Second Wind Publishing discussion

I confess; I'm NOT on the bandwagon. Vampires are nasty creatures, bloodsuckers and parasites on the living, like tapeworms, liver flukes and leeches. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on why so many pre-teens, teens, YAs and even (gasp) grownups, find these horrible creatures romantic/fascinating. I understand that the "Twilight" universe is pretty namby-pamby, and I know they "only" drink animal blood. (All of us who eat meat do.) Still, look up the old movie (1970's) with Frank Langella as Bram Stoker's vampire, and see if --beyond the S&M sexuality--you find a vampire a creature you really want to date. ;)

I think people love the whole immortality aspect. And ever since vampires because sexy...well, sex sells

The only vampires that exist are vampire bats.

Some people actually believe they are vampires. If they are vampires, I would love to know how they become one. Surely not from a vampire bat's bite.

I think that a lot of the teens are going crazy over the vampires, because of the people that's playing vampires. They like that actors, because he makes vampires look cool to them.

I'm so over the whole vampire genre, to tell you the truth. I got out of that phase when I was in high school (and I graduated in 1981).

To Arch's point, though, there are historical examples of actual vampirism. One rather (in)famous example was Peter Kurten. Most likely the individuals in question suffered from porphyria, a medical condition that prevents the body from formulating heme.

The "why" part of the pop culture fascination with vampires and vampirism is kind of Freudian, IMO. "I will penetrate you until you die" pretty much covers it.

That said, Frank Langella has spoiled me for any other Dracula on film. Not even my favorite actor (Gerard Butler, who did "Dracula 2000") could hold a candle to Langella's portrayal.

(Disclosure: I did write a vampire flash fiction, "Betrayed by a Kiss," that is on my profile. ::shrug::)

Never got into them. Don't expect I ever will. Read a few. Not impressed. Shapeshifters leave me just as cold. But they're selling, so publishers keep getting them into the bookstores.

We're in our world culture period where has surprised itself how much information we can take in.

People trying to become real vampires are risking safety nets like the amusement parks poorly run, attended poorly are danger places or what have we.

The entertainment movies and books and music look towards surprising consumers with gifts from legitimate artists as a normal. It's not so disappointing to head into the cinema for a movie.

I agree that Twilight's success is most likely due to the movie and the actors in it. As for other vampire fiction, I'm a big fan of many authors. Anne Rice and Sherilyn Kenyon, for example.

It has nothing to do with penetration I'm afraid. Not for me anyway. I don't find penetration until death an appealing idea. If written well, it's about the darkness, the mystery and appeal of immortality and of course, the opportunity to create complex and very flawed characters.

The problem is you either love it or you hate it. Personally I don't get a lot of other genres, that doesn't mean they aren't good, they're just not for me. I certainly wouldn't go around criticizing someone who did like something I didn't.

Part of the attraction is the sensuality and sexuality involved. I have to admit that I like a well-told vampire story (like Stoker's "Dracula") and I understand that the underlying psychology in all the vampire myths is purely hormonal... And 'vampire' has been a pop-culture thing in the world since the early 20th century: For example, the actress Theda Bara was called "vamp" meaning a type of femme fatale.

Most of the recent vampire stuff bores me. There's nothing really new and I really don't foresee anything new. All the authors who are writing about vampires all seem to be recycling the old myths as well as the historical aspects of the myth (Vlad the Impaler). So, I'll stick with Bram Stoker for my vampires in books. As far as the movies go, don't go trashing the Frank Langella "Dracula" LOL.... that version is my absolute favorite -- his voice is pure velvet and that is, in my opinion, the most sensual "Dracula" out there.... Of course, we're all entitled to our own opinions

..... Ooooh, and his EYES!!!

Okay, I'd best stop now :)

I'm of two minds about the vampire phenomena. On one hand, I think that the undead/cursed by God vampire is sort of played out. If they're actually dead creatures, there's certainly some odd issues going on when they become sex symbols.

