Bram Stoker set the path way for vampires, whether it be movies, books or life styles and so on and so forth.
My question:
If Bram stoker would never have written Dracula, how would the vampire trend have turned out and would we have known about the blood crazed prince Vlad?
I forgot to add, without his describing his view of a vampire, how would they have turned out feeding wise, the sexy dark creature?
The history of the vampire begins In ancient Persia, where a vase was discovered depicting a man struggling with a huge creature which is trying to suck his blood. Then, in Babylonian myth a deity known for drinking the blood of babies, Lilitu or "Lilith", was discovered. She was reputedly the first wife of Adam according to old Hebrew texts removed from the Old Testament, and left her husband due to his sexual ineptitude, becoming the Queen of Demons and Evil spirits.
Well as far as I kno wthe ledgends /myths/facts/ all came from China during the 6th century BC, traces of the "Living Dead", or revenants as they are known, were also found. More legends continued throughout all the world, including India, Malaysia, Polynesia and the lands of the Aztecs and Eskimos. According to the Aztecs, the offering of a young victims blood to the Gods ensured the fertilization of the earth. But truly, the vampire proper originates from European civillization...ancient Greece to begin with. There were numerous bloodthirsty Goddesses in both Roman ang Greek mythology, known as Lamiae, Empusae and Striges.
These names eventually evolved into the general terms for Witches,Demons and Vampires. But these Vampires, though they do drink blood, were only Goddesses...not "living Dead", but disembodied divinities capable of taking on human appearances so that they might seduce their victims. As time passed on, and Christianity grew in popularity, the redemptive value of blood became apparant. Holy Communion, which includes drinking wine symbolizing Christ's blood and Bread symbolizing his flesh was at times taken quite literally. Some people, confusing pagan beliefs with transubstantiation (the actualy presence of Christ's flesh and blood during Communion) took part in feasting on human flesh and drinking human blood. During the 11th Century, witches and doctors alike prescribed virgin blood to cure all illnesses. Also during this time, some corpses found intact all over Europe began a huge vampire scare.
The belief came about that people who died without a chance to receive last rites,or those who had commited suicide or had been excommunicated were destined to return to the earth as revenants. Various accounts of the discovery of Vampires can be read in books such as The Diabolical Dictionary (Dictionnaire Infernal) by the Bishop of Cahors; the Courtiers Triflings(De Nugis Curialium) by Walter Map, and the History of England(Historia Rerum Anglicarum) written by William of Newburgh. The phenomenon of Vampirism continued through the Renaissance era only sporadically, but again grew to epidemic proportions in the 14th Century, mainly in central European Regions of Prussia, Silesia and Bohemia.
The bubonic plague was thought to be the work of Vampires and panic of infection led people to bury their dead without completely verifying that they were truly deceased. It was then no wonder that so many encounters of Vampires rising from their graves during this time were noted. A person, buried alive, would try to claw his way out of the grave and would be discovered covered in blood from the wounds he had inflicted upon himself by doing so.
This, of course, would label him as a vampire not from Bram stoker, yet I could be wrong who knows anymore.. I am always learning something new here so please embelish by all means .. :)
(Information was Googled)
Eventually some author would have adapted Lore based on superstitious primative reasoning.
perhaps without the implied metaphor that Bram used relating to Politics.
I agree with Dabbler, even if Bram Stoker had not come out with his novel someone else would have. And The Vampire would have still become the mainstream monster it is today.
I also have to agree with dabbler, after all we have to remember that 'varney the vampire' was already in circulation in London well before Bram Stoker put pen to paper.
exactly. even without stoker, someone would have related the thought of "exchanging fluids" to a sexual act and made it more sexual. it was coming of the time. nothing of the sort had been like it out to the public before(to my knowledge).
everyone analyzed stoker's work and vampires as sexual objects when they said that the "penetration" of the fangs and the "swap of bodily fluids" was sexual. hence the sexual attraction that came about in modern day cinema.
there was already varny the vampire that had many of the elements that stoker and later the movies used....the noble count, the suave and sexy demeanor. that didnt require stoker, but he did give it an extra "umph"
~W~
Well, this one is for your info only. The Bran Stoker dracula was created IAW the life of a descendant of the real authentic descendant of Count Batori, from Romania.. Mrs Batori Valkao Papa Lenke. Her daughter Lily Sullos. Her brother Luis sullos And her father Mr sullos. They gave only one interview, and because I was there, their story is compelled with stories about count Batori. I post a picture in my journal of this intriguing family, who reside in Argentina.
