• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Things you'd like to see in a Vampire novel.

1. "Carmilla" by Le Fanu. Weird, fun, shocking image.

2. & 3. Brilliant suggestions!

4. The best-known vampire story prior to Stoker's Dracula was indeed a gay -- that is, effeminate lesbian -- vampire (see #1, above). Stoker, for his part, wisely made certain that Dracula feasted only on females, while leaving Harker to the "brides". Thus we are assured of proper Victorian heterosexual vampirism only, in his novel metaphorizing stuffy sexual mores!
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
Hittman, I'm looking forward to reading that; it sounds funny/charming. The first thought that occurs to me is that since JWs put no stock in crosses or crucifixes (perceiving them as idolatrous), a JW vampire should be immune to the holy symbol as a deterrent.

But you're the first and only author on the subject (Dangerfield's joke only counts as a joke!), so I imagine you've delved into the subject pretty deeply.

And BTW, "Blood Witness" is a terrific title.
Click to expand...
It's a podcast, and it's quite good (I'll take that $20 now, Dave ;)). I really only had a single problem with it, but it's a quick scene so it didn't take too much away from the whole thing.
 
If you want to spread a teensy bit of scientific explanations, you could just mention possibilities in passing, such as a human scienticist which discovers the virus saying "Hmmm....seems the virus mutates the XPA gene as well". Mutations of this gene are what cause classical Xeroderma pigmentosumWP and could be an explanation for why vampires cannot tolerate sunlight, without having to go too in depth in the novel. Viruses are known to carry mutated genes or are capable of mutating genes of the host, so this is not a stretch, while still maintaining some of the mysticism of the original story. Avid readers may check up on this mention, which rabid fanclubs have been known to do.
 
Ixion said:
If you want to spread a teensy bit of scientific explanations, you could just mention possibilities in passing, such as a human scienticist which discovers the virus saying "Hmmm....seems the virus mutates the XPA gene as well". Mutations of this gene are what cause classical Xeroderma pigmentosumWP and could be an explanation for why vampires cannot tolerate sunlight, without having to go too in depth in the novel. Viruses are known to carry mutated genes or are capable of mutating genes of the host, so this is not a stretch, while still maintaining some of the mysticism of the original story. Avid readers may check up on this mention, which rabid fanclubs have been known to do.
Click to expand...

Okay, there's that, or there's the theory that the vampires are the way they are because of the hungry kiss of the night which runs like fire through the darkness of their blood. You can tempt virginal beauties with the seductive allure of forbidden passion, or you can have Dracula pop into the lab for a fingerstick and a DNA sequencing, not both. Which do you want, Debbie the Homecoming Queen with her long blonde hair? Or Nancy the Nurse in her scrubs and Crocs? Debbie quests to understand her burgeoning urges as she grows into a woman. Nancy was up at five a.m. collecting urine samples.
 
Can the supernatural be explained in scientific language? It's as though the old "midi-chlorian vs. Force mysticism" argument has come back to haunt us. Yet that debate was a recent outgrowth of a far older controversy among science fiction/fantasy/horror enthusiasts.

The debate goes something like this. On the one hand, if something exists in the physical universe, it can be described at least through mechanical forces and solid matter -- a virus, a symbiote, electromagnetic energy, etc. It can be measured and examined and described in scientific language -- XPA gene mutations, midi-chlorian count "over 20,000".

On the other hand, the word itself "supernatural" seems to indicate something that is beyond such mundane realities. In this line of thinking, the luminous membranes of ghosts, for example, or the mist-form of a vampire, cannot be quantified -- as "ectoplasm" or by EMF meters. It's magic power, or divine power, or both, and cannot be measured or examined or described in scientific language.

My opinion, as an SFFH fan and unpublished SFFH author, is that the truth lies somewhere in between. It depends on the context and, frankly, on how well the author writes. Particularly, if a description of the science of vampirism is underscored by other scientific references in the story, and is relevant to the plot, then I welcome such explanations. If however it is thrown in as a single paragraph or two of otherwise non-essential information, I consider it pointless and I advise against it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Okay, there's that, or there's the theory that the vampires are the way they are because of the hungry kiss of the night which runs like fire through the darkness of their blood. You can tempt virginal beauties with the seductive allure of forbidden passion, or you can have Dracula pop into the lab for a fingerstick and a DNA sequencing, not both. Which do you want, Debbie the Homecoming Queen with her long blonde hair? Or Nancy the Nurse in her scrubs and Crocs? Debbie quests to understand her burgeoning urges as she grows into a woman. Nancy was up at five a.m. collecting urine samples.
Click to expand...

