Your Take on Vampires

Winter Lord

Trickster in Training
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
174
(If this is in the wrong place, please move it.)

To the other authors who write horror, dark/urban fantasy: What is your take on vampires?
 
I was running a story through my head for a while of a colony of Scottish vampires enslaving or assasinating key political figures to obtain scottish independance but it lacked credibility.
 
To the other authors who write horror, dark/urban fantasy: What is your take on vampires?

Well, I don't write horror or dark/urban fantasy, but I've had a couple of ideas for Vampires:

---

On a world called Aluirian, there used to be vampires here, there and everywhere. And, of course, there were vampire hunters, one of whom was also a very strong mage. Now he more or less rounded the vampires up, and herded them into the Junip Mountains on the continent of South Monterassat. Here, using some kind of spell, he turned them all into trees. Of course, this is just legend, more likely than not derived from the fact that the trees native to the Junip Mountains seem to grow distorted, and not very high, and are also called Vempier trees.

Which brings me on to the second idea. Not as vampirey as true vampires, but still vampirish.

The second idea is a group of 'super-beings', created using Dark Arts. Now these 'super-beings' are exceptionally strong, more or less invulnerable, and have retractable blades in their hands and feet. They're also very magical (creation: dead body, organs and soft tissue removed, body undergoes surgery to add blades and whatnot, seven magical gems* placed in key positions in the body, and seven dark mages then pour magic into the gems. There's also a sacrifice of a mage, the soul of whom ends up in the body of the 'super-being'). The key part of the creation ritual, is that the dead body is lain on a table made from Vempier wood, and stays on that table until the ritual is complete. As a result, the 'super-beings' were given the name Vempier, and, for some magical reason, can only be killed by wood from the Vempier tree (coming into contact with Vempier wood weakens the 'super-being' a lot, and drains their magic. A stake of Vempier wood can also shatter the key gem placed in the heart position, and kill the Vempier).

The vampirey thing about Vempier, is that once they have killed something, man or beast, they drain the blood of their victim (they don't actually latch on to the neck, though - that's very inefficient. As they're magical beings, they just use magic to force all the blood through the pores of the skin. It then hits the Vempier as a red mist, which seeps through the pores of their skin).

*On the subject of the seven magical gems, just a little aside on their importance - each mage, at the end of their training, must journey to a group of islands somewhere on the world of Aluirian. On the island they must travel to the extinct volcano and perform a ritual. At the end of the ritual, seven gems become linked to them - it's these seven gems that they get their power from, and that decide whether they are, in a few words, good or bad.

The seven gems used in creating a Vempier are the seven from the mage that has been sacrificed. Of course, any seven can be used, as long as they're magical (could be one from seven different mages), but for best results, the seven gems should be from the mage that is sacrificed as the mage's soul is linked to the gems. It just makes it that little bit easier for the seven doing the ritual, and it means that the Vempier is stronger magically.

---

And that's my take on Vampires.
 
I was running a story through my head for a while of a colony of Scottish vampires enslaving or assasinating key political figures to obtain scottish independance but it lacked credibility.

Thats actually a cool idea and i would read it easy.

Never thought about vamps fighting for scottish independance ;)
 
What is your take on vampires?

I'm a little confused. What do you mean by take? Do you want to know about the different vamps people write about? Or do you mean what do we think about vamps in general in novels? Or how we approach the writing process when it comes to creating vamp characters?

This is a very interesting question. May I also ask why you asked it? :)
 
I think vampires are on their way to becoming as overdone as elves.

I don't think I've read a decent vampire novel since Friedman's The Madness Season, personally, and that was far from typical of the breed.
 
I'm a little confused. What do you mean by take? Do you want to know about the different vamps people write about? Or do you mean what do we think about vamps in general in novels? Or how we approach the writing process when it comes to creating vamp characters?

This is a very interesting question. May I also ask why you asked it? :)

I guess I mean spin, and a bit of everything you mention. A question like this was asked on another forum I post to.
 
