Monstrous Vampires vs. Sexy Vampires

[paulgoatallen]

What caused the shift from the bloodthirsty, unattractive Dracula to Anne Rice’s sexy Lestat (or Buffy’s Spike and Angel)? And what’s the ongoing fascination with vampires?

I've got some pretty intense opinions about these questions but I'll wait until a few of you share your views before I share mine!
Paul

[klavim]

...Uh... the 60's?
Anne Rice was in San Francisco when she came up with her stories.

[PatienceP]

Vampirism was always symbolic of sexual intimacy of some sort; it was how certain ideas about intimacy could be discussed in a society where writing about actual sexual behavior was taboo. It's just that Stoker considered the behavior that equates to vampirism outright monstrous.
We already know vampires don't have to be ugly. The female vampires in Dracula aren't.
At least some of the shift in how vampires are seen comes from these things:
1. It is suspected that vampires have to take in nutrients like anyone else.
2. It is clear that people who get turned into vampires don't always have a choice about it. Think of Mina trying to help everyone kill Dracula while she bore that burn from that communion wafer because killing Dracula was the only way she could avoid being an outright vampire.
3. If they don't choose to be vampires, and if self-preservation requires blood-sucking, then it might seem unfair to assume that all vampires are outright evil.

[LordRuthven]

There was a sexual element in "Dracula," but it was not a romantic one (unless you count the romance between Jonathan and Mina Harker). Stoker hit upon something that a lot of writers miss - balance is good. I like vampires that hit an uneasy mix of the seductive and the horrific, and Dracula is a good example. I've always seen the vampire's skill of seduction as being, as I like to put it, "one more tool in the predator's arsenel." Yes, they can be "sexy," but it is part of the hunt...the hunt for victims (not "the love of a good woman"). When vampires are just made "sexy," without the danger, they are castrated.

And I don't mean "danger" as in "bad boy" danger. That's as dangerous as a hair metal band - all surface. I mean, danger as in "this thing could flip out and kill somebody." Even with Anne Rice's vampires, there was the knowledge that you might not survive even the most peaceful encounter with her creations.

Yeah, yeah, there are some cool "good guy" vampires out there - Count St. Germain, Saberhagen's Dracula, Henry Fitzroy, Jack Fleming, Nick Knight - but when these characters came out, they were in the minority and they were fresh. Now, more and more vampires are depicted as morally ambivalent, and I feel a major point of the archetype is being ignored. I prefer the heroic vampires who not only fight against external threats, but internal ones as well.

We are long overdue for some genuinely memorable, scary vampires.

Message Edited by LordRuthven on 10-03-2007 10:49 PM

[klavim]

---

LordRuthven wrote:
There was a sexual element in "Dracula," but it was not a romantic one (unless you count the romance between Jonathan and Mina Harker). Stoker hit upon something that a lot of writers miss - balance is good. I like vampires that hit an uneasy mix of the seductive and the horrific, and Dracula is a good example. I've always seen the vampire's skill of seduction as being, as I like to put it, "one more tool in the predator's arsenel." Yes, they can be "sexy," but it is part of the hunt...the hunt for victims (not "the love of a good woman"). When vampires are just made "sexy," without the danger, they are castrated.

And I don't mean "danger" as in "bad boy" danger. That's as dangerous as a hair metal band - all surface. I mean, danger as in "this thing could flip out and kill somebody." Even with Anne Rice's vampires, there was the knowledge that you might not survive even the most peaceful encounter with her creations.

Yeah, yeah, there are some cool "good guy" vampires out there - Count St. Germain, Saberhagen's Dracula, Henry Fitzroy, Jack Fleming, Nick Knight - but when these characters came out, they were in the minority and they were fresh. Now, more and more vampires are depicted as morally ambivalent, and I feel a major point of the archetype is being ignored. I prefer the heroic vampires who not only fight against external threats, but internal ones as well.

We are long overdue for some genuinely memorable, scary vampires.