Nominated.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Can the supernatural be explained in scientific language? It's as though the old "midi-chlorian vs. Force mysticism" argument has come back to haunt us. Yet that debate was a recent outgrowth of a far older controversy among science fiction/fantasy/horror enthusiasts.

The debate goes something like this. On the one hand, if something exists in the physical universe, it can be described at least through mechanical forces and solid matter -- a virus, a symbiote, electromagnetic energy, etc. It can be measured and examined and described in scientific language -- XPA gene mutations, midi-chlorian count "over 20,000".

On the other hand, the word itself "supernatural" seems to indicate something that is beyond such mundane realities. In this line of thinking, the luminous membranes of ghosts, for example, or the mist-form of a vampire, cannot be quantified -- as "ectoplasm" or by EMF meters. It's magic power, or divine power, or both, and cannot be measured or examined or described in scientific language.

My opinion, as an SFFH fan and unpublished SFFH author, is that the truth lies somewhere in between. It depends on the context and, frankly, on how well the author writes. Particularly, if a description of the science of vampirism is underscored by other scientific references in the story, and is relevant to the plot, then I welcome such explanations. If however it is thrown in as a single paragraph or two of otherwise non-essential information, I consider it pointless and I advise against it.
Click to expand...


If the OP is already using viruses as a vehicle for promoting some subcultures of vampires, then I think this might be a worth a mention, since some science is being thrown in. It doesn't detract from the idea that the older vampires mentioned are wholly supernatural and any aversion to sunlight they might have doesn't rely on a gene mutation.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Three suggestions:

1. I think it was E.T.A. Hoffman (or it might have be Sheridan le Fanu, somebody like that anyway) had a short story about a vampire. In it, they opened the coffin and found it full of blood, in which she was floating. She did bite her victims, I think, but she really needed to sleep bathed in the blood rather than just ingesting it. It's a much more effective visual, I think.

2. Avoid deliberately exotic names. Naming everyone with lots of "V"s and "Y"s and foreign-sounding (although rarely genuinely foreign) names is lazy, and somewhat irritating. Transylvania is full of Stephens and Michaels and Annas, you don't need Vlads and Vyronikas and, god help us all, Vyxyns. If you are any good at characterization, the evillest vampire can be named Emily Jones or Scott Cooper, rather than having to enhance themselves by swanning around as Lady Seductra or Count Bloodtalon.

3. Don't explain too much. Truly effective supernatural fiction keeps the supernatural supernatural. It's supposed to be romantic (in the old sense, not the lovey-dovey sense) and mysterious--explaining how everything works is fine for science fiction but it totally kills the mood for horror. "It's really a virus!" or "it's aliens!" ruins everything. Horror is horrifying precisely because it isn't understood. Unless you're writing these as science fiction, in which case explain it all or the readers will be pissed.

eta: Okay, 4. The Count Bloodtalon thing...let's face it, vampires are kind of gay. If you must make gay vampires, please make at least some of them butch. They freaking kill people to eat, they can't all be girly sissy men.
Click to expand...
The Monkey is wise.
 
Ixion said:
If the OP is already using viruses as a vehicle for promoting some subcultures of vampires, then I think this might be a worth a mention, since some science is being thrown in. It doesn't detract from the idea that the older vampires mentioned are wholly supernatural and any aversion to sunlight they might have doesn't rely on a gene mutation.
Click to expand...

Fair enough; as I said, context and the skill of the author are what matter here, IMO. If it works, it works, ya know?

But this raises another question I have about the OP's vampire "races". If the Darks and the Mystics are supernatural/magical in origin, and the Virals are viral/scientific, what's the connection between them? How to reconcile this seeming contradiction?

Tyr_13, where are you?
 
A) None of the main characters should become a vampire. Vampires should be unholy monsters that are inherently unknowable, not relatable characters. If a character does become a vampire, it should be a horrifying, dehumanizing process that will ultimately end in doom or damnation, not a chance to get superpowers.

B) Vampires should quiet hunters of the night who use stealth and deception to find their prey. They should not be able to hurl minivans. They should be no more, and probably some degree less, formidable than a normal human in a straight up fight. Otherwise, they could just run rampant over humanity and would have no need to stay hidden, or they would have been discovered and destroyed decades ago.

