The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I am sure that most of you will have read or at least heard of "The Vampire Chronicles" - a series of novels written by popular author Anne Rice.

The discussion I would like to spark is of how Rice's take on the classic "vampire" has changed or effected our current concepts of immortality and indeed vampirism.

I would also like to relate this to Tolkien's representation of elves in "Lord of The Rings". Tolkien's elves are tall and majestic creatures - the view previous to this was that elves were far smaller than mortals in size, and a lot less elegant in their features.

One notable change that Rice makes through her novels is that the vampires can enter churches, touch crosses and even come into physical contact with holy water.

Through out time people have had hundreds of different views on what vampires can and can't do. I don't think Rice's opinion is any different than those spoken of in the past. In fact, I think she draws on those certain other views when she wrote her books.


But I do think her books have changed the opinions slightly on vampires of those who haven't dug too deeply to find out different stories of the vampire -- mostly appealing to the mainstream.

Completely - she has tapped into mainstream like never before!

What about immortality?
Has Rice's work made you think of the concept of immortality in a different way? Do you think now that it would be unbareable?

The character of Lestat comes through as an elegant and powerful vampire, whereas others less so.

Not too much, no. Rice isn't the only novelist to portray a long life due to immortality as unbareable. But in many of her books [take Blood and Gold as an example] she puts more history and knowledge into what she writes which is definitely a plus.

You can tell she did her research on what she wanted to write beforehand.

She has romanticized the vampire, I don't feel that there is a "classic" vampire, not anymore that is. Giving them more human tendencies such as the "unbearable" immortality.

Her books have only given me another perspective of vamp lore. So did the movie 30 Days of Night. I take neither too seriously, just as I take vampire lore to be just that... lore. I do enjoy learning about other people's points of view and just file it away.

Petal -


Wouldn't you consider 'Dracula' the classic vampire?

Distortion~~


I think at one time I might have but even Draculas' persona has changed over time. I mean look at the first films where he appears rather frightening and aesthetically unappealing. Then take Bram Stoker's and you will see a much more romantic version.

That is indeed true. Although I do think that there are some traces of the 'classic' vampire around [e.g. with said old movies].


I figure that romantized version is more popular due to popular societies views. Not many would care for the classic version compared to the romantic.

Touche.

Do you think that you "prefer" one over the other?

Would you rather keep the old principles in place, or change with time?

Changing with time I suppose would be rather essential if you were a vampire, so I guess it all boils down to evolution.
Would you rather evolve with the turn of every century, and see mankind grow and flourish, or keep your old ways and refuse to embrace the new world that you have become a part of?

All i have to say is she made the vampire all romantic and people liked that and more movies and books spun off that..

Anne Rice has shown us a whole new perspective on vampires...Not only are they almost unlimited in what they can do, she also describes their emotion so well. I think she made the vampires seem very REAL and kind of raised the bar for vampire fiction.

But by humanizing vampires, by giving them emotion, I think that kind of caused people to say "hey I have emotions, I can be a vampire" and has caused a lot of obsession.

I find that Anne Rice has taken the myth and completely romanticized it. Not to imply this is a problem for me, I've read almost anything she has penned and loved all of it (with a few exception).

Has it had any influence on me? None other than my hoping that if I ever magically crossed paths with a vampire, they would resemble one of her characters as opposed to the not-so-visually-appealing vampires that dominate myths. That way, I am not as terrorized before I am murdered.

I believe Anne Rice's uptake on the vampire myth is defined by the age we live in. The main driving force that has changed our perspective of what vampire's are supposed to define is our believe in religion or more accuratley Christianity, hence cruixifixs, holy water etc are no longer considered the 'ulimate protection' to the forces of the undead as society in large believes much more in science than in previous era's.

Also connected to this is the belief that vampires are souless demonic corpses that rise just to suck the blood/ life energy out of the living, but now that man has grown out of blindly believing in the church, that has also opened the door to believing that vampires can have emotions too, as they are not the demonic, souless creatures that have been depicted in the past.

Have they been romantised, well I think the answer to that question is certainly, but they are so much more interesting now, hence the popularity in shows such as Moonlight, Vampire: the Masquarade, Blood Ties, as they show the posibilities that can be explored in an age old creature of myth.

♦ Do you think that you "prefer" one over the other?

I actually prefer the romantic version of the vampire compared to the classic. The classic is way too animalistic for me to really enjoy.

Change in the ways vampires are viewed is a good thing. If they stayed the same for year after year, century after century, people would lose interest in them.

Distortion ~ I know completely what you mean. The romanticised vampire, while embodying more of a "human" spirit or soul, still has that essential brutal animal instinct in its thirst for blood.

Epik ~ I do believe that yes, while Rice had made the vampire-interested subculture more diverse while trying to bring an insight into what it might be like, some of her works have led to a potentially dangerous obsession.

CryingDutchess ~ "That way, I am not as terrorized before I am murdered." Lol :)
I find the construction of her characters intriguing too.