I still feel that the vampire would have found its way into modern society; vampire lore existed well before Bram Stoker's time. Yes vamps are sexual creatures, but it is Hollywood who gave them the view point of being "sexy".
I believe that that vampire stories go back even further back than Persia. I believe they began around the early dawn of time. I Just want to add that Bram Stoker is a pimp. He knows his stuff. If it wasn't for him people like us wouldn't exist.
yes even if Bram Stoker had not wrote his books another would of as many others have over the years, I feel that most lore is eventually written about no matter who or whom may of wrote the first about it, they are still the stories out there from many different sources so The Vampire would still be among our Mist so to speak. :) Just an observation and opinion is all.
They would have gone with it however they wanted just as they have now. Most people at least in this day and age haven't read the book carefully and have spread wrong myths about what was written. Polidori wrote a vampire story prior to that novel. Most identify the vampire with blood drinking but many are written about who did not or the idea was added later in more modern times. Mr. Stoker's book would be considered more modern since it was close to the turn of the 20th Century. If he wasn't idolized for his story someone else would have been and look at all the books now with a wide variance in fictional viewpoints. Shrugs, I think fictional is the idea here. Some they now refer to out of ancient times as vampires were not called anything like that at the time. Many were referred to as devils or goddesses and other names. That word wasn't quoted until more modern times. Many of the words they use even now which are foreign actually referred to the werewolf originally, which is closely connected in myth. I think nothing would have happened. Someone else would have written something similar but maybe not in the diary form.
We'd have an empty hole in our vast collection of vampire lore.
I'm willing to bet that, without Bram Stoker, vampires would never have been linked to Gothic literature to the extent that they are.
If Stoker never came up with Dracula,you wouldn't being asking the question.Because if he had never written the novel you wouldn't know the name to mention him.I am sure vampire stories would still have evolved but not to the point that they are now.
Simply put, if Stoker and Varny were not around, then society would have concentrated on mystical creatures or other archetypes that they find both fascinating and all powerful.
Humans crave power, which is why they concentrate almost solely on the vampire, as it is the perfect and ultimate archetype for that power sating.
Vampires always existed, Bram Stoker just put the gloss on the story. There were other writer writing about vampires long before he came around.
I am sure one of those writers would of been just as good as Stoker if they had the chance.
But they were not as good, since they came before Stoker... Thus, he was the better man.
i agree
when i hear the word vampire i think bram storker, yes there have been legends about vampires, and some books before him but relasticly they were never big hits to me,
Perhaps more Vampires would be Nosforotu type vampires, hidious beast.
As someone would have adopted oral traditions to short horror stories.
Vampires would have likely been simular to zombies.
Perhaps not even able to speak.
Correct, I was more relating the appearance of the vampire.
Well theres always Anne Rice to make vampires as popular as they are today. But who knows, maybe without Bram Stoker... Anne Rice would not of written the books she has done about vampires.
Then Bram wouldn't have been hated by the romanians who feel that they're Dracula is a hero, and We'd never have made it on to Discovery Channel :D
Stories were and will be around even if no Bram Stoker, but would we have the
sexy,sensual vampire we know now. I think not. For he made the vampire so full of feelings and cunning. More "human" than monster.
Stories were and will be around even if no Bram Stoker, but would we have the
sexy,sensual vampire we know now. I think not. For he made the vampire so full of feelings and cunning. More "human" than monster.
I must live in the dark cause I had not ever heard of Bram Stoker till movies came out.. LOL that is terrible.
Yet, I still knew alot about the vampires. So I think it is just how one wants to look at it.
