Urban Fantasy discussion

UF BOOK CHAT > Vampires in Fiction

Comments Showing 1-50 of 54 (54 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Ranata (new)

Ranata Clark (thatchicknata) I like that they can see themselves in the mirror in some books. And I want my vampires to sleep once in awhile. I like the not being able to go out into daylight deal but some books have it that they can and that doesn't bother me. I like traditional vampires but interesting spins like they can fly or they can eat and enjoy human food even if it doesn't do anything for their hunger. They must have fangs. I tolerated the no fangs thing in Twilight because that was my first time reading and loving vampire books as an adult.

message 2: by Jamie (new)

Jamie Collins (jamie_goodreads) | 4 comments I prefer my vampires to be helpless during the daytime. Without that vulnerability, they're too powerful. And I like it when they can't eat anything except blood, because more than anything else, that sets them apart from humans. Tanya Huff's Henry Fitzroy is my ideal type of vampire.

I don't care if holy items or silver affect them or not, but I usually don't like the more traditional vampires who can turn into mist, and must sleep on dirt of their homeland, etc. But I do like P.N. Elrod's pretty traditional vampire, Jack Fleming.

It seems to be usually the romance vampires who barely qualify for the title: they aren't much harmed by the sun, and can eat whatever they want.

message 3: by Liz (new)

Liz (arcanepenguin) | 8 comments I tend to be generally ok with the different portrayals of vampires across both urban fantasy and in (some) paranormal romance. I think it's interesting to see how each other has adapted vampires (or were-whatevers) to fit within the world they created. I think that each authors interpretation can add to the story they are creating. I also like the differences in vampires, because if they were the same across all books this genre would get a little boring and limiting.

I however to agree with Eleanor in the fact that I prefer my vampires to only be able to exist on blood.

message 4: by Ranata (last edited Sep 12, 2008 01:20PM) (new)

Ranata Clark (thatchicknata) I like that in the Night Huntress by Jeaniene Frost that when they are staked, they draw up into the age they really are so if somebody were to dig them up (after Cat buried them, that is), they'd see a corpse that's 100 years old. I thought that was a cool effect.

I don't care if they are harmed by silver or crosses. I like the having to be asked into someone's house aspect like in Charlaine Harris' Sookie Stackhouse series.

I didn't like that Stephenie Meyers' vamps didn't have to sleep. I think they should have to just like humans considering that's how we get our energy everyday. I don't care if they sleep in coffin or bed or in the ground just long as they sleep sometimes.

I like the whole mesmerize things that some authors like LKH have their vamps do to humans. I guess some call it a thrall. I think that's a cool vamp trait. Usually some human is immune to it like Sookie and Anita Blake are in those series.

message 5: by Shawn (new)

Shawn Byrnes | 3 comments I'm usually ok with any type of vampire character. And to me, I think that it's interesting to read what new things people come up with. I think that is really what keeps the vampire creature alive in our books. I do have to say that my favorites are the ones where the vampires are irresistibly gorgeous and a little supernatural powers definately don't hurt either.

message 6: by new_user (new)

new_user That's pretty much my point of view too, Shawn.

message 7: by Krysta (new)

Krysta (krystafig) I think it's interesting to see what people come up with, but I have to say, I do have a favorite kind of vampire in mind.
If I were to write a story, my vampire would:

Be able to cross water (Why should water affect them?)

Tolerate garlic (It's just a seasoning)

Burn in sunlight (They're supposed to be creatures of the darkness)

Silver would have no affect on them (It's just metal)

Fall asleep whenever they wish (But still can't be in direct sunlight)

Be fine with religious artifacts (Why should a crucifix harm a vampire and not the star of david? Why one religion over another?)

Stay bound to their human form (No turning in to bats or misting or any of that)

Have a reflection in a mirror (They're THERE aren't they?)

Unable to have children (They're dead, and therefore, their sexual organs aren't working)

Just to name a few =)

message 8: by Julia (new)

Julia | 615 comments Many types of supes have difficulty with water.

Garlic is a root vegetable. I like that some vampires are affected by it and others are not.

I think it's important that if vampires don't behave in ways we're used to, that it be explained.

In the BBC tv show "Being Human" George successfully uses a Star of David against vamps because he's Jewish. I like that the efficacy of using a cross or other religious item is based on the holder's or vampire's belief system.