I know it probably sounds like I am rather obsessed with her work, but I just thought that a more focused discussion would be more productive (that and I know a lot of members on this site are familiar with her, so I thought it would give the less "philosophical" and imaginative among us a chance to get involved ^_^)

Only one thing leaves me wondering with her views of vampires.


In the cases of the 'True Immortals', who are the oldest of the vampires [and Lestat who drank from many of them], Anne Rice has it as once vampires reach a certain age, they no longer need blood to survive. I have to wonder if there are any other myths like this out there.

Do you think that you "prefer" one over the other?


Honestly I am getting a bit tired of the "romantic" vampire and while overall I prefer it I suppose I still enjoy seeing films such as 30 Days of Night where they are more animalistic or "raw". It seems more honest to me.


Would you rather keep the old principles in place, or change with time?


Change is always good at least more exciting from a certain viewpoint. But when it gets down to it I would rather try to keep it to what little we know, or rather the "idea" of what a vampire truly is like before the movies and fictional writers became involved.

So we like the romantic vampire because we can relate to it as a character, but when it comes down to it, we also want the raw, animalistic approach of the classical vampire?

Gee, aren't we picky ^_^

Lol.

While growing up, the Vampires that I was most familiar with were those played by Max Shreck, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, Sr., Christopher Lee and Klaus Kinski. But, the thing about these charcters is that they were already vampires--and how can you think them being anything but "monsters" when you never saw their "human" side?

The first time I read "Interview with the Vampire", was in 1976 when the first printing of the book came out.
A few years later, I started reading a series of books about Saint-Germain by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, which was somewhat along the same lines as Rice's vampires.

What these authors gave you was more insight and perspective into the characters. They wrote about the character's emotions, personality and relationships during their mortal lives to the situations that lead to their embracement, how they reacted to their being turned, to their acceptance of their vampiric lives as the centuries passed.

Reading the books did not influence me one way or the other regarding my interest about Vampires--the books meerly opened our eyes to the side of vampires that makes them more human, accessible and vulnerable and that each has his or her own weaknesses.

This is going to sound like a put off but i really prefer for vampires to act like themselves.. Good or bad or whatnot.. Sneaky or kind.. whatever they so desire..

everyone has a their opinion on what the vampire
should or should not fear... i think its a matter of how author would view the vampire...
for say the if they would em to be evil or nice.... when all of use know they are just humans tryin to cope with bein undead.... but dont see why they have to go around fearin the holy.........

Anne Rice has made statements in interviews that Lestat is the embodiment of herself. It is the way she would picture herself if she was a vampire and then she elaborated from there. She also addressed a more androgenous type of vampire as well. Many have tried to emulate her writings but the original in my opinion is always the best.

Addressing the elf. If you go back into historical records the elf was not small. There is a lot of talk about Elven queens and Kings. Read some of Laurence Gardners books or the one written by Nikolas de Vere.

The view of Vampires has evolved as we have. I admit, like many others, I prefer the way that they are protrayed now....and Anne Rice's Vampires have made way into making Vampire more real to us. For instance, her characters Lestat and Marius, and the Twins Maharet and Mekare (sp?).....if you read their stories, their emotions feel so real, that it feels like in some part, they are real beings. Their actions and the way they describe themselves and the things around them (especially Lestat, you know how he loves to describe what he's wearing), it makes a person feel like they know them.

Long story short: The classic vampires have evolved into the romantic, mordern vampires we love now.

Hi Xanarchyfangs
You will find all magical creatures were reduced in size to take power away from them by a rather aggressive religion.
Tolkiens book was based on the real Celtic beliefs and look up “Tuatha” they were what the myth is based on.
So strong was the belief in them they ruled for four century’s and the church said they were angels fallen to earth.
History’s a funny thing ……..

As for Ann yes her book have changed the crypt fiend into a romantic even soul full creature we can all identify with, before ann we had bela Lugosi do a nice fashion and voice change to be rather smart dressed and a noble voice… you can see how that affected the image a lot from the covered in dirt red blotched bloated animated corps vampires are lol .

i think its ggod to change it up and give it something different.
a new perspective on the genre.

I have always liked her books and yes indeed she has put a new look into how Vampires are portrayed.

I love Rices books and in my opinon they do make vampires romantic and not evil but that is ok with me.

Bram Stoker romanticized the vampire WAY before Anne did ;) Think about that- everyone always talks about Anne making this big change for vampires... when Bram did back in 1897. The most popular vampire in fiction was romanticized, Dracula... Anne just went back to it.

Maybe Anne Rice wanted to radically change the way people viewed vampires with her writings? after all a lot of other authors seem to have been heavily influenced by her writings too.

Or maybe thats how Anne had always seen them in her mind and so with out meaning to she changed the whole perception on the whole Vampire Idear.

lavisbre - Thank you so much for that, I have never heard of that before now!!
I like the idea that AngelsMort suggested - that she thought all of this already and just made it into her own version of vampirism.

These are all fantastic posts, thank you to everyone for the contribution so far :)