Truth be told, like many have already said here Dracula was not the beginning and absolute origin of the vampire myth- just one of its more popular stories in modern culture as it is. There are ties to not only Persian origins but a Hungarian countess that killed by bathing in the blood of her victims and also drinking it in order to give herself eternal youth or so she thought. Her name was Erszebet Bathory, and her story is a rather interesting read for those who decide to.
well i think the person who wrote the post was not stating that dracula started the vampire myth
i think she meant would vampires be such a main stream with his infulance
In my opinion...
Considering the fact that Bram Stoker's version of what a vampire is, was purely evil and needed to be stamped out. I would say that he would probably not like what has become of the vampire genre.
Vampires have basically become like the care bears to me. When little girls want to grow up to be vampires, they seem to lose their credibility as creatures of the night.
Also, if anything or anyone here on VR is supposed to be dark and mysterious or even scary....you need to try ALOT harder.
Personally, I think Bram Stoker would do one of two things. He would either laugh or puke, maybe both.
That is a very good point Zomby, Bram Stoker story was all about pure evil. Yet now Vampires go to school fall in love with mortal girls and dont want to transform them into their kind. Vampires have taken on a new form and I dont just mean their appearance.
Very good point Doctor, Yes Bram Stoker gave the vampire it's more human qualities plus the mysterious alure in the beginning but now the image of the vampire has evolved into creatures such as Kindred vampires, each with their different clans and accompaning personalities, the underworld vamps and yes, even the Twilight vamps, who can even go out into the sunlight.
My point is Bram Stoker was the catalyst for the vampire myth but he is by no means the end.
Well, recorded history states that Vlad Tepes, or Dracul for that matter that Vlad was nothing that the character named for him actually was. It seems that he added fantasy and romanticism to what Bathory did as a countess in Hungary.
Even without Stoker though, there would still be vampire stories- there are a number of them that came before the Dracula novel he wrote.
Without Bram I am sure that the vampire explosion would have still taken place yet further in the history. many other fables did come out before Dracula and after but the tie to Vlad tepes would or maybe lost due to the books remarkable likeness of the prince.
It is true that without Bram Stoker there would still be stories that reflect Vampires or said creatures seem to be as a vampire and over time they have become this loving school kid who everyone wants to know or be like. I just do not see, where there would be anything different. Do not me wrong Bram Stoker brought Dracula/Vampires to a more interesting point for us to read as many others have so again I just do not feel that it ould be much different if he had not.
Hypothetically speaking, some other person would of come to the same money making conclusion! Vampires who are good looking and have charm are hard to resist!!
Well to tell the truth I never heard of Bram Stoker before the movie came out. Yet I remember watching vampire movies before I saw the movie, so to me Bram Stoker is just another vampire writer along with the rest of them. I admit I havent read the book but I enjoyed the movie, but I enjoyed all vampire movies.
This thread remonds me of the saying 'which came first the chicken or the egg'. In this case vampires came first then Bram Stoker.....food for thought
very true i am positive vampires would be still around even without Bram Stoker and i am positive someone would of told the story as good as his
Books by Le Fanu, such as Carmilla, Polidoris, Vampire,
the tales of Varney the Vampire would have been more widely known.
Dracula struck a chord within our psyches, but the vampire lore was there before the book was written.
It is a very important work of literature, that can not be denied.
I think Bram stoker gave all of us for centuires a new out look on the Vampire. That they are not the cold callous murderous demons as earlier projections proclaimed them to be, but in fact emotional in every form and way that is found in human nature itself all rolled up into one.
There for creating a Lure to either the romantic side or the dark side of the Vampire.
I find it hard to believe that I keep seeing people say they never heard of Bram Stoker until the movie came out.I was five years old the first time I saw the novel and read it.It is truly sad that so many people on a "Vampire" web site didn't know who Stoker was til a sorry excuse for a movie was made from DRACULA.