Also, in a "Dr Who" episode this season, the group came across beings who acted liked vampires in Renaissance Venice. One of the companions tried to use a cross fighting the "vampires." It did no good. "They're aliens, not vampires!," screamed one of the other companions.

Saint Germain by Chelsea Quinn Yarbrocan be in sunlight, though it weakens him, when he has his native soil in his shoes, in his saddle and he needs it in his bed as well. He's a vampire who travels best with lots of luggage! Crosses have little effect on him as he predates Christianity and all monotheistic religions. He has no reflection.

message 9: by Kalayna (new)

Kalayna Price | 1 comments Julia, can I say you made my day by mentioning both Being Human and Dr Who in the same post?

As to the question at hand, for me, as long as the rules of the world are consistent, are explained when deviating from the well established, and make some sort of logical sense, I can roll with it. That said, the one 'characteristic' I don't think can be broken and the character still be a vampire is the need to consume blood. Now that's not saying you can't have psychic vampires or energy vampires (though I like it best when such creatures are described as such but have a different 'official' name), but if the character is simply called a vampire and it has no need for blood, it's not a vamp in my opinion.

This has been an interesting thread. I'm enjoying reading everyone's comments. ^_^

message 10: by Jamie (JK) (new)

Jamie (JK) (eimajtl) I pretty much much hate all vampires in books these days. Far too often they are just sexbots and nothing more. That being said, I do enjoy the vampires from The Dresden Files and the Cal Leandros series. In the first, there are different sets and they aren't just about the sex. One clan is, but the others are very different. In the Cal Leandros series they are mostly just people, which is interesting and they're born, not made. I like the twist Thurman gave on them.

I'm not against any changes that authors make to vampires, so long as they are interesting. When they do nothing but make them humans obsessed with sex, that's not really making a vampire. That's just making a human who is obsessed with sex. I just hate the pretty vampires. Ick. Give me the monsters they were made to be.

message 11: by Michael (new)

Michael Stewart (michaelfstewart) | 26 comments Jamie wrote: "Give me the monsters they were made to be. "

I'm with you. I want mine to be monsters, but I figured that had a lot to do with preferring the more horror side of urban fantasy and less the PNR. I do however like the world building aspects of closed society vampires, monsters living amongst us, but it works better for things like werewolves, faerie, witches, etc.


message 12: by Stublore (last edited Aug 05, 2010 10:01AM) (new)

Stublore | 4 comments Hmm, Vampires?
Let's see, ofc they have to drink blood, afterall "The blood is the life".(they may be able to eat and drink other things, but it provides no nourishment, it's merely camouflage).
They are generally supernatural creatures, so crosses, and perhaps any other religious icons will affect them, provided the user is actually a sincere believer.
They cannot have children via sex, but can create new vampires by draining and exchanging blood.
As they are supernatural, they should have "powers", be it flight, speed, strength, esp,shapeshifting etc, perhaps even be able to "use magic".
Silver, not a bother.
Staking them turns them to dust.
Sunlight kills them, perhaps able to tolerate for a short time, but painful to them.
Must sleep during the day(but perhaps in some cases can awaken and move).
By and large, most Vampires should be self-centered, amoral and generally looking out for themselves.
They should also be secretive, striving to conceal their existence from the masses.
And of course above all, they must to socially flexible, afterall living for centuries much of what was permissible in earlier times would be cause for concern in later ones.

Otoh Brian Lumleys Necroscope makes use of a different type of Vampire, an alien parasite, and is much more in keeping with what I think a Vampire should be than the gay Vampires in Twilight.

(There was a Role Playing Game called Vampire the Masquerade, which also had a very detailed and interesting take on Vampires, much closer to TB than Twilight).

And lastly, the Vampires as depicted in True Blood are damn good Vampires(apart from the whole silver thing, and turning into a bloody mess when staked).

message 13: by Kal (new)

Kal I don't have any particular preference with vampires. I think a good part of what I like about vampires is the secret keeping part of it, as well as the long life thing -- not so much in reference to the immortality, as just the idea of what someone could learn over time, what wisdom they could come to understand. I also like the various super-powers.

So in that sense I guess I don't particularly like vampires at all, just some aspects of their nature, which are unfortunately rarely all present at once. Especially with the new incarnations of them, which are often restricted to the maturity level of their apparent age.