Message Edited by LordRuthven on 10-03-2007 10:49 PM

---

I like what you wrote about the vampire's skill of seduction as being "one more tool in the predator's arsenal". Vampire's are predators, and we are their prey. Their seduction often is used in a game of cat and mouse. The main difference between a vampire and a regular predator is that, at one point, vampires used to be human. They used to be the prey.

[dhaupt]

I read several series that involve Vampires although I have never read Anne Rice. Since I'm from near St. Louis I read Laurell Hamilton's series feturing Anita Blake, in her series the vampires are indeed sexy and I enjoy that and read it for strickly entertainment. Another series I read is by Christine Feehan her "Dark" series that involve people from the Carpathian Mountains who hunt vampires, her I also read for entertainment. Bram Stoker's Dracula is another way to view vampires. I actually read Stoker's Dracula to inform me about the "real" story on vampires because I wanted to read "The Historian" by Elizabeth Kostova written in 2005. I Loved that book and would recomend it to any one who enjoys this genre of writing. Be prepared though because it's a long novel.
So to answer the question posed I like both and depends if I'm in the mood for literary fiction "scary" or just a good old read with a favorite sexy vampire writer.

[Curt42]

There has been an evolution of vampires. In the book, Dracula is a big powerful man. When the play was first done on Broadway, Bela Lugosi was Dracula. Lugosi, instead of being a big brute of a monster, played it with a suave style. Lugosi went on to play it in the movies and became the most recognizable vampire. Later Frank Langella would do the part on Broadway and then reprise it in the movies. He took the suave sexy eroticism one step farther. Buffy started off as a one-shot campy movies, but then moved to TV and became her own legend.

[paulgoatallen]

Great posts all – I think the bottom line is that there has not only been an evolution of the vampire mythos but a broad redefining of it as well. Like Derek said in an earlier post, there are so many novels and series out there with so many different kinds of vampires, I think Stoker's Dracula wasn't so much a model as a concept, if that makes any sense. So many authors have taken the idea and reconstructed it in so many different genres other than horror. I think it's kind of cool that they are monstrous vampires and sexy vampires and everything in between.
Paul

[LordRuthven]

I think there needs to be more scary vampires, and less sexy ones. Vampires are now too closely aligned with the romance genre, which I resent as a longtime vampire fan. The latest thing to set me off is a review over on a rival bookselling site (we all can guess which one) where the reviewer wrote a negative review for Nancy Baker's superlative "The Night Inside" because it is not a paranormal romance. Well who the #*$^# said it was supposed to be one?!? That's what is wrong with things right now, people now assume that a vampire novel is supposed to be romance and that ticks me off. Here's to hoping that the "30 Days of Night" movie gets things moving back in the right direction.

Message Edited by LordRuthven on 10-09-2007 08:49 PM

[paulgoatallen]

Derek:
We have no control over the taste – or lack thereof – of others and that's the reason why I love these forums because when you talk to dozens of diverse readers from all over the world, you find out pretty quickly what books are good and which ones are stinkers. In the Paranormal forum, for instance, I've learned about so many fantastic books and authors from others – you included – who read just as much as I do. And I've also learned about not-so-good books (and not-so-nice authors!) so it's been a wonderfully enlightening experience.

I would try to take reviews that differ from your own with a grain of salt. I know it's hard sometimes but, hey, that's the beauty of a democracy!
Paul

Message Edited by paulgoatallen on 10-18-2007 10:17 PM

[LordRuthven]

My complaint wasn't that someone dissed a book that I enjoyed - opinions are opinions. My complaint is that the romance genre has taken over vampires so completely that people now just automatically assume that a vampire book is a romance novel -- even when it is not.