One mans opinion..
if it wasnt for the movie, would Bram Stoker be as widely know. I for 1 never heard of him before the movie. I think the movie bought Bram Stoker out a lot more then just the book.
he was not the first vampire author just the first really successfull one.but its prob the most successfull vamp book written.maybe the genre would not be quite as succsessfull as its become without him but there would be other authors
just wanted to add a comment about the film / book. It would be on of the best films in terms of not molesting the novel, they stuck so closely to the story it was awesome. If only more films were like that.
Some kind o ampire lore would have taken place no doubt. Things would have been somewhat different maybe I think though!
Bram Stoker changed the way people thought about vampires. Such as, vampires having no reflection, shunning garlic, shunning crucifixes, turning into bats, ect... Without Bram Stoker the concept of a vampire would be very different today.
|
Cartomancer Arch Sire (194) Posts: 1,252 Honor: 34,553 [ Give / Take ] |
We didn't need the movie for Bram to be popular. His novel was a HUGE success. Most people that don't know of Bram outside the movie are obviously not the classic literature type- hey, it happens. Or honestly, we have members here that were born after the Gary Oldman/Wynona Rider "Bram Stoker's Dracula"... It's not surprising these people only know of Dracula from that. They also aren't old enough to have had it introduced to them in school.
Without the pop success of this novel, we wouldn't have all the vampire enthusiasts we have today. That doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'm a vamp fiction freak and I don't claim any super powers for myself or pretend to be anything more than a perfectly flawed human being.
What would be today's reality without Bram? A less interesting one. Aside from his own novel, he inspired tons of other great gothic horror writers.
While certainly Stoker's vampire was the first to truly transform folksy vampire tales from lurid and sensationalistic "penny-dreadful" (dime-store style) novels (e.g., "Varney the Vampire"[ca. 1845]) of the Victorian Age to a 20th Century iconoclastic major literary work. And thus, vampires were transformed as well from sub-rate horror characters of such low-brow fictional works into fully legitimate and mature adult horror archetypes.
Yet, as evidenced in a few of the entries here, there are many who have not read "Dracula" and are mistaking Hollywood productions with Bram Stoker's work. As this thread is all about Stoker's portrayal, it is important to not get Stoker and Hollywood confused.
While vampire stories abounded prior to Stoker's novel, yet this is indeed the first time that the name "Dracula" was attached to the vampire. In fact, Stoker only found out about the name after he had finished the novel as it sat waiting for actual publication. In Stoker's original novel, the vampire had no name at all... and was only called "The Count." Stoker, upon finding the name in a historical account (he never actually went to Transylvania) published in a local periodical, immediately called the publisher and insisted that the name "Dracula" be used throughout for the character.
This was how "Dracula" as vampire was truly born. Despite Hollywood's later depictions, Vlad Tepes (Dracula) was not a vampire and had nothing to do with any vampire myths ... until Stoker came along and "hijacked" the name for his fictional character. Tepes has ever since been thus involuntarily "drafted" into service as having been a vampire.
Stoker's Dracula never turned into a bat. True to the original myths (and as accurately portrayed, ironically, in Coppola's "Dracula" movie), the vampire had an alliance with... and a kinship with... the wolf, not the bat. Thus, Dracula calls them, lovingly, his "children of the night." Additionally, Stoker's novel hints at Dracula being able to turn himself into a wolf (this is based on far earlier legends that has the werewolf and the vampire being... one and the same), unlike Hollywood that has instead erroneously linked vampires with bats.
Finally, the idea of the romantic vampire (while far more accurate to the original legends and stories) is also not found in Stoker's portrayal of the vampire... but instead in later retelling of his stories (by... Hollywood). The romance between Dracula to Lucy is not found at all in Stoker's "Dracula."
Stoker's greatest contribution to the vampire was in sparking this character's immense popularity due to the enormous popularity of his novel.
- Upir'
Bram put the romance in the vampire and the search for his lost love, yes bram did the idea of the Vampire lore from just being a monster. Yet perception of time and history i do believe that the role would have changed some time down the road without Bram.
Without Bram. Vampires as we know them now would have had a whole different outcome.
Without Bram Stoker, the world would be destroyed and life would be incredibly dull. We would have to wait for a new author to write about vampires.