All that said, speaking of particular weaknesses, no preference. I didn't particularly mind the virtually invulnerable vampires of Twilight. When you come right down to it, they're fantasy anyway, so there's no use saying that a particular weakness makes them seem more "real". All of the weaknesses are symbolic somehow, and I like it when they're used that way.

One power that tends to bug me is the whole addictive drug like quality of many vampire's bites, or the mind control powers. Often stories that use those ideas quickly come to have unfortunate implications in relation to the idea of abuse... the victim coming to accept and like it and so on. That's just icky to me.

message 14: by mostunexpected (new)

mostunexpected J. Benjamin Suarez | 161 comments Stublore wrote: "Otoh Brian Lumleys Necroscope makes use of a different type of Vampire, an alien parasite, and is much more in keeping with what I think a Vampire should be than the gay Vampires in Twilight."

Gay vampires of Twilight?

message 15: by Julia (new)

Julia | 615 comments Henry Fitzroy's Tanya Huff's vampire in first the Blood books and then the Smoke books is bisexual and his donor/ companion/ friend Tony Foster is gay, but I don't think that's the kind of gay you meant, Stublore...

message 16: by mostunexpected (new)

mostunexpected J. Benjamin Suarez | 161 comments These days I have been hearing people casually insult Twilight for having good vampires.

This seems odd to me since there were only two vampires in the entire series that hadn't murdered anyone. The majority of vampires in the series honestly didn't understand why someone would try to avoid killing humans.

I can only assume these people haven't read the series.

message 17: by Julieanne (new)

Julieanne (ysoriel) | 8 comments In a book that I have just finished writing, my Vampires eat, sleep, can tolerate the sun, none of the gobbledygooch of garlic, silver or crosses apply to them. I made two sets of Vamps, one are classical and the others are inheritors, one is immortal whilst the other isn't. I think it's great to step away from the 'normal' vision of what Vampires are, it's nice to be able to create something other than the ordinary!

Either way, I'm fascinated by the whole concept of vampirism and love to explore the boundaries in which we write!!!!

message 18: by Carrie (Care) (new)

Carrie (Care) (care76) | 109 comments ^^ Sounds interesting!

I love almost any style of Vampire. I first loved them in The Lost Boys, and love them all the way to Twilight. I have to admit, I didn't care for a lot of the vamps in Twilight. I want my vampires to have fangs. That is the most important aspect to me. And I want them to be able to be staked or beheaded.

I probably prefer the Buffyverse vamps the best. Can't go into the daylight, drink blood, soulless (but can have a weird mix like spike who although didn't have a soul, he knew some aspect of devotion, even though ultimately he's in it for himself), religious items effect them but not enough to do any real damage, etc...

I also like it when biting or drinking blood is somehow sensual and sexual, but can also be painful. I like it when most are scary, but I like vamps like in Vampire academy where there are bad vamps and good vamps. I basically will read or watch anything to do with vamps, and it is more important to me to connect to the characters and be in love with the story than the particulars.

message 19: by Krysta (new)

Krysta (krystafig) Carrie (Care) wrote: "^^ Sounds interesting!

I love almost any style of Vampire. I first loved them in The Lost Boys, and love them all the way to Twilight. I have to admit, I didn't care for a lot of the vamps in Twilight..."

I agree with yu that the Buffyverse vamps were the best. But Spike? Pft...
Haha, sorry...I hated Spike after he got the chip in his head (the reason he went good was because the Initiative put that chip in his head so he couldn't hurt humans, but he could hurt demons, and he's a destructive vampire that wanted to hurt something, so he just started hurting demons.
I think Angel was the perfect example of the souled vampire...with his soul he was good, because he had a conscience and he felt guilt. Without it, he was the most ruthless creature imaginable.
Buffy nerd here...sorry...had to get my 2 cents in about that.)

message 20: by Carrie (Care) (new)

Carrie (Care) (care76) | 109 comments I am a huge Buffy geek as well, so I get what you are saying. But, you must have misinterpreted what I said.

can have a weird mix like spike who although didn't have a soul, he knew some aspect of devotion, even though ultimately he's in it for himself.