I do agree with the greatness of B&N adding these forums, though. I can blast my opinions to a world that doesn't bother to read my blog

Message Edited by LordRuthven on 10-09-2007 11:11 PM

[LordRuthven]

Somewhat relatedly, so far (50 pages in) the novelization for "30 Days of Night" is pretty good. I usually avoid novelizations because they are pointless, but this one got my attention since it was written by Tim Lebbon. I've never read Lebbon's work before, but I know he is a respected horror writer. The book reads like a novel, and not a novelization of a screenplay based on a graphic novel.

[paulgoatallen]

Derek:
Hey, definitely let me know what you think of Tim Lebbon. I've seen a lot of his work but have never had the opportunity to read any of it. He has released a ton of paperbacks through Dorchester Pub – if you give his novelization high ratings, I'll make it a point to review his next...
Paul





http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=tim+lebbon&z=y

[LordRuthven]

So far I am very impressed with the novelization, and I'll post my final thoughts in a day or two. But so far it stands up as a solid novel in its own right.

On the topic of tie-in novels, Greg Cox's "Underworld" novels were shockingly good. I think that the first one was even better than the movie.

[stewiey]

---

paulgoatallen wrote:
What caused the shift from the bloodthirsty, unattractive Dracula to Anne Rice’s sexy Lestat (or Buffy’s Spike and Angel)? And what’s the ongoing fascination with vampires?

I've got some pretty intense opinions about these questions but I'll wait until a few of you share your views before I share mine!
Paul

---

Lestat was Ann rices hubby. Vampires power is sexual.
Lestat was handsome when bitten so he stays that way.
Ater her hubby died she said she would not write anymore vampire books.

[PatienceP]

---

stewiey wrote:

---

Lestat was Ann rices hubby. Vampires power is sexual.
Lestat was handsome when bitten so he stays that way.
Ater her hubby died she said she would not write anymore vampire books.

---

You have me wondering who hammered the stake into Anne Rice's hubby.
(Kidding... Poor fella.)

[chad]

I think Dracula is also about love, and I didn't think Dracula could be that evil if he "had once loved in the past", as his vampire mistresses claim in the beginning of the novel. I think the recent version, Coppola's version, also depicts a more well-rounded Dracula who attempts to consummate a "love" lost.

Stoker does raise some issues about love in general. Is love something that endures or can we fall out of love or love several people. Has modern society made it a "duty" to love one another in various forms? Can love be a duty? Is it something metaphysical or does it manifest itself physically in the form of our hearts?


Chad

He takes a lot of my ideas for my eventual novel, but I think I can expand. I'm really glad I read this one. This really was horror with heart.

[PatienceP]

I'm not sure how far we should trust the female vampires in Dracula's "harem." But even if Dracula was not always evil because he once loved (and do we know whom?), it's quite probable that's he's evil now.
You have to define love before you can speak meaningfully of it. As I see it, being in love is not a duty and is not necessarily lasting (which is why people didn't used to marry for "love"). But there are sorts of love that, should you have them, you have the duty to maintain them, and these can reasonably be expected to endure if you do. Only some of those are common knowledge, but, for instance, parental affection likely falls into that class. Modern society may be trying to make it a duty to be in love, of course; failing that, they'd like you to have been in love at least once in your life.
And no, love itself is not physical, or the doctors would have isolated it in the EKGs and CT scans and MRIs by now. But meaningful love does have physical signs because people act on it and through it.

[chad]

...But there are sorts of love that, should you have them, you have the duty to maintain them, and these can reasonably be expected to endure if you do...

I'm not sure I follow you on this point. There are duties to maintain a love, but love itself is not necessarily lasting. There are also physical responses to love. When I see someone I love, my heart beats faster, I may sweat, etc. etc.

Some may believe that "Love lasts forever" or in "Love at first sight" or that "Jesus loves you" or that "God loves everyone" or "Love makes the world go round." But whatever your belief, there must be love. That is, we cannot survive without love. So which is it? Is love temporary or everlasting?

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 11-03-2007 05:18 PM

[LordRuthven]

I personally think that vampires should love to drink blood and cause terror