To me, there's a few draws: 1) Immortality 2) Safe/Dangerous sex (No risk of children to spoil the romantic image/but they might kill you) 3) Secret Hierarchy (anything where there's a "world beyond your own" has a cache)

I may be biased, because I've actually written a vampire novel (unpublished as yet), just to clarify. For myself, I had to do a lot of work on the underpinnings of the mythology to make it palatable and rational, insofar as creatures of that sort could ever by. In my vision, vampires are very much alive, and the idea of making out with dead creatures repulses them as much as it would anyone.

All that said, I adored Buffy and Angel and Blade and Underworld and so on. It appears if there's enough bloodshed and kung fu, I'm able to go right along with the bloodsuckers.

I have to say I'm a vampire fan since my teens. Loved the Anne Rice books because they had some, excuse the term, bite and some really good history and stories to support the vampire myth.

But I have to agree. The vampire overload is a bit much and today's books mainly focus on how "hot" the vampire is and how much sex is exchanged between him and a mortal woman rather than actually building something behind the myth and characters. I think since vampires are considered the new bad boys, it's a current trend. Heck, I was swept away with it because I ended up writing one in my current series. But I aimed to make it more than just smexy time (lots of historical research and world building).

I like the vampires who are monsters with shades of humanity, thinking and feeling (no random killing machines for me!) rather than namby-pamby (love that word, Juliet). The best vampire book in my recent memory is David Lee Summer's Vampires of the Scarlet Order and Raven Dane's Blood Tears. Excellent books if you want to check em out. Penguin's Book of Vampire Stories has some wonderful, old vampire themed stories since the first one premiered (Polidori's The Vampyre). :-)

There is no such things as human vampires or even warewolves.

I don't find anything sexy about letting a man bite your neck, to suck your blood. I would think a man is real crazy if he wanted to suck my blood. He would definitely get slapped and/or punched by me.

I like well written books about vampires like "Dracula" and Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire" as well as "The Vampire Lestat." Didn't really care for "Queen of the Damned" or "Tale of the Body Thief." I also enjoyed "The Historian." I read "Twilight" but I can't say I'm in any hurry to finish the series, even though I'm curious to see where the story is going.

Oh, and then I also like the humorous side to vampires very much like Christopher Moore's "Blood Sucking Fiends," "You Suck," and the very anticipated "Bite Me."

Arch;

Not if he 'glamored' or 'dazzled' you. you'd be putty in his hands.

I'm joking, I agree that many recently popular vampire books are just ridiculous and impossible to read.

But I also agree with Rae. You can create vampire and werewolf characters that have a human edge. They are monsters, but they were human once. It only stands to reason there is something of that person left in there.

The problem with newer tales are that they are writing to a formula, telling the same tale over and over with no new twists or revelations to make it interesting. They aren't even trying to make it plausible. I'll reread the old stuff, so far I haven't found many new ones to get excited about.

Kate wrote: "I like well written books about vampires like "Dracula" and Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire" as well as "The Vampire Lestat." Didn't really care for "Queen of the Damned" or "Tale of the B..."

I really liked "The Historian," but the whole Vlad Tepes angle was secondary to the rest of the story.

I quit reading Anne Rice once and for all about midway through "Queen of the Damned," so I know just what you mean.

I didn't like Queen of the Damned, but there were several after that one (at least I read them after) that were really, just as breathtaking as Interview with a Vampire. They're vampire stories, but her attention to detail, the history and setting are what makes them different, and worth reading.

I liked "Queen", especially the historical aspects, but I have to agree about Tale of the Body Thief. I stopped the series after that one. :-/

Renee, do you recommend any particular books to check out later in the series that capture the power of the first few books?

I've been interested in reading The Historian although I've heard it reads a bit like a travelogue rather than a novel. The historical aspects and meaty story sound really interesting though. I may have to slide this one up for my next reading batch. :-)

Re Frank Langella--he was the sexiest AND MOST TERRIFYING of all recent vampires. His Count Dracula continues to figure in my nightmares.

I can see fascination with a creature that SCARES you, but not as a love interest. A relationship like that in the real world, is true fatal attraction, a story with a bummer of an ending.