First off, I am not counting souled vampires. Just regular, soulless, vamps. And Spike was indeed different. He wasn't as ruthless as most. He loved Dru and his mother even after being turned. While he was soulless, he cared for Buffy, Dawn, and Joyce. It might have started with obsession, but he did show more feeling than any other soulless vamp. Like I said, he was still doing most things for his own selfish reasons, so no matter how much soulless Spike was with the scoobies, he was still ultimately a monster. But the line was blurred. He wasn't as evil as Angelus, but not nearly as good as Angel. Do you get what I mean?

message 21: by Kristin (last edited Aug 09, 2010 12:42PM) (new)

Kristin (krispymac) | 4 comments I like how this conversation was picked up from a while back! everyone has made some really great points. I'm usually ok with any vampire world as long as the author doesn't change the rules in the middle of the story. "All vamps turn to dust in the sun... wait, this guy doesn't so he can have a romantic relationship." uhm... no. but otherwise: everything evolves, so why shouldn't vampire myths as well? I love the creativity of authors adapting myths.

and i agree, i want fangs, but it's ok if they can be retracted.
I think the cross/silver bit developed just throughout history and changes in religion. a form of Vampire has existed all through history way back to the Egyptians and Romans (before christianity) but i like the idea that the cross/star doesn't have any power unless you believe in it.

For vampires, the act of vampirism is sex. seduction, penetration, exchange of fluids and the creation of something new. I think this is the sexual appeal of vampires in uf and pnr. Tall dark and handsome... and a vampire. jackpot.

What gets on my biggest nerve is a fantasy world where vampires are like super humans with as few weaknesses as possible. if that was so, why don't they just take over the world? Especially if they can go out in the sun without burning (ahem stephanie meyer...). I think that's why i enjoy True Blood (not the books so much) because the vampires have so many hidden weaknesses and had been forced to hide by society.

I'd like to see a vamp book where whenever vampires go out in the sun, they experience a severe case of narcolepsy.

Last of all, I"m currently reading The Historian and loving it because it follows the classic literary version of vampires according to Bram Stoker's Dracula. In bookshelves full of supernatural creatures, it's refreshing to see a respective nod to the masterpieces.

message 22: by Kristin (last edited Aug 09, 2010 02:15PM) (new)

Kristin (krispymac) | 4 comments Carrie (Care) wrote: "But the line was blurred. He wasn't as evil as Angelus, but not nearly as good as Angel. Do you get what I mean?.."

I gotcha. spike was fun but a little drawn out sometimes. I freaking love the differences between Angel and Angelus. brilliant move by whedon.

message 23: by Krysta (new)

Krysta (krystafig) Carrie (Care) wrote: "I am a huge Buffy geek as well, so I get what you are saying. But, you must have misinterpreted what I said.

can have a weird mix like spike who although didn't have a soul, he knew some aspect o..."

You're right...I think I did misinterpret what you meant.
I dunno. I guess I just really didn't care for Spike, and I didn't exactly like what happened to him after he couldn't hurt humans anymore. He didn't have a soul, and I didn't like that his obsession of Buffy lead to loving her.

message 24: by Irene (new)

Irene Hollimon | 37 comments I'm pretty open to the way an author chooses to build their world.
But... I do have some opinion
I think vampires are made not born... it's what makes them different from humans
I like the vampires so be superhuman extra strength, extra senses smell, sight and hearing
but not shape shifters, I like that to be separate
so since they're superhuman- it's cool that they are for the most part incredibly good looking and generally rich
but they've got to have some weakness, some vulnerability or what's the interest in that? Let the author choose but sun is a generally accepted weakness...

message 25: by Beth (new)

Beth | 2 comments Krysta wrote: "Carrie (Care) wrote: "^^ Sounds interesting!

I love almost any style of Vampire. I first loved them in The Lost Boys, and love them all the way to Twilight. I have to admit, I didn't care for a lo..."
You should try The Undead Heart by Tate Jackson. It's the first book in The Blood Thirst Series. I loved it. It's on sale on amazon.com as a kindle book for .99 right now but only for the next few days then it goes back to 12.99. You can download the Amazon Kindle PC ebook reader for free. I have it on my laptop and it's preety cool. you can also check out the author's website at http://www.theundeadheart.yolasite.com and read the first chapter for free! (I didn't care for Twilight either. Bella was weak ant vampire's ought not sparkle!)

message 26: by Carrie (Care) (new)

Carrie (Care) (care76) | 109 comments Hmmm,I have a Nook so I wonder if it is on sale at B&N too. I will have to check. Thanks for the tip!

message 27: by debra (new)

debra (talieson) | 1 comments I love most vampires. I did enjoy the Twilight books - they were entertaining to me, but the vamps were NON vamps - no fangs, sparkly skin, no sleeping, no blood - just not good enough !!

