What vampires MUST be

[runic knight]

one thing I don't see a lot of talk on in this subject is the idea of the word vampire in our language. Why are you using the word "vampire" in the first place? Obviously it is a word with roughly defined physical traits, true, but there is usually a reason why the author uses the word. It brings with it emotional reaction by association with the understanding of the collective culture. It is like, say, zombies, where they are always associated with mindless, undead and contamination. Even the Twilight variety of vamp used the term because of this, using vague physical traits shared (bloodlust, "weakness" to sunlight, enhanced physical abilities and immortality) and the common perception of vampires being associated with darkness, danger and evil to fit the theme of the story. Not well mind you, the vampires were watered down quite a bit, but they were used to try to seem dangerous and evil and cursed and because of that tortured, all aspects tied to vampires in our current collective understanding.

The creatures you describe... why do you call them vampires? Or to better word it, what makes them vampires as opposed to any other sort of creature out there that also shares similar physical traits. Hell, I'd argue your creatures are more closely related to werewolves for being part animal and being able to transform, and not needing blood but being animalistic killers. So, why would you call them vampires if they don't fit the physical description, and seem contrary to a themeatic one? Is it for no other reason then to be contrary because you see twilight as being contrary by shedding or changing common physical traits?

Because they look like vampires and share several traits and the name is being used as a cover up so those that know about them can talk about them in everyday conversation without arousing suspicion. When someone over hears them talking about vampires, because vampires are a known and popular myth, they pass it off as nonsense, even if they do get a sense the characters are being serious.

So they are called vampires by characters of the book itself as a makeshift explanation for something they don't understand and have limited resources to compare the creatures to? Ok, that is fine and all, but I thought the question was about you as the author calling them vampires. Though for being 1500's, not sure how the usual populous would know what a vampire is much either but that is more a nitpick there. Still, is the story calling them vampires or are the characters merely using the word as a codeword, because that does sort of change the question some. If the former, why do they need to be vampires? (going back to the earlier talk about theme and common cultural usage and understanding of the word and motivation for it over other such words). If the later, why does it matter at all if it is just a code word and not actually vampires in the story. It would matter as much as calling the Los Plagas in RE4 zombies.

 

[Torkuda]

...

No, I'm not going to divulge the entire plot of a story I'm in the process writing in this one thread.

 

[Torkuda]

...

No, I'm not going to divulge the entire plot of a story I'm in the process writing in this one thread.

Can't tell which question you replied to.

Feel free to answer the questions that do not require you to divulge the entire plot.

Really, where do I begin:

Having super speed and strength does not connotate a connection to the hulk. I never said vampires aren't supposed to be sentient, not everything about my mythos is supposed to be contrary after all. Creating a super soldier helped the aliens because they themselves are only four feet tall. The two natures would possibly battle because reptiles run largely on instinct where humans run largely on emotion and reason with instinct mixed in, anyway this is sci-fi, no one ever said the science is perfect. Healing powers is something that's quite normal for vampires to have in many myths. The ones covering up the vampires are mutants themselves that don't want to discovered, but that's all I want to say on that. Why cover something up as a serial killer when people believe in and actively investigate serial killers, wouldn't that be counter productive to a cover up? TVtropes just lists tropes and they appear in pretty much every show on television, I've yet to see a "don't" list on their site. Lord Maelstrom is a big time villian for the series I would rather not divulge too much about. Finally, the sadistic and elaborate killing of a twelve year old boy for the sheer pleasure of freaking out his girl friend it is kinda creepy... just a little.

 

[solemnwar]

Drink blood. In my opinion, that's it. The rest is oh so much dressing on top. I base this on the main thing vampires are related to, that being vampire bats, because, you know, there is something that does exist outside of mythology that does drink blood, avoid light, and has lots of bat imagery surrounding it (being a bat.)

..Did nobody even think about that one for a moment?

Weren't vampire bats called "vampire bats" AFTER vampire mythology already coined the term "vampire"? I'm not saying bats didn't scare the piss out of humans before that, I'm just thinking that in that particular case, one name preceded the other.

No I don't think so, I looked up the Etymology of the word, and it dates back to around 1600, vampire bats are mostly found it south America, which was explored around 1500. The actual roots of vampire date back further than that, but I think it's likely, based off their usage that they meant more evil/wicked, and thus the bat started coming under similar terms which changed the word vampire to what we know now.

Much how gay meant to be happy, and now the word after being used for something else has changed meaning entirely, though in a much shorter time span.

Of course, this is just my view, I have no basis other than comparing dates and such.