Perhaps there's a lurking Puritan in my grandmother's heart, and therefore behind my provocative question. I worry about all these impressionable teens creating love objects out of demented, possibly sadistic, loners...

(Another voice says: "Oh, Lighten Up!")
:)

I loved the historian. I've loved most of them Here are a few exceptional ones.

The Witching Hour (Lives of the Mayfair Witches, #1)
Memnoch the Devil (The Vampire Chronicles, #5)

Lasher (Lives of the Mayfair Witches, #2)

The Mummy

Pandora (New Tales of the Vampires, #1)

Merrick (The Vampire Chronicles, #7)

Blackwood Farm (The Vampire Chronicles, #9)

Blood and Gold (The Vampire Chronicles, #8)

Cry to Heaven read

Vittorio: The Vampire (New Tales of the Vampires, #2)

The Feast of All Saints

Violin

Blood Canticle (The Vampire Chronicles, #10)

The Vampire Armand (The Vampire Chronicles, #6)

Taltos (Lives of the Mayfair Witches, #3)

I know. It's a lot. Some of them aren't vampire books, but they're still good. The Mayfair Witches series is one of my favorites. I loved Violin and Armand too.
I was going to post the links, but that takes so long. I'm lazy tonight.

I agree with you Juliet, they aren't exactly the kind of love stories I dream about. I'm not saying that the whole concept of vampires isn't based on sensuality, they're sexual creatures, acting on pure instinct and bloodlust. Of course there's going to be sex, but that doesn't mean that's all the appeal is.

You should also check out Sherilyn Kenyon, my favorite of hers so far is Acheron, which combines Greek Gods, Vampires, and other nasty monsters. The best part of it though is that she is heavy on the mythology and history rather than the vampire/monster aspects.

Well, since my new vampire book (In the Dark, Samhain Publishing http://www.samhainpublishing.com/comi... ) is releasing Tuesday, I guess that makes me a fan of the genre. :)

As for why people like them...it depends on the vampire in question, don't you think? Every author puts her/his own spin on the myth. Some visions are more appealing than others. But, in general, the vampire is the perfect tragic hero--a doomed, tormented victim of his own nature with a dark mysterious past. It's a staple of classic romantic fiction from Heathcliff to Emile De Becque to Max De Winter. And when it's done right, it has huge emotional appeal.

It's a dark, twisted version of the 'hero's quest': watch the vampire struggle as he attempts to rise above the reality of his own base nature, to find salvation, or acceptance, or a way to redeem himself--and all for love.

As an archetype, a vampire is not that different from King Kong, ie larger than life, a primal force of nature... Although, of course, your average vamp is sexier and smarter and usually more affluent than Kong. Eternally beautiful, eternally youthful, forever cut off from humankind, but always the master of his own demesnes...hmmm. Forget Kong. Vampires are the adult version of Peter Pan. They represent freedom. They represent everything that civilized, responsible, 'normal' grown-ups have had to leave behind. They operate outside the strictures of society.

Seriously--what's not to like about vampires? *g*

I've written a vampire story too, although its not published and still needs a lot of work. Editing will kill me I'm sure.

And I agree with your statement, I couldn't have said it better myself. Can i steal this?

As an archetype, a vampire is not that different from King Kong, ie larger than life, a primal force of nature... Although, of course, your average vamp is sexier and smarter and usually more affluent than Kong. Eternally beautiful, eternally youthful, forever cut off from humankind, but always the master of his own demesnes...hmmm. Forget Kong. Vampires are the adult version of Peter Pan. They represent freedom. They represent everything that civilized, responsible, 'normal' grown-ups have had to leave behind. They operate outside the strictures of society.

P.G. I will admit to "Sympathy for the Devil," especially for the actor who plays him in the now defunct Eastwick series--but vampires just scare the **** out of me.

Renee wrote: "I loved the historian. I've loved most of them Here are a few exceptional ones.

The Witching Hour (Lives of the Mayfair Witches, #1)
Memnoch the Devil (The Vampire Chronicles, #5)
..."