C) Some explanation of why vampires want/need blood to begin with. Half the vampires in the fiction can just give it up with no more or less consequences then a heroin addiction. The other half seem to grow wretched or weak without it, but none of them seem to actually die or anything. They have fangs and a compulsion to seek the blood of the living. There should be some reason why.

Oh, and if you doing viral vampires, just remember that they are going to seem like superpowered zombies. This is because the Romero zombie is itself a rip-off of the viral vampires from the book I Am Legend.
 
Last edited:
Rogue1stclass said:
A) None of the main characters should become a vampire. Vampires should be unholy monsters that are inherently unknowable, not relatable characters. If a character does become a vampire, it should be a horrifying, dehumanizing process that will ultimately end in doom or damnation, not a chance to get superpowers.

B) Vampires should quiet hunters of the night who use stealth and deception to find their prey. They should not be able to hurl minivans. They should be no more, and probably some degree less, formidable than a normal human in a straight up fight. Otherwise, they could just run rampant over humanity and would have no need to stay hidden, or they would have been discovered and destroyed decades ago.

C) Some explanation of why vampires want/need blood to begin with. Half the vampires in the fiction can just give it up with no more or less consequences then a heroin addiction. The other half seem to grow wretched or weak without it, but none of them seem to actually die or anything. They have fangs and a compulsion to seek the blood of the living. There should be some reason why.
Click to expand...

Good calls.

D) They should not have a massive and well-connected feudal underground society, especially one that is bigger than any government. That kind of thing is impossible to hide.
 
No, but you did say:

Steve001 said:
What would I like to see in a vampire novel ? Nothing I don't like graphic novels
Click to expand...

... which would only make sense if Bram Stoker (who wrote the 1897 novel Dracula) wrote "graphic novels".

Also, the word you're looking for in post #112 is who, not whom. You're welcome. ;)
 
Hittman, I'm looking forward to reading that; it sounds funny/charming. The first thought that occurs to me is that since JWs put no stock in crosses or crucifixes (perceiving them as idolatrous), a JW vampire should be immune to the holy symbol as a deterrent.
Click to expand...

It's in there. Since they believe Christ was nailed to a stake, crucifixes have no effect on them. But hold up a stick, and you can scare them away. That was a fun scene to write.

Kmortis, if there's a scene that didn't work for you, I'd be curious to find out what it is, and why. Not that I'm going to rewrite it at this point, but for my own edification. If you're inclined, send me a PM.
 
Another thing you need to address if you are doing a vampire mythology, which it sounds like you are, is why there are vampires in the first place. Most sources just seem to take it as given that vampires do exist, and here's how they get that way and what they can do. This leads to all kinds of arbitrary and inconsistant portrayals of the beings, such as the blood addicted superhero that is so common today.

What you need to do is come up with an underlying reason why vampires have the abilities and weaknesses they have, what blood has to do with that, and why someone would actually want to subject themselves to whatever causes it to happen.
 
Rogue1stclass said:
C) Some explanation of why vampires want/need blood to begin with. Half the vampires in the fiction can just give it up with no more or less consequences then a heroin addiction. The other half seem to grow wretched or weak without it, but none of them seem to actually die or anything. They have fangs and a compulsion to seek the blood of the living. There should be some reason why.
Click to expand...
I like that. Bob doesn't remember how or when he first got a taste for blood, but now he has progessed to actual murder and just can't stop. He runs into Fred, another vampire, who invites him to Vampires Anonymous, a 12 step recovery program for chronic blood drinkers.

Blood drinking is three stages: impulsive, compulsive, repulsive.
I came for my drinking blood and stayed for my thinking good.
I used to be a hopeless blood fiend; today I'm bloodless hope fiend.
If I could drink blood like a regular person...I'd drink blood all the time. Therein lies our paradox...
 
tyr_13 said:
So what would you like to see in a vampire novel, because I'm writing one.

Also, if anyone has some good books on historic vampire legends, it would be helpful for research. I know most of the stuff is very recently invented, but anything is helpful.
Click to expand...

First. You should read "Carmilla" if you haven't already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmilla

There is a link to the full text at the bottom of the wiki article.

Second. You need to watch this film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Right_One_In_(film)

It is the best Vampire story I have ever seen. If you have netflix it's up on instant view at this moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom