another person/creature's own mind waves and thoughts, or to change natural patterns across the world and universe, i.e., summoning a fireball from the heavens by forcing a small meteor down, or to change jetstreams in the air and seas to summon a hurricane-force wind or tsunami, or what have you.

I don't necessarily consider alchemy as a branch of magic-that is really nothing more than chemistry and genetic engineering, with perhaps some molecular disruption.

It's not that magic necessarily is NEEDED to define fantasy-but, say a so-called novel listed as "fantasy" by author or publisher takes place in the future sometime, without magic, then what's to separate it from science fiction?

Perhaps post-apocalyptic stories can take an exception to this, but beyond that, I simply don't think so.


----------



## thepaladin (Sep 4, 2009)

There are literaly dozens of "magic systems" dreamed up by different writers. I don't want to end up at odds, but you're definition of fantasy seems to be rather personal. That's cool, we each have our own list of what books fit where...but it does seem rather narrow. 

This only one of several definitions for fantasy. It's a very wide genre and a lot fits into it. Thene there are sub-genres, High fantasy, low fantasy, sword and sorcery, and so on...even some alternate history, then there is urban fantasy... 

But if it's important to you, don't worry about it, just enjoy your reads. 


*fan⋅ta⋅sy*  /ˈfæn
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





tə
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




si, -zi/ 

 Show Spelled Pronunciation [*fan*-t_uh_-see, -zee] 

 Show IPA *noun, plural -sies,* *verb, -sied, -sy⋅ing.*

*9.Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror. 
*


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 4, 2009)

Indeed, just the single reference of Wikipedia lists a number of such different subgenres:

List of fantasy subgenres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other sites sometimes disagree, sometimes agree; some have more subdivisions, others less. But fantasy, as defined by both the writers and the critics of the field, is an enormously broad and complex field... and, yes, for many years, sf was considered a subdivision of fantasy. (It still is, in some circles, and that's without even getting into the surprisingly thorny problem of "science fantasy", such as Ballard, Moorcock, Mieville, and the like, have written).

It does sound like a very personal (and, if you'll forgive me, rather narrow) view of what constitutes fantasy, and would certainly leave out some of the greatest works in the genre, such as Peake's Gormenghast books, a great deal of Lord Dunsany, Eddison's Zimiamvian books, James Branch Cabell's delightfully witty and satirical Poictesme novels (and the related books of his _Biography of the Life of Manuel_); Lindsay's *A Voyage to Arcturus*, Beagle's wonderful *A Fine and Private Place*, etc., etc., etc.... not to mention the work of such as Ray Bradbury (who, remember, insists he is a fantasy writer, not a writer of science fiction), Harlan Ellison, Rod Serling, Richard Matheson, Charles Beaumont....

The reason I bring this up is that I see that definition acting as a sort of tunnel-vision which has the potential, at least, to prevent you from picking up a lot of things which you might well enjoy immensely. And yes, some of the various vampire tales out there (though I'm not sure about the current ones in this instance) would most definitely fall into that class....


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 4, 2009)

Oh, I'm not knocking any particular book or series, and indeed, there's been books NOT listed as "fantasy" that I've picked up and enjoyed-much of Dean Koontz coming to mind.

But...I just DO have a personal definition of what literative fantasy constitutes, and it may sound narrow, but I think it encompasses some of the furthest reaches of the human imagination while being the least like the modern world.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Sep 4, 2009)

Manarion said:


> but I think it encompasses some of the furthest reaches of the human imagination while being the least like the modern world.



Ah, that word "some."  Essentially, you are saying "these particular far reaches of the human imagination are fantasy, but let's ignore all of the other far reaches of the imagination."

I think this does both fantasy and the human imagination a disservice.  The human imagination reaches much, much further than you seem to think.

And even that definition of magic you give is far, far from the totality of what people have thought and believed and done concerning magic -- not just throughout the ages, but in the particular sort of setting you prefer.  Honestly, your definition of magic sounds more like some sort of esper power out of science fiction, than anything that people in a pre-industrial society would recognize as magic or ... well, anything else.  It would be completely foreign to the way any pre-industrial society ever thought.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 4, 2009)

Well, I didn't really mean it that way.

Yes, fantasy can expand beyond swords and crossbows, but I still have a difficult time deciphering it from science fiction, mystery, suspense, thriller, or horror if there's no outstanding element to it that those other genres lack, and I certainly don't consider general fiction to be fantasy. I mean, I don't think I'd consider Steinback or Flannery O'Conner as fantasy.

But....though I suppose I'd reluctantly fall upon this decision, I suppose I could consider Barker to be fantasy, beyond Weaveworld, even though stories like the Hellraiser series would be listed as horror.


----------