I like the blood drinking, day sleeping, biting people to turn them rather than being born a vamp, being able to make the bites sensual or painful, the blood healing - ahh so many things.

As another Buffy addict I have to say that Joss' vamps are probably my favourites overall, and that IMHO Spike was by far more interesting than Angel.

Angel was a complete animal when Angelus, all nice when souled Angel, but he wasn't anything so sweet when he was just a mortal. Spike was adorable before Dru turned him and he was the only vamp who kept any humanity whatsoever without a soul (loving mum, Dru, Buffy, Dawn) while still being capable of complete conscienceless evil. He remains my favourite vampire of all time.

message 28: by Beth (new)

Beth | 2 comments Spikr was my fav character in Angel!

message 29: by Alicia (new)

Alicia (aliciavillasenor) | 6 comments I like my vampires to be oldschool-bloodsuckers you better watch your back for! I don't like it when they try not to drink human blood because that's denying who they are-killers! Vampires should be vampires!

message 30: by Becca (new)

Becca (goblinfan) | 215 comments In The Vampire Files, by P. N. Elrod, it was actually quite difficult to make another vampire. Which would explain why vamps in her world weren't ruling the whole place. Also, most things couldn't hurt vamps except wood and head wounds, and staking through the heart. Elrod's vamps had more the old school weaknesses: can't cross running water, needed home dirt to sleep in. Sun light wouldn't kill them out right, I think, but I haven't read all of the books yet.

message 31: by Roshio (new)

Roshio | 7 comments Alice wrote: "I like my vampires to be oldschool-bloodsuckers you better watch your back for! I don't like it when they try not to drink human blood because that's denying who they are-killers! Vampires should b..."

Absolutely! what is the point of being a vampire if you don't drink human blood?! To be honest I'm not a big fan of the 'good' vampires either, I like it if you can't tell whether they're evil or not...like Jean Claude in the Anita Blake series. He seems nice, but wouldn't blink at ripping someone's throat out. That's a vampire!

message 32: by Chelsea (new)

Chelsea (chelseameagan) | 2 comments Usually my vampires are not wary of garlic, cannot shapechange, are WEAKENED in the sunlight, which makes them so much more vulnerable and more fun since burning kills them too quickly, they can see their reflections, because they drink blood, they can't eat human food (I like the food to rot in their mouths, eh), are not affected by silver, can die by stakes, beheading, etc. And when they do die, they shrivel up and eventually leave behind nothing. How quick it happens depends on how long they've been alive.
Overall, I like them to be badasses, yet monsters at the same time. I like to be horrified at what they can do, but at the same time they redeem themselves.
I mean, vampires were born out of horror, so why not keep them that way?

message 33: by Shomeret (new)

Shomeret | 233 comments I like vampires as complex characters, like any character I read in fiction. Monsters bore me. All sweetness and light bores me. Give me ambivalent vampires.

message 34: by Becca (new)

Becca (goblinfan) | 215 comments Roshio, hell yeah! Totally agree with you there. Especially Jean-Claude, he's definitely more of a bad ass, not so much a monster that kills strictly for the fun of it. But more because it's practical. It's just good business kind of thing. I've been re-reading the Anita Blake series lately, and I'm seeing him in a different light now.
And I agree with you Shomeret. If they're too much of a monster, or a goody two shoe, they become predictable.

Or that's the way I look at it anyway.

message 35: by Justina (new)

Justina (librarian_stina) | 8 comments Ranata wrote: "I like that they can see themselves in the mirror in some books. And I want my vampires to sleep once in awhile. I like the not being able to go out into daylight deal but some books have it that ..."

The Twilight vamps have fangs, they just don't really use them or "pop them out" much.

message 36: by Justina (last edited Aug 28, 2010 07:48AM) (new)

Justina (librarian_stina) | 8 comments I just love vampires... I love the power that you can practically feel from being in their presence, the witty phrases, the cockiness, the way they can choose to care for someone very much or not at all, how they're soo freaking gorgeous because it draws in prey, how when they smile the tips of their fangs stick out just a little bit, and many other things.

I have to say though, aside from ABSOLUTELY LOVING Buffy & TrueBloods, I like book vampires best, I think.

