The Tinkerbell-ing of Vampires in pop culture

[Lucy, Give me FANGS not SPARKLES]

I am an avid horror fan; books, movies, etc..and I've noticed a disturbing (to me, anyway) trend within the past decade or so. I grew up in a time of minimal to no safety precautions whatsoever. There were no bike helmets, no mandatory seatbelts. Our playgrounds were constructed of concrete and metal. Our monsters were horrifying, and rightfully so! I grew up with the vampires of Nosferatu, of Dracula, and Salem's Lot...the undead, blood-sucking, remorseless, killers that haunted nightmares. Now, while I applaud the measures taken to keep children, and adults, safer in our increasingly dangerous world, I have to admit I am kind of repulsed by the sanitizing of our monsters. We have now entered an age of glittery, pasturized, vampires that do everything short of waving wands and granting three wishes.

What happened? At what point was it decided that vampires needed to be charming prom dates? The creation of the vampire myth was not meant to cast them as the heroes, they were creatures of legend meant to inspire fear. Let's break it down, shall we? They are the undead. They live off human blood, killing their victims or, in some cases, turning them into monsters against their will. If they ever used their "charm," it wasn't to win the girl..it was to lull her into a state that made her easier to kill or turn into a blood-starved slave. The idea of a vampire mooning around after a victim, or of a victim going into lovestruck rhapsodies over their potential murderer, makes about as much sense as me falling in love with a hamburger...or vice versa.

So why? Why has this become the collective norm of vampires in popular culture? Why have the bedazzled, hearts-and-flowers vampires become such a phenomenon? Do we subconsciously long for a kinder, gentler breed of monster? Is it because we see enough horror in the daily news that the beasts of our childhood terrors have become a method of escapism from the frights of our reality? When did we decide that our monsters needed to be less monsterous?

[Dan, destroyer of vegan vampire sissies]

Wow!!! That was great, Lucy. I was going to set up a folder called "RANTS" where people could hate on Twilight but you can leave this here. To answer your question I don't know. It's not just Twilight, theres lots of stories on the market now where they don't kill, they're not scary, and they do stuff like feed of of willing donors. That just waters down the whole vampire thing to me. I don't like the new trend of cute, cudly vampires. It's like they've been castrated.

[Dan, destroyer of vegan vampire sissies]

So, your saying it's Anne Rice's fault?

[Lucy, Give me FANGS not SPARKLES]

Hmmm...while I agree that Louis was a morose, "kinder" vampire, I always ascribed that to just his human personality carrying over into his vampire transformation. Perhaps that is the unfortunate birth of a nicer vampire. However, Rice also created one of the more psychotic vampires in that same book. Her "child" vampire, who was as bloothirsty (if not more so) as her creator. So, I don't think it was Rice's intention to spawn the trend towards the "fangless" vampire, so to speak, if that is even the case.

[Dan, destroyer of vegan vampire sissies]

Atleast Rice's vampires had some damned dignity.

[Dan, destroyer of vegan vampire sissies]

Have you heard some of the stuff Rice says about it? For instance...


"Lestat and Louie feel sorry for vampires that sparkle in the sun. They would never hurt immortals who choose to spend eternity going to high school over and over again in a small town ---- anymore than they would hurt the physically disabled or the mentally challenged. My vampires possess gravitas. They can afford to be merciful."---Anne Rice

[RB]

While I agree that vampires are monsters, predators, it is undeniable that they have always been shrouded in romanticism and sexuality as well. It goes for the mythological vampire, the literary vampire (for some classic examples see The Vampyre: A Tale, Carmilla, Dracula) and the cinematographic vampire. More often than not they have always been seducers, whether that being through mind-control or physical appeal. It's no coincidence that in movies vampires have almost always been cast with attractive (though that's subjective of course) looking actors - the movies have pulled their imagery from their predecessors tradition in portraying the vampires.
So basically what we see that has been going on since the 1990s with the culmination in Twilight, is really nothing more than has been going on for centuries already - except that is has gone overboard to such an extent that the modern-day writers and film makers have forgotten what vampires also, and primarily, are: predatory monsters that basically treat humanity as happy meals.

[Lucy, Give me FANGS not SPARKLES]

While I agree that charismatic vampires have existed in legend, lore, literature, and cinema, I always felt the charisma to be part of their predatory arsenal. I looked upon it the same way I would look upon the way a venus flytrap attracts a fly. I also agree there is a bit of romanticism within the vampire myth, however, if you look at the first cinematic portrayal of a vampire, Nosferatu, he was far from charismatic, romantic...or even attractive. Ditto with the vampire of Salem's Lot. Dracula, I grant you, had his own mystique..as do the vampires created by Rice (as was pointed out earlier in the thread). But, this new crop of vampires...the safe, gentle, loving (and sparkling) vampire is something altogether new and I agree that writers and film makers have gone way overboard. Vampires of the past, while some may have been charismatic or romantic figures, ultimately used those attributes to further their ability to prey upon human victims. So, ultimately although it may have been wrapped up "pretty" paper...the package still contained a being whose sole purpose was the hunting and feeding upon humans.

[Rick]

As much as I hate to say it this phenomena cannot be placed solely on stephanie meyers mediocre works. Bram Stoker and Anne Rice both had "romanticized" versions of the vampire. Though they didn't sparkle or eat animals (save pathetic louis) both authors did away with the corpse like folk lore that a true vampire "looked" and acted like

[Milinkalap]

I miss Anne Rice's vamps. Still sexy as hell but would kill you without even thinking about it, just for fun.

Charlene Harris' vamps aren't too bad. I like that they're more organized. Seems to make sense in our age of technology.

I want to know why most vamps you see lately are all about assimilating into human culture. They hide who and what they are and snack on Bambi.

I can appreciate romanticizing and bringing sexy to vamps, but where is the actual horror. All the attention is put on these guilt ridden do-gooders, never mind that they knowing fraternize with their food, and why are the girls, because it seems they're always girls, so ok with dating a guy who fights against killing her. Setting up a volatile relationship is good drama but idolizing a situation that can I erupted into physical violence and death is not really a relationship to try to emulate.

Where are the killers?

[Brandon]

Lauren wrote: "I miss Anne Rice's vamps. Still sexy as hell but would kill you without even thinking about it, just for fun.

Charlene Harris' vamps aren't too bad. I like that they're more organized. Seems to m..."

Oddly, I both love and hate the Anne Rice vamps. I love them because she really did something interesting with vampires. She introduced the world to vampires you could feel empathy for. Before her, the standard vampire was a monster, pure and simple.

The problem (and this is not her fault) is that her interpretation quickly became the norm. Her take was interesting and fresh, but it changed the genre so fundamentally that now when you read a book where vampires are just pure monsters, that seems fresh. Which is ironic, since that's pretty much what vampires were for centuries before Rice brought the sympathetic vamp to the mainstream.

So while I respect what she did, I have days where I wish she hadn't done it. :)

[Joanne Farley]

I believe it has more to do with commercial factors. Horror is not for everyone and neither are blood thirty vampires. Books like twilight make money they are accessible to everyone. For some authors the goal when writing a book is to sell not create a master piece, and sell they did. Maybe authors such as Myers are simply giving people what they want an easy read? Maybe I am being to harsh on both readers and authors?

[Dan, destroyer of vegan vampire sissies]

I think Meyer is just a fucking idiot.