In fairness, I thought "The Mummy" was brilliant.

Back before I stopped reading the genre, I was a big fan of Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. Her Comte Ragoczy Ste. Germaine fascinated me, not because of the vampirism but because he was an alchemist.

Renee wrote: "I've written a vampire story too, although its not published and still needs a lot of work. Editing will kill me I'm sure.

And I agree with your statement, I couldn't have said it better myself..."

Sure. Steal away, as long as you credit me. ;)

Juliet wrote: "P.G. I will admit to "Sympathy for the Devil," especially for the actor who plays him in the now defunct Eastwick series--but vampires just scare the **** out of me."

Well, I wouldn't want to date one, myself, but reading about them is just plain fun. :D

Yes Sharon, I really enjoyed The Mummy. I think I could say I've liked nearly everything she's written, her voice is beautiful, no matter what she writes about. Queen of the Damned I think was ruined for me because I watched the movie first, hated it and read the book. I think that biased me a bit. Although the book was far better than the movie.

P.G. wrote: "Renee wrote: "I've written a vampire story too, although its not published and still needs a lot of work. Editing will kill me I'm sure.

And I agree with your statement, I couldn't have said it b..."

Why of course I will.

I actually think Vamps are interesting...
But i Hate Twilight with a capital H. It's just so stupid how some, relatively not that interesting girl gets swept off her feet by this Edward guy and other than him she has no life. lol i did read the books and they were interesting and i did kina like 'em, but it's like a chick flick. they were a well written book series, but i hate how Edward is her whole life and i hate the movie. in the movie, Edward...i'm sorry but he looks like a sweaty oaf. lol but i do think vampires are romantic and mysterious. i guess 'cause my styles punk rockish emo(i'm not emo, just like the style :]) i'm attracted to mysterious stuff. i guess it's like how some girls like the "bad guy" kinda thing, not just someone normal i guess. someone who has an edge. i guess it's sickly fascinating how Edward loves Bella but has to fight the lust of bloodthirst...
so yeah, that's what i think.Vamps are interesting, bt Twilight is...a chick flick in disguise lol :]

Renee wrote: "I loved the historian. I've loved most of them Here are a few exceptional ones.

The Witching Hour (Lives of the Mayfair Witches, #1)
Memnoch the Devil (The Vampire Chronicles, #5)
..."

Hehe no problem. I really appreciate the recs. I remember eyeing The Vampire Armand sometime ago but I never picked it up. I'll definitely give these a try though. I've been jonesing for some old school vampire books. :-)

Thanks!

Sharon wrote: "Back before I stopped reading the genre, I was a big fan of Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. Her Comte Ragoczy Ste. Germaine fascinated me, not because of the vampirism but because he was an alchemist."

I so want to read those books. Everyone says they're pretty good. I have the first one but I have yet to read it. That's another one i need to move up my list. The alchemy aspect sounds interesting!

Renee wrote: "Yes Sharon, I really enjoyed The Mummy. I think I could say I've liked nearly everything she's written, her voice is beautiful, no matter what she writes about. Queen of the Damned I think was ruin..."

Oh, that's understandable then. The movie did chop up the books a bit. Didn't they try to make The Vampire Lestat meshed with "Queen" into one movie? Plus they changed a lot of Marius and Lestat's history. Yech. Aaliyah was the only good thing about that movie for me lol.

I have to admit I'm a little impartial due to my own series The Vampire Family, but I'm not a fan of the modern youth and teenaged angst turn the genre has taken due to Meyer's Twilight and the like. The hysteria has brought vamps to the mainstream forefront again, but us who've been reading and writing the genre for many years never really thought it went away. At the same time, vampires are back! but the mass of imitations and low brow material is flooding the market and saturating vampire audiences whilst alienated the more traditional horror fans with the young romance vamps. In some ways, I cant' wait for the ugly, evil scary underground vampire to return; and I don't like the media's bandwagon thinking that nothing existed before Meyer. Sure, my books were out before hers, but networks like E! are barely acknowledging Interview and Anne Rice, much less Dark Shadows, Christopher Lee, and Dracula. Come on.

