Vampire Rules

[lillibet]

With the huge popularity of vampires lately, I've been thinking...

[Poll #1487782]

*meaning, if the vampires in a particular bit of fiction don't conform, it nags at you, feels like cheating, maybe turns you off that world, etc.

Comments

[dpolicar]

I acknowledge a range of fictional vampires, from the classic Dracula type to Jiang Shi to psychic vampires and the like.

Being parasitical is pretty central to my vampire-struct, regardless of type... not necessarily blood, but some kind of symbolic life force.

So is an aversion to sunlight.

So is needing to be invited in.

So is physical power, although that can take a lot of forms.

So is immortality.

[skreeky]

Death by wooden stake.

[anotherjen.livejournal.com]

Yes, immortality too!

[skreeky]

Oh, and immortality, yes.

Except for death by wooden stake. Although I never bought into the whole Buffy "poof of dust" thing. I go more for the stake through the heart preventing them from rising from wherever-they-rise-from until someone removes it and then they're alive again.

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

Dangerously Parasitic is the only one I find compulsory, and the only one I think is required even in the "[Thingy] Vampire" concept (i.e. the Star Trek Salt Vampire, psychic vampire).

If it's a classic-ish vampire, then I want several more of the characteristics, but any one characteristic isn't required. Though "dead/undead" in some form is an important one that I think isn't exactly the same as "immune to disease and unable to procreate."

[jimmystagger.livejournal.com]

You can mess with certain things, but they certainly cannot go out during the day unless creatively (like in "Blade" when they go outside covered in sunscreen, motorcycle suits, and hemlets with visors down). They do not sparkle. "Sparkling" and "vampires" do not go together unless you're discussing their teeth.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Another vote for immortality.

[sethg]

I have previously mentioned my frustration with all these non-conforming vampires.

We need to define the Standard Vampire, so that we can properly denounce all these sparkly emo-pires and other crimes against literature as non-Standard. Who has the authority to set this Standard? ISO? HWA? IETF?

[anotherjen.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's quite a userpic.

[muffyjo]

As a kid I was terrified of horror movies so this is a relatively new genre for me as I've only stumbled onto it in any kind of quantity in my 30s and 40s. So, with that as a given, I would offer that my vampires have to:
* Drink Blood. I don't particularly care whose.
* Be locked to the dark. Daylight is pure poison.
* Can't bear children. They are not nurturers in any fashion and I think one of the main frustrations is the bridges of their old lives burnt and unattainable. The sin, if you will, is being paid for by their lack of ability to grow, learn and change past their now more predatory and carnal natures.
* Must be carnally hungry. Sex drive is very high. It's the conflict they still have with their lust for food. Do they screw it or eat it?
* They cannot be perky. They are depressed.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

"Sparkling" and "vampires" do not go together unless you're discussing their teeth.

*snerk*

That's good.

[marmota.livejournal.com]

I'll go with the Bram Stoker basics. Root cause is curse/embracing evil, can't cross thresholds without an invitation, no reflection in mirrors, and so forth. I don't recall immortality being specified, other than longevity and preservation of appearance; it's one of those things that's hard to prove. "Are you immortal?" "So far.". Vampires being 'cool' puzzles me the same way pirates being 'cool' does. *shrug*

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

being dead, or thereabouts.

[deguspice.livejournal.com]

Given what I've heard about them, it should be an ISO standard.

[whitebird.livejournal.com]

Not IEEE?

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

[smile] Thanks!

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

Are you part of the "Real Vampires Don't Sparkle" crowd?
You would probably like "Thirst".

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I find that I get antsy with any of the ones (Moonlight springs to mind as another) where they can go out in the sun--it's not the sparkling that offends me. Of course, with Twilight there is so much of deeper import to offend that I don't much care what time of day they're abroad.

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

On the flipside of the sunlight allowance: Forever Knight.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Yup. True Blood has been inconsistent on that point.

[fenicedautun.livejournal.com]

I'll agree with aversion to sunlight (not necessarily immediately fatal, but definitely harmful) and immortality.

[sethg]

Wikipedia (of course!) has a page comparing the traits of various vampires, ranging from Dracula to Buffyverse vampires to Meyer-pires to Count von Count.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

You'll probably appreciate Grady Hendrix's piece, Vampires Suck.

I lack real opinions on the subject of vampires, but I did laugh.

[dancenerd.livejournal.com]

I filled out the poll, then read the comments and would change some of my answers.

I'm definitely in the "non-sparkly" crowd. (If it sparkles, it's something else - a fairy maybe, although probably not faerie, but I'm more flexible about that.)

Vampires are definitely parasitic.
Vampires are dangerous. Even the somehow contained or "friendly" ones are potentially dangerous. (By the end of the series, I didn't really think of Angel as a vampire.)
Vampire power is connected to sexuality in some way. (And their stories tell us a lot about cultural anxieties about sex, seduction, and loss of control.)

And then -
no sunlight (and it should take quite a bit of work to get around that)
strong in some way
immortal
invited in
no reflection

[tcb.livejournal.com]

Having just seen 'New Moon', why yes, vamps should not "sparkle". That's just lame.

[tcb.livejournal.com]

Ok, as soon as I got to the part where Count Chocula "Becomes soggy in milk" I totally lost it. Thank you for the link..