I'm not a fan of vampires in fiction (or real life, at that). I think they're getting a bit overused. I'd just say that if you take a traditional idea like vampires/ghosts/dwarves/elves/warlocks/whatever you should try to put your own twist on it, breaking it a little (or a lot) out of the mould. Even the most clichéd archetypes can be revamped (behold the punmaster) with a little creativity.
 
In the only vampire story I ever wrote, my vamps were a bit different. For 1 thing, the story took place during Napolean's Wars, and at this point most vampires were aristrocrats (especially in Italy). They did not turn into bats, were not scared by light, garlic, crosses, etc. However, they did possess superhuman strength, speed and agility, a weakness to fire, as well as suck blood and have pointed canines. They could only weild blades, except during their 'molting' season. During this time, they shed skin, resulting in bleeding over their entire body. It is during their bleeding that they suck blood, in order to replenish the amount they've lost. Additionally, this bleeding causes them to to lose all other vampiristic characteristics, rendering them human-like for about two weeks.
This story also includes werewolves, shaman, and golems. Original 'take' on vampires?
 
In the only vampire story I ever wrote, my vamps were a bit different. For 1 thing, the story took place during Napolean's Wars, and at this point most vampires were aristrocrats (especially in Italy). They did not turn into bats, were not scared by light, garlic, crosses, etc. However, they did possess superhuman strength, speed and agility, a weakness to fire, as well as suck blood and have pointed canines. They could only weild blades, except during their 'molting' season. During this time, they shed skin, resulting in bleeding over their entire body. It is during their bleeding that they suck blood, in order to replenish the amount they've lost. Additionally, this bleeding causes them to to lose all other vampiristic characteristics, rendering them human-like for about two weeks.
This story also includes werewolves, shaman, and golems. Original 'take' on vampires?

Yes it is.

My take is that they are an accident from the age before the current one. The same experiment that give humanity the potential to breed thaumaturges(mages and such) also gave rise to the theiroanthops(werefolk). Sunlight doesn't hurt them, usually; holy symbols only work with faith, or if they are magicial talismans; They are stong, fast, and tough. The blood drinking allows them to balance mystical energies in their bodies, because if they don't, their bodies will go start to break down, and if this balance is stripped, sunlight will cause them to burst into flame. They can eat, but they have to eat about twice the amount of a normal person.
 
Vampires are just cool. Since I was little, I've always had a fascination with vampires. They are becoming far to overpopularized. I tend to like the old school vampire as a demon/monster rather than the new school vampire as a corporation/coalition.

I think it defaces the very beginnings of vampirism to make them into some creatures with wholly mundane aspirations (taking over the world, getting more money, ect, ect).

Personally, I like the originating romanian ideas of vampires (demonic, evil, torturers, defilers of innocence) than the idea that vampires are super mutated humans.

I think the modernization of vampires, while still making cool comics/flicks like Blade, is just a sad misrepresentation of what a vampire should be. I think Anne Rice is the only modern writer who has made vampires modern without making them seem---watery.

In a recent episode of Supernatural (yes, I know that show is kind of dumb, but I like it for the car and the hottie older brother!) the boys found a nest of vampires that fed only on cows blood so that they wouldn't be hunted by hunters like the boys. That's just kind of sad, IMO. Its like saying our technology and modernization is so powerful that anything utterly arcane, demonic, angelic, or magical simply has no place. We remove the power and impact of the old traditions and stories by making them modernized ghosts of what they used to be.
 
Or going back even further, as the origins of the beast go back as far as mythology itself (though not under that name, which is -- most likely, anyway -- a corruption of a word from the region).

There are other unique takes on the vampire, such as the one in Lovecraft's "The Shunned House", which nonetheless stays true to the origins, as it is a being which feeds of the life force (breath, blood, energy) of the house's inhabitants.

My main problem with vampires is that they are becoming mundane, and that any based on the traditional version are difficult to make convincingly eerie or fresh; and to simply repeat what has been done before seems a waste of time to me, artistically speaking. As Hemingway (if I remember correctly) put it (a rather apt comment, giving the phrasing, I think): "In order to be a successful writer, one either has to come up with something entirely new, or beat dead men at their own game".
 
