Vampires

Seil · 02-05-2008, 11:11 PM

Continued from the Dr. McNinja topic, I wanna state that I do not believe that vampires are mindless, bloodsucking fiends. Heck - even Dracula, acclaimed as the original vampire, was credited with many deeds of intelligence and sophistication.

I do not believe Vampires to be Anne Rice creations, but I do believe that Rice has depicted a reputable image of Vampires. Some may consider them whiney, others may consider them emo, but they are what they are: humans who have been given supernatural gifts. I think that Rice's version of Vampires has been the closest to date... though what real way do we have to tell?

(Feel free to counter-argument this)

CABAL49 · 02-05-2008, 11:14 PM

Check out Lands of the Wicked ~ The Second Campaign later on this week to see how I feel about vampires.

Arhra · 02-06-2008, 12:11 AM

I believe vampires to be bloodsucking perambulatory corpses.

Seriously, it's a walking corpse.

One of the reasons I think 'good' vampires are funny.

Mad Jack the Pirate · 02-06-2008, 12:20 AM

Rician vampires are a bunch of pussies. the original, Bram Stoker Dracula was an Evil Motherfucker on par with Kain and Alucard, not all this whiny "woe is me, I am immortal" lestat bollocks.

Authentic Vampires of fiction are not humans given gifts, they are inhuman, lovecraftian monstrosities that use a corpse and ravaged soul as a vessel for their gallavanting on the mortal plane.

Edit: yeah, i suppose kain and alucard aren't really good examples, they both have this whole wangst thing going on.

Toastburner B · 02-06-2008, 12:50 AM

What Mad Jack said.

I remember a few years back, during Halloween time, I watched a documentary about Dracula phenomenon. They talked to a "vampire" (i.e.: some Goth dude who drank little blood every so often to show how vampy he was), who basically said something along the lines of "Dracula is just misunderstood."

...Did this guy even read the book?

I mean, Dracula not only kidnaps a child to feed to his brides, when the grieving mother comes looking for the child, he sics a pack of wolves on her! At which part did "evil incarnate" turn into "misunderstood"?

Now...its been awhile since I read Interview with a Vampire...but I recall being very disappointed in it. That said, Dracula is one of my favorite books, and I try to read it each year around Halloween.

I believe, for the most part, vampires should kept in the role as villain, or at best, anti-hero (such as Kain or Alucard from Hellsing). That said, when properly done, a vampire could make an excellent tragic hero...but I've found that to done "properly done" rather rarely. Certainly not in Interview With a Vampire, as I recall.

Seil · 02-06-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

I remember a few years back, during Halloween time, I watched a documentary about Dracula phenomenon. They talked to a "vampire" (i.e.: some Goth dude who drank little blood every so often to show how vampy he was), who basically said something along the lines of "Dracula is just misunderstood."

(>>) I'm talking about Vampires used in fiction... not goth people who drink blood. (-blink-) Cre-e-e-e-epy!

Now, I don't view Vampires as Zombies going after blood - Zombies are a different story. Vampires are humans who are dead - their hearts no longer beat - but they drink blood in order for it to go throughout their body. Picture it as something that Elizabeth Bathory would do.

Krylo · 02-06-2008, 01:44 AM

There's way too many types of vampirism in various mythologies and new age fiction to really say that 'vampires are humans with gifts' or 'vampires are bloodsucking monsters'.

Some vampires are undead.

Some vampires aren't dead at all, just diseased.

Some vampires are hideous.

Some vampires are beautiful.

So on and so forth.

There is one common thread amongst all vampires, though--they are all intelligent and self-aware predators who were once fully human. Most even remember their human lives (though not all).

Given that it's not a far stretch to assume that some vampires would feel pretty angsty about the whole killing other humans to survive thing. It's also not hard to see where some vampires would enjoy their gifts and power, even at the cost of murder. It's even less hard to imagine some vampires enjoying the murder along with their gifts.

POS Industries · 02-06-2008, 01:46 AM

Vampires are only interesting to me when they are written by Joss Whedon. That is all.

Seil · 02-06-2008, 01:58 AM

Now that that is settled, let's move onto Zombies. I believe that both the fast moving zombies in Dawn of the Dead and the zombies in Night of the Living Dead are both, in fact, plausible.

As a recently deceased zombie - someone who still has their muscle tissue and their brain intact, without and crippling injuries - the DOTD zombies could very well work. They have the desire to move in order to eat, they have a brain to send the signals throughout the body, they have the muscles to carry themselves to where they want to go.

The NOTLD Zombies are rotting corpses, and as such aren't capable of moving quickly because they lack the majority of factors described above.

Funka Genocide · 02-06-2008, 03:11 AM

I love Anne Rice novels.

Honestly, you take a characterization which happens to have more dimensions than fuck and kill and suddenly you're emo. News flash people, that's not exactly a catch all term. Emo didn't even exist as the mass media phenomenon it is today when rice wrote those novels.

Being sentient beings born through a process of dehumanization, forced to become cannibalistic monstrosities and cursed with the reality of an eternity as such, anyone would be at least a bit miffed unless they were completely batshit insane.

The vampire as a symbol represents the fall of humanity, it is an innately tragic figure. It is pitiable despite it's prowess and seeming invulnerability. Through the mechanisms of detachment and isolation what was once a human consciousness becomes an entirely predatory and inhuman, despite maintaining the very basis of sentience; intellect.

Besides, what use is there in just another monster archetype? So there's a reanimated corpse that drinks the blood of the living, sure it's scary, but entertainment isn't all about cheap thrills.