I love *The Last Vampire series by Christopher Pike,
*Vampire Academy series by Richelle Mead,
Evernight series by Claudia Grey,
*Morganville series by Rachel Caine,
House of Night by P.C. & Kristin Cast,
Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer (not so much the first two, but the second two),
*Under the Blood Red Moon by Mina Hepsen,
*Peeps & The Last Days by Scott Westerfield,
and any vampire, faerie, werewolf, supernatural book that I can get my hands on.

I haven't read the older ones (I quit 1/2way through Dracula 3 years ago) but I plan to at some point. Especially "Interview with a Vampire" and such.
The Last Vampire (The Last Vampire, #1) by Christopher Pike Vampire Academy (Vampire Academy, #1) by Richelle Mead Evernight (Evernight, #1) by Claudia Gray Glass Houses (The Morganville Vampires, #1) by Rachel Caine Marked (House of Night, #1) by P.C. Cast Breaking Dawn (Twilight, #4) by Stephenie Meyer Under the Blood Red Moon by Mina Hepsen Peeps by Scott Westerfeld The Last Days by Scott Westerfeld

message 37: by Tenoko1 (last edited Aug 27, 2010 01:57PM) (new)

Tenoko1 I'm open minded. As long as the writing itself is good, the particulars don't bother me really. Dracula was terrible. That may actually be giving it too much credit. I like my vampires relatively human, but only because I haven't found any good books that make them evil. And maybe because I'm Terrified of the walking on two-legs Werewolf, so therefore I am drawn to their natural enemy without fear.

Actually, I think most people are getting a little (more than a little, actually) burnt out of hearing about and seeing things involving vampires everywhere they turn. They seem to have taken over.


I am looking forward to a collection of short stories by various famous authors, all involving with vampires.
Teeth: Vampire Tales Teeth Vampire Tales by Ellen Datlow

It has some really great authors in it, most of which I already like their work, so I'm very excited about this book. Contributors include:
Genevieve Valentine • Steve Berman • Christopher Barzak • Neil Gaiman • Delia Sherman • Garth Nix • Suzy McKee Charnas • Kaaron Warren • Cecil Castellucci • Jeffrey Ford • Nathan Ballingrud • Kathe Koja • Catherynne M. Valente • Melissa Marr • Ellen Kushner • Cassandra Clare • Holly Black • Lucius Shepard • Emma Bull • Tanith Lee

message 38: by Bill (new)

Bill (reedye) | 46 comments I'm looking forward to that one too Misty.

message 39: by Becca (new)

Becca (goblinfan) | 215 comments I'll keep an eye out for that one. I loved the Abhorsen trilogy by Nix.

message 40: by Shomeret (new)

Shomeret | 233 comments I wonder if all the stories in Teeth: Vampire Taleswill be newly written or if some will be reprints. For example, I've read older vampire stories by Suzy McKee Charnas and Tanith Lee. It would be nice if all the stories were new.

message 41: by Bill (new)

Bill (reedye) | 46 comments I think all new Shomeret but not positive. The Tanith Lee is definitely new called Why Light? and the Suzy McKee Charnas is called Late Bloomer. The Cassandra Clare and Holly Black is a joint story called The Perfect Dinner Party.

message 42: by Tenoko1 (last edited Aug 28, 2010 11:22AM) (new)

Tenoko1 @ Shomeret: I would think so. I mean, if it wee older stories people might have already read, some people would be less inclined to buy it.

I was actually looking for a collection of stories like the 'Vampires' or 'Ghosts' books by Annabella Smith (neither of which I would recommend). And happened across Teeth: Vampire Tales which sounds very promising. Do ya'll know of any other collection books that are any good?

message 43: by Becca (new)

Becca (goblinfan) | 215 comments I liked By Blood We Live, though I don't know how many of those stories have been published in other collections. I think one of the stories was familiar from a different collection.

message 44: by John (new)

John Hartness In the book I'm working on the vamps have the following characteristics so far.

Can't deal with sunlight - extremely painful then fatal with lengthy exposure

No problem with garlic

Fangs - retractable, otherwise it's just too hard to talk

Religious icons held by people who believe are an issue, objects held by non-believers are just objects, it's the faith that's the problem

Silver saps strength and binds them - why? No good reason except they need some weakness, and it works on other supernatural beings (werewolves)

Not particularly sexy

Can't eat, can drink. I didn't want to deal with the whole vampire poop issue.