Classic Vampires

1: Why drink blood?
Something about it is necessary for survival. What does blood do in a non-Vampire? Could it be that the vampire, being dead and having nothing but coagulated blood in its veins, needs a fresh supply every now and then just to keep moving?

2: Casting reflections.
Silver is an evil repellant. Mirrors were made using silver before alternatives were discovered (hence the bad luck myth about breaking one - they were damned expensive). Perhaps the silver in the mirror rejects images of evil as well.

3: Religious icongraphy repels Vampires.
A creature that once had a soul, now lost to evil, may be disturbed by images from its original religious beliefs, but I wonder if it burns them to the touch.

4: Sunlight kills Vampires.
What is in sunlight that could do this? UV rays, which can cause skin cancers in humans, may distort the cell structure of a Vampire's skin and cause eternal irritation, but I don't think it would make one burst into flames. Perhaps they are merely sensitive to bright light.

5: Vampires are unable to cross running water.
Bogus, surely. Arises from Christian baptism ceremonies.

6: Vampires cannot cross your threshold unless invited first.
The ultimate proof that Vampires, in the classic sense, simply do not exist. This is so obviously a folk warning, along the lines of our modern 'don't talk to strangers', that is makes you wonder about the origins of all the other warnings and protections. It goes with ...

7: Garlic wards of Vampires.
... which is just another way to make children eat things that are good for them.

8: Vampires are super strong.
Of course they are, otherwise the warnings would be pointless and unnecessary. The Bogey Man is hardly likely to be a seven stone weakling.

And finally (for now)

9: Vampires are evil.
If there are people who truly need blood to survive, there should be a facility to allow them to do this without killing people.

If there are people who have lost their souls, our religious leaders should be helping them to regain paradise, not condemning them to perdition.

If there are people who burst into flames in the light of day, we should give them sun screen (factor 99).

My take is that Stoker is wrong and so is everyone who followed his lead. Vampires come from folk tales, warnings and the confused misidentification of, sometimes unrelated, real events.

Real Vampires, particularly the evil ones, haven't been properly identified - yet.

This is loose, but it's my starting point for the story I've got on a back-burner about lost souls.
 
I love a good vampire story, but as JD and others have said they are becoming a little mundane, the good writer has a talent to make an old story new (so to speak) I think Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian deals not so much with the vampire lore but Vlad the Impailer, who was accused of being a vanpire, its a new take on the old idea.
For anyone who has read Fevre Dream by the Goerge R R Martin his theory was that vampires have been around for all time and that they were the other people when Cain slew Able and went forth into exile he married a woman from the house of Nod. Nod was the land of light and darkness. Darkness was assumed to be people of a dark color but George changes this is his own descriptive and highly believable way to be the people of the dark (as vampires are said to be) I love this book, it just gives the old vampire tales a bit of a twist.
Still waiting on my copy of Vampyrrhic (for those following this story, yes its still coming) Simon Clark and this is supposed to be a very good vampire novel.
Are they real? Well who knows.
 
As you can guess I quite like a good Vampire story, mind you I rather enjoyed the odd bad one too. I thought the Anita Blake books started off ok with the idea that the Undead were granted human rights, it's a pity they decended into soft porn novels. It irritates me slightly that people forget Dracula could go out in the daylight. I guess when it comes to vampires I'm a traditionalist of the "Don't go up to the castle" school.
 
Plausible Vampires

With apologies to 'Interference', you can do 'Plausible Vampires' without recourse to Magic(TM)...

Exasperated by Hollywood's 'Transmogriflying' variety, I began discarding the fantastic attributes, got down to a whiff of hypnotic Glamour.

Stage hypnotists do it, sale-closers and con-men have it in spades, legendary ninjas may have trained the knack, susceptibility varies...

Oh, yes, and HomoVamps gotta have *severe* Porphyria.

Everything else followed...

Would it be inappropriate to post my ~1800 words 'Bete Noir' inline here ??
 
Okay, 'Bete Noir' is over in the Critiques area.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top