02-05-2008, 11:11 PM	#1
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	Mythical Creatures, And Their Ability To Exist Continued from the Dr. McNinja topic, I wanna state that I do not believe that vampires are mindless, bloodsucking fiends. Heck - even Dracula, acclaimed as the original vampire, was credited with many deeds of intelligence and sophistication. I do not believe Vampires to be Anne Rice creations, but I do believe that Rice has depicted a reputable image of Vampires. Some may consider them whiney, others may consider them emo, but they are what they are: humans who have been given supernatural gifts. I think that Rice's version of Vampires has been the closest to date... though what real way do we have to tell? (Feel free to counter-argument this) Last edited by Seil; 02-05-2008 at 11:20 PM.

02-06-2008, 12:11 AM	#3
Arhra Ara ara! Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Neo Venezia Posts: 5,013	I believe vampires to be bloodsucking perambulatory corpses. Seriously, it's a walking corpse. One of the reasons I think 'good' vampires are funny. __________________ This post is a good source of Ara ara, ufufu.* *These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This post is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

02-06-2008, 12:20 AM	#4
Mad Jack the Pirate Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 525	Rician vampires are a bunch of pussies. the original, Bram Stoker Dracula was an Evil Motherfucker on par with Kain and Alucard, not all this whiny "woe is me, I am immortal" lestat bollocks. Authentic Vampires of fiction are not humans given gifts, they are inhuman, lovecraftian monstrosities that use a corpse and ravaged soul as a vessel for their gallavanting on the mortal plane. Edit: yeah, i suppose kain and alucard aren't really good examples, they both have this whole wangst thing going on. Last edited by Mad Jack the Pirate; 02-06-2008 at 12:26 AM.

02-06-2008, 12:50 AM	#5
Toastburner B Toasty has left the building Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Hiding...because I don't want to die. Posts: 3,936	What Mad Jack said. I remember a few years back, during Halloween time, I watched a documentary about Dracula phenomenon. They talked to a "vampire" (i.e.: some Goth dude who drank little blood every so often to show how vampy he was), who basically said something along the lines of "Dracula is just misunderstood." ...Did this guy even read the book? I mean, Dracula not only kidnaps a child to feed to his brides, when the grieving mother comes looking for the child, he sics a pack of wolves on her! At which part did "evil incarnate" turn into "misunderstood"? Now...its been awhile since I read Interview with a Vampire...but I recall being very disappointed in it. That said, Dracula is one of my favorite books, and I try to read it each year around Halloween. I believe, for the most part, vampires should kept in the role as villain, or at best, anti-hero (such as Kain or Alucard from Hellsing). That said, when properly done, a vampire could make an excellent tragic hero...but I've found that to done "properly done" rather rarely. Certainly not in Interview With a Vampire, as I recall. __________________ I came, I saw, I got team-killed. A lot.

02-06-2008, 01:44 AM	#7
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	There's way too many types of vampirism in various mythologies and new age fiction to really say that 'vampires are humans with gifts' or 'vampires are bloodsucking monsters'. Some vampires are undead. Some vampires aren't dead at all, just diseased. Some vampires are hideous. Some vampires are beautiful. So on and so forth. There is one common thread amongst all vampires, though--they are all intelligent and self-aware predators who were once fully human. Most even remember their human lives (though not all). Given that it's not a far stretch to assume that some vampires would feel pretty angsty about the whole killing other humans to survive thing. It's also not hard to see where some vampires would enjoy their gifts and power, even at the cost of murder. It's even less hard to imagine some vampires enjoying the murder along with their gifts. __________________ I am very tired.

02-05-2008, 11:14 PM	#2
CABAL49 Not bad. Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Senatus Populusque Americanus Posts: 1,584	Check out Lands of the Wicked ~ The Second Campaign later on this week to see how I feel about vampires.

02-06-2008, 01:46 AM	#8
POS Industries Argus Agony Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Gotta go fishing! Posts: 10,483	Vampires are only interesting to me when they are written by Joss Whedon. That is all. __________________ Either you're dead or my watch has stopped.

02-06-2008, 01:58 AM	#9
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	Now that that is settled, let's move onto Zombies. I believe that both the fast moving zombies in Dawn of the Dead and the zombies in Night of the Living Dead are both, in fact, plausible. As a recently deceased zombie - someone who still has their muscle tissue and their brain intact, without and crippling injuries - the DOTD zombies could very well work. They have the desire to move in order to eat, they have a brain to send the signals throughout the body, they have the muscles to carry themselves to where they want to go. The NOTLD Zombies are rotting corpses, and as such aren't capable of moving quickly because they lack the majority of factors described above.

02-06-2008, 03:11 AM	#10
Funka Genocide Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,566	I love Anne Rice novels. Honestly, you take a characterization which happens to have more dimensions than fuck and kill and suddenly you're emo. News flash people, that's not exactly a catch all term. Emo didn't even exist as the mass media phenomenon it is today when rice wrote those novels. Being sentient beings born through a process of dehumanization, forced to become cannibalistic monstrosities and cursed with the reality of an eternity as such, anyone would be at least a bit miffed unless they were completely batshit insane. The vampire as a symbol represents the fall of humanity, it is an innately tragic figure. It is pitiable despite it's prowess and seeming invulnerability. Through the mechanisms of detachment and isolation what was once a human consciousness becomes an entirely predatory and inhuman, despite maintaining the very basis of sentience; intellect. Besides, what use is there in just another monster archetype? So there's a reanimated corpse that drinks the blood of the living, sure it's scary, but entertainment isn't all about cheap thrills.