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

vampire (n.) 1734, from French vampire or German Vampir (1732, in an account of Hungarian vampires), from Hungarian vampir, from Old Church Slavonic opiri (cf. Serbian vampir, Bulgarian vapir, Ukrainian uper), said by Slavic linguist Franc Miklo?iè to be ultimtely from Kazan Tatar ubyr "witch," but Max Vasmer, an expert in this linguistic area, finds that phonetically doubtful. An Eastern European creature popularized in English by late 19c. gothic novels, however there are scattered English accounts of night-walking, blood-gorged, plague-spreading undead corpses from as far back as 1196. Applied 1774 by French biologist Buffon to a species of South American blood-sucking bat.

The word came before the naming of the bat.

 

[Story]

Not that I'm one to talk OP, since I've developed my own vampire mythos in the past, but from what I've read of yours so far that doesn't sound like something that would be considered a vampire to me. I mean you can come up with your own name for the creatures and I think it will work just as well if the whole point of calling them vampires is to fool the masses. I have only one real requirement for vampires in that they must drink blood or life force in order to survive. Since your creatures don't exhibit any real traits that are associated with the 21st century idea of vampire then I don't really see the point of calling them that. Same with werewolves too, I don't really we how they woud be called that either. Interesting story concept regardless.

 

[Torkuda]

Not that I'm one to talk OP, since I've developed my own vampire mythos in the past, but from what I've read of yours so far that doesn't sound like something that would be considered a vampire to me. I mean you can come up with your own name for the creatures and I think it will work just as well if the whole point of calling them vampires is to fool the masses. I have only one real requirement for vampires in that they must drink blood or life force in order to survive. Since your creatures don't exhibit any real traits that are associated with the 21st century idea of vampire then I don't really see the point of calling them that. Same with werewolves too, I don't really we how they woud be called that either. Interesting story concept regardless.

Again, traits my vampires share with common vampires

Immortality, general invincibility, an ability to hypnotize women, the ability to morph into creatures with wings and fangs, super strength and speed, an over all confidence that comes with age, a general phobia surrounding them from the populace in story, originating from Europe where the name vampire itself originated as well as being predominately English, they live predominately under ground and surface mostly at night, they're a personification of the modern definition of evil, the ability to feed on humans though they are not required to...

Yes, the "confidence of age" thing was more a trait of older or eastern vampires, but it's still part of the mythos.

 

[Story]

Not that I'm one to talk OP, since I've developed my own vampire mythos in the past, but from what I've read of yours so far that doesn't sound like something that would be considered a vampire to me. I mean you can come up with your own name for the creatures and I think it will work just as well if the whole point of calling them vampires is to fool the masses. I have only one real requirement for vampires in that they must drink blood or life force in order to survive. Since your creatures don't exhibit any real traits that are associated with the 21st century idea of vampire then I don't really see the point of calling them that. Same with werewolves too, I don't really we how they woud be called that either. Interesting story concept regardless.

Again, traits my vampires share with common vampires

Immortality, general invincibility, an ability to hypnotize women, the ability to morph into creatures with wings and fangs, super strength and speed, an over all confidence that comes with age, a general phobia surrounding them from the populace in story, originating from Europe where the name vampire itself originated as well as being predominately English, they live predominately under ground and surface mostly at night, they're a personification of the modern definition of evil, the ability to feed on humans though they are not required to...

Yes, the "confidence of age" thing was more a trait of older or eastern vampires, but it's still part of the mythos.

Ah alrighty then.
Well, I suppose that sounds like a vampire to me sorta. Not that my opinion matters though, I think having confidence in your concept is really that only thing that matters. For me a story's mythos can be absolutely bouncers but I'll read it so long as it has an engaging plot and interesting characters. There are really no set rules for any type of fantasy setting that's what's so nice about the genre.

 

[sXeth]

Most consistently, a vampire is some form of spirit (sometimes inhabiting a human (dead or alive) that feeds in one manner or another on "life essence".

Depending where you source the legend from (some north/northeastern European variations omit the sunlight thing entirely), the other attributes really don't mean too much.

The silly "Sparkles" bit aside, Twilights problems aren't so much with its vampire mythos, so much as flat characters who react in bizarre ways, boring barely-plot, and just haphazardly filling in its sequels with bits of borrowed cliche.

 

[bug_of_war]

"Just because it's fictional doesn't mean you can slap it's name on anything."

You think not? What happened with fairies then? Seems most every part of their mythos has been thrown out the window at some point.

Small? Sometimes.
Good? Now, but not before.
Evil? Once usually, now not usually.
Obsessed with rice counting? For a while there.
Like kids? For dinner or to play with? Both and neither.
Pretty? Sometimes.

All they really seem to have is "magic" which is redefined everytime the buggers are brought up so that's not exactly a rock solid definition.

If you're gonna quote me at least use the quote button...

Fairies have been changed through out the ages because of different views on magic. Magic use to be that of evil (women were burnt at the stakes for being supposed users of magic and their abilities stemming from relations with Satan) thus creatures that use magic must be evil. Now days we view magic as some kinda cool mystical thing that we all wish we could have some experience with. The term fairy itself also is more like a term for a group of creatures as leprechauns technically fall under the same term. It's only been of recent years that fairy has been associated as a creature and not a collective term for a group of creatures. So really the term fairly is still being used correctly as the core concept of a fairy is "A magical being".

All of this: "Small? Sometimes.
Good? Now, but not before.
Evil? Once usually, now not usually.
Obsessed with rice counting? For a while there.
Like kids? For dinner or to play with? Both and neither.
Pretty? Sometimes."

are just attributes that can be added or subtracted with out taking away the core features of the creature.

You're thinking too broadly on what constitutes as what makes what, it always comes down to the very basics. Werewolves ARE men/wolves that can transition to either form. The full moon CAN be a part of the transformation, but is an embellishment. Silver CAN be poisonous to them, but it's just and embellishment. They CAN be immortal, but again, it's just an embellishment.

 

[Torkuda]

If you're gonna quote me at least use the quote button...

I had meant to post directly after you, but someone beat me to it. Unfortunately the system on this board isn't advanced enough to facilitate a quote after the fact. Just a limit of the system I guess.

Truth is, several fairy movies and books of late have also fallen back on the old myths, or picked and chose things from both mythos. Hell it's hard to say what the folks making the Supernatural series must have done to dream up their fairies. Some sci-fi just likes to call them aliens.

Actually I think it's a common sci-fi trope to take a creature that looks and behaves basically like something and call it that. Probably because that's what common people might do in reality. Like the "bugs" in Men In Black. Hell check out the Roswell cartoon from the 90s, they took several creatures from mythology and just made them aliens. In Star Gate SG1 the Asgard turned out just to be the impersonators behind the myths of the Vikings, but they themselves were neither gods nor creatures of magic nor even human shaped. Hard to argue with one of the most successful sci-fi shows ever made and say one of the most important elements of their plot didn't work. The Asgard, enemies of the Gould, didn't even have costumes that looked like the gods and they almost NEVER showed godly traits.

Heck, check out the 90s gargoyle cartoon. Stone by day, warriors by night, living protectors of human castles from invaders etc, etc... yea that was pretty much all made up for the show. I was pretty disappointed when I researched gargoyles for real and none of that stuff came up.

 

[bug_of_war]

Actually I think it's a common sci-fi trope to take a creature that looks and behaves basically like something and call it that. Probably because that's what common people might do in reality. Like the "bugs" in Men In Black. Hell check out the Roswell cartoon from the 90s, they took several creatures from mythology and just made them aliens. In Star Gate SG1 the Asgard turned out just to be the impersonators behind the myths of the Vikings, but they themselves were neither gods nor creatures of magic nor even human shaped. Hard to argue with one of the most successful sci-fi shows ever made and say one of the most important elements of their plot didn't work. The Asgard, enemies of the Gould, didn't even have costumes that looked like the gods and they almost NEVER showed godly traits.

Yeah Sci-Fi does that quite a lot, but I think the reason it gets away with it is because they're saying, "You know how our old myths say they're monsters/gods? they're actually aliens!" they're basically saying that people back then didn't have a great understanding of the universe and thus something that came from the heavens or did something too unusual was given the title of a monster or god. It makes sense too, how were the Old Norse folk supposed to know that the Gods, Giants, and others were an alien race?

Also by saying that they're aliens doesn't actually change the core concept of the creature either. Gods are heavenly beings, Aliens come from the sky. Monsters are different than those creatures found on earth, Aliens would be differently from creatures on earth. As for why the example you gave may look different, keep in mind that the Norse Pantheon was created a very long time ago, civilisations change.

 

[4ged]

as to the subject of vampires in popular culture, everything has been laid out quite nice as to what qualifies as a vampire in any story/context so if your writing is going to be published and you want to sell books take notes on what was freely given to you on this thread, if its for your personal cannon they can be barney the bloodsucking dinosaur for all it matters. as to your story being scary because blah blah (insert generic OC from a middle-schooler name here) pumped some clueless twats house with blood, sorry dude your 4 decades late on the walls bleeding being scary. take queues from Hannibal Lector, that guy is human and old and is one thousand times scarier then your bath salts sniffing alien dinosaurs.

let me show you context in which my lazy boy chair has similarity's to a pit bull

both are comfy to lay on
both have interesting smells emanating from them constantly
both seem to be water resistant
both hurt me when i kick them

seriously repeating this form of logical fallacy makes you sound really unintelligent/trolly

all in all your story so far described needs a lot of work in its base concept and using a popular label to sell your tripe is deplorable.

take my opinion at face value $0.00 because that's what its worth but i'm sure its widely shared, not trying to down on your creation but just telling you what you need to hear before you sink more time and energy into it and get told its shit.

 

[Torkuda]

What about gargoyles, that mythos was made up almost from scratch. Heck look at the pop culture success of Marble Hornets. Slender Man in that series only sometimes shows up in the woods, never attacks children and has no tentacles. Essentially, the Operator is NOT Slender Man, but that's what he's supposed to be playing as.

Actually I could also easily use the primitive culture excuse as well, if it were normal folks calling these things vampires, which on occasion they do. After all, if you saw something that looked like this:

http://torkuda.deviantart.com/art/Seraphim-107196715

Even in the modern day, what might you call it? (Let's ignore that I'm not a stellar artist please.)

Course even in the "bugs" in Men In Black, were being called that by the MIB agents, not a primitive misunderstanding culture. Again, MIB was a VERY successful movie. It's a very human thing to do, inaccurate or not, we still call things like we see them.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

Even if they are technically not vampires, I see no issue with calling them that long as you explain why.

As for a vampire mythos... well there are usually common elements to distinguish vampires from other creatures. Taking liberties with the popular perception of what a vampire is should not be an issue, you just have to keep a certain degree of similarity if you want your creatures to actually be vampires, not just a random creature that you just want to call 'vampire'. And while there's nothing wrong with going for the latter, it does seem a bit random if you don't have a good reason that you explain sufficiently.

Here's how vampires are distinguished in my view:

first look at the modern definition (courtesy to Bram Stoker's Dracula). The one that's the most common and perhaps most stereotypical. A vampire would therefore be a highly intelligent nocturnal creature with prolonged fangs that drinks blood and is immortal to some degree. They can only be harmed by bright sunlight and sometimes more specific measures like running/holy water or a wooden stake.

now for a sake of a story, you don't need to keep all of these elements. You just need to keep one or two of the more recognisable ones and voila, you've got yourself a vampire. Exactly how many elements you should keep is really going to depend on circumstances... you just need to try and see if your creature is similar enough to be recognisable as a vampire.

The safest bet would be, in my opinion, the blood drinking as that's the highest common denominator of vampire fiction. Just looking at the list of inspirations for Dracula - vampire bats, Vlad the Impaler, Elizabeth Bathory - all of these are associated with blood. Blood is probably the most iconic element to most vampire stories.

Of course you can leave blood out - there are stories in which vampires eat flesh rather than drink blood - but then you'd probably have to compensate in order to keep the creature familiar enough for it to be recognisable.

 

[Torkuda]

as to the subject of vampires in popular culture, everything has been laid out quite nice as to what qualifies as a vampire in any story/context so if your writing is going to be published and you want to sell books take notes on what was freely given to you on this thread, if its for your personal cannon they can be barney the bloodsucking dinosaur for all it matters. as to your story being scary because blah blah (insert generic OC from a middle-schooler name here) pumped some clueless twats house with blood, sorry dude your 4 decades late on the walls bleeding being scary. take queues from Hannibal Lector, that guy is human and old and is one thousand times scarier then your bath salts sniffing alien dinosaurs.

let me show you context in which my lazy boy chair has similarity's to a pit bull

both are comfy to lay on
both have interesting smells emanating from them constantly
both seem to be water resistant
both hurt me when i kick them

seriously repeating this form of logical fallacy makes you sound really unintelligent/trolly

all in all your story so far described needs a lot of work in its base concept and using a popular label to sell your tripe is deplorable.

take my opinion at face value $0.00 because that's what its worth but i'm sure its widely shared, not trying to down on your creation but just telling you what you need to hear before you sink more time and energy into it and get told its shit.

Wow... I don't even know what to say... do you regularly pass severe judgement in friendly conversations about things you know almost nothing about? What makes a scene creepy is it's presentation really, if you want to go into it, not just whether it's been done before.

But seriously, what did I do to you that I get this kind of hate? Actually Finders and Societies in the Shadows generally impresses people when I show them.

Take a look if you want.

http://torkuda.deviantart.com/art/0-Hound-of-Rebirth-177933076

Read it or not, you're going to call it tripe, I know this because from the looks of your post that's just what guys like you do. I've given you a basic description of an element from a story with no context and you're telling me you can understand it's quality... just wow.

 

[bug_of_war]

What about gargoyles, that mythos was made up almost from scratch. Heck look at the pop culture success of Marble Hornets. Slender Man in that series only sometimes shows up in the woods, never attacks children and has no tentacles. Essentially, the Operator is NOT Slender Man, but that's what he's supposed to be playing as.

Actually I could also easily use the primitive culture excuse as well, if it were normal folks calling these things vampires, which on occasion they do. After all, if you saw something that looked like this:

http://torkuda.deviantart.com/art/Seraphim-107196715

Even in the modern day, what might you call it? (Let's ignore that I'm not a stellar artist please.)

Course even in the "bugs" in Men In Black, were being called that by the MIB agents, not a primitive misunderstanding culture. Again, MIB was a VERY successful movie. It's a very human thing to do, inaccurate or not, we still call things like we see them.

Slender man still has the key feature of a man with a white featureless face in a suit whom doesn't speak (Also, Marble Hornets didn't come up with Slenderman, they merely expanded on his mythos adding their own embellishments).

In the modern day from the description you have given I would call them Lizard people.

As for Men in Black, Bugs seemed to be more of a derogative term that they used to describe them.

"we still call things like we see them." Yes, when we see a creature that is dead and drinks blood, we call them a vampire. When we see see a Dragon Human hybrid type creature that is alive and does not drink blood, I for one would not be calling it a vampire, I'd call it a Lizard man (And a quick google shows that people believe Lizard men are real). So yeah, even if they went around saying, "Guys we're totally vampires" I'm pretty fuckin' sure that a great deal of folk would say otherwise.

 

[Strelok]

`Snip~

Vampire-ism is intended to be a curse, I had read of one where only a family member or loved one could curse another to eternal life. I prefer the White Wolf Vampire the Masquerade, Anne Rice, Let The Right One In, True Blood or Dracula forms of the curse.

The bible Holy relics only work against vampires if the one wielding them is a true believer, that is the only way they work as seen in Dracula the early 90s movie. In other like Vampire The Masquerade they only work if the Vampire is a true believer, I preferred this one, say if the Vampire was a devout Jew, only a star or David would work against him/her not a cross, same for other religions.

Holy water Same as the Bible, and crosses.

running water Only ever saw this in Dracula, but he can bypass this rule by staying buried in his home soil.

spilled rice Nope on any of the ones I listed.

garlic Was supposed to work for Dracula, if I remember the book correctly they put it around Lucy's windows. It does not kill only repels a Vampire. Dracula used mind control he had already begun to call her out, so that didn't work. Does not happen as far as I know in the others, possibly in Vampire The Masquerade, but only once again if the Vampire believes it will work.

not being invited in Common for all of them, mind control or suggestion depending on the age of the Vampire can bypass it.

decapitation This kills everything, human, zombie, werewolf, and in the morticians guide, is one of two sure signs of death. Decomposition is the last for the curious.

wooden stakes These only paralyze a Vampire, in Dracula and Vampire The Masquerade, then decapitation is used to finish the job, and the head is then separated from the body, as depending on the age of the cursed creature it can reform. Pretty sure Van Helsing explains the process to the others in Dracula.

silver Nope only werewolves in the others I listed, can be used to cause pain or bind a Vampire in True Blood, kind of a cool idea.

the sun Part of the curse is to never see the light of day again, and to live in forever darkness.

dead man's blood Used as a poison to weaken a vampire, like the what Claudia used on Lestat in Interview With A Vampire, giving him dieing children infected with polio. In others like The Masquerade the Vampire becomes a permanent carrier of the disease killing the herd of humans, this is only a death sentence as the other Vampires will kill him/her.

crucifixes See the Bible or holy water.

Played Vampire The Masquerade for years and was a goth from the late 80s to early 2000, even met a young woman who claimed to be a Vampire at a goth clothing store in Toronto... She was crazy, but so hot. I like your idea, the definition of a Vampire whether it is psychic or a physical Vampire that requires blood is what I like to see, but your idea has them only rumored to be Vampires, its an interesting take on it.