Anything that destroys the heart kills them - they live off blood after all

Decapitation kills them - blood's gotta get to the brain - they heal fast enough that a slashed throat isn't an issue, and I don't plan on having anyone try (benefits of creating the world)

running water isn't an issue

heightened senses, super strength and speed, no shapeshifting (at least in book 1), no control over animals (that we know of), no particular beef with lycanthropes (but they've also never met one)

You can read a chapter at my profile if you like. It's very far from complete, so hopefully it will come out next year.

message 45: by Jamie (JK) (new)

Jamie (JK) (eimajtl) Oh gosh, please don't add a werewolf versus vampire element.... there are SO MANY supernatural myths. Pick something other than werewolves to be the rival of vampires. Pleeeeeease. The vampire/werewolf thing is so tired and overused.

message 46: by Caramelle (new)

Caramelle | 8 comments In the books i've read, the vampires can do and/or vulnerable to the following:
(im just gonna avoid any reference to the Twilight vamps...)

• vulnerable to silver.
• regenerative blood, thus quick healing.
• heightened senses and speed.
• vulnerable to sunlight (aka. friend and or dusted)
• falls asleep when the sun rises - older vampires can avoid this
• still eats food
• eyes turn to silver when extremely emotional or excited...
• digests food...but not bodily waste is created....
• glowing green eyes.
• hypnosis/erasing memories
• flying, telekinetic, pyrokinetic
• doesn't need to breathe
• of those who drink other vampires' blood can gain their abilities while their blood is in the system
• reproduction is possible...but only in the early stages after being changed, since their human functions are still working...thus creating half-breeds
• half-breeds can have abilities, but not as strong as full vampires.
• on a very-rare occasion, a half-breed being changed to a full vampire will desire vampire blood over human blood
• half-breeds transition into a full vampire, but needs to feed on a vampire of the opposite sex to complete the transition or die.
• vampires are born and not changed
• they need can only feed and survive off vampires of the opposite sex's blood
• have an hierarchy - let it be a higher power or just a group of government officials
• ways to a certain death: decapitation, silver in the heart - BUT must twist the silver to completely kill, getting blown up, torched and sunlight.

um...that's all that I can remember at the moment.
Will add more if i remember some.

As for the whole vampire/werewolf thing...I do think its over used as well. But if the storyline can be original enough to make it work, like make it more a vampire/shifter to any animal, make them more cooperative rather than enemies...it wouldn't be so bad.

message 47: by Carrie (Care) (new)

Carrie (Care) (care76) | 109 comments Stina wrote: "The Twilight vamps have fangs, they just don't really use them or "pop them out" much."

Twilight vampires do not have fangs. They have razor sharp teeth, but no fangs. It was one of the things I didn't like about them.

message 48: by Justina (new)

Justina (librarian_stina) | 8 comments Carrie (Care) wrote: Twilight vampires do not have fangs. They have razor sharp teeth, but no fangs. It was one of ..."

Oh. Maybe I didn't read that part too closely. I had to skip a sentence here or there to stay entertained in that series. I mean seriously, a vampire that SPARKLES!? Come on!

message 49: by Julia (new)

Julia | 615 comments Okay, here's an off the wall thing. I just read an English professor's thesis that, in part, To Kill a Mockingbird is a Gothic novel. And Boo (Arthur) Radley to the children shares many characteristics of a vampire.
Here's the book: To Kill a Mockingbird: Threatening Boundaries.
(In general, I'd recommend vampires books over this, though not the Twilight series.)

message 50: by Miranda (new)

Miranda (miranda_fall) I like most of the typical vampire traits: fangs, blood, dark clothing/personality, can't go out in the daylight or touch a cross or holy water or go into a church, heightened senses and abilities. Although aversion to garlic, silver and being able to transform into a bat/mist are ones that I don't agree with. They should sleep too, if not out of necessity than out of routine or comfort, although not in coffins or castles. I'm not sure how I feel about them not being able to cross the threshold without invitation. It's kind of cool but it can get in the way sometimes. I'm also on the fence about them not having reflections. I would be okay either way. Flying is complicated. I think it only works if they have wings, otherwise it's just too super heroey. And I like the adaption of their roles from villains to dark (and sometimes reluctant) heroes.
Though I still like Twilight, it would have been better with a more traditional, less "fluffy" interpretation of vampires. I mean, sparkles? Come on.

« previous 1
back to top