Hi my friends , I put your discuss , on my wall in face book

you welcome

Salaam

http://www.facebook.com/nihal.gures#/...

The whole of the vampire story thing, regardless of it medium, films, TV, books, etc etc, gets lost on me.

Kristin wrote: "I have to admit I'm a little impartial due to my own series The Vampire Family, but I'm not a fan of the modern youth and teenaged angst turn the genre has taken due to Meyer's Twilight and the lik..."

Well said, Kristin. They should at least recognize the authors who helped lead the way to the current craze. I wouldn't mind seeing a swing in the other direction myself.

I always liked dark stories, so for me the "craze" is just more of what I've always liked to read. Doesn't have to be vampires though, or romance.

I tend to favor the most realistic vampire books. I have been talking about this book, . It is one of the best books about vampire I have ever read next to Salemn's Lot. It goes above and beyound what Meyer did with Twilight.

Stand by for shameless plug - Warriors At Heart, is my vampire book. In it, my vampires are ruthless, dangerous, but definitely flawed, even the villians. And in my book, their society has resorted to rules, paperwok, taxation, and terratorial boundaries to keep themselves hidden from mortals.

You can catch some great posts about vampires at www.trampyvamps.blogspot.com where a group of writers who love writing about vamps talk about why they're fascinated with these creatures.

You know, I honestly think Stephanie Meyer set out to write something fun, give vampires a lighter side so to speak, and I think she did a great job with it. I've read other vampire series, but other than the Mortal Instruments trilogy, nothing else has appealed to me. We all have our likes and dislikes, our favorites, and novels we absolutely abhor. But to me, Stephanie did a great job and a lot of the other YA series out there have been done by authors who kind of rode her coattails and jumped on the vampire bandwagon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A lot of them are great writers and are smart enough to write what sells right now. However, the market really is saturated with the undead, most of them darker and full of things teens really shouldn't be reading, but everyone has their choice.
We all write because we love it. Some people might love your work and some people might hate it, but we all have talent and it shouldn't be wasted, and we shouldn't tear down others, either. Stephanie gets a lot of flack for being super-successful and I can't help but wonder if I could handle that kind of fame and take it on with the grace she has. (From my thoughts to God's ears:-)
I'm sure all you guys are amazing and I wish you all the luck in the world!

I think the whole vampire appeal of late has to do with the tortured soul/outsider motif. The rebel bad boy turned (or turning) good has always had romantic fascination.

I prefer vampires depicted as villains, good old-fashioned bloodsuckers, which is why I wrote them that way in my horror novella.

Raising awareness and making an effort to educate children and young adults should be the objective of those writers who feel any responsibility in making the society a better place for all.

When I see the impact of these vampire stories on children and young adults, I see two motivations:
- Making as much money as possible,
- Keeping kids away from realities of life.

I was about 18 years old when I read Dracula and I didn't like it back then. Later when I started to read from a different point of view (getting something out of any book rather than fun and amusement), I came across an article which was evaluating this book.

It turned out that Dracula is more realistic than I had imagined and full of symbolic messages and has an analitical value. The vampire lives in a "castle" and the victims are the ordinary "villagers" who were owned by him. He can only come out at night while everyone is sleeping, because of tremendous hatered surrounding him which is due to his tyranny as a land-owner. The only thing that satisfies him is sucking the blood out of the subjects. Those villagers had to tolerate the worst physical and mental conditions and would most of the times go hungry in order to pay their dues to the land-owners.

I read Dracula after this review and I realized that due to the inquisition and censorship, the author couldn't have written any criticism directly and he had to use metaphore to address an issue the society was facing back then.

Today, we live in a free country and we do not need to resort to metaphores for writing about realities of life. When I look into the comtemporary vampire books, I see nothing even slightly related to social problems.

Are we creating monsters who would be willing to do anything in order to succeed?

I love all supernatural creatures. I write about them, but my true love will always be vampires. From the time I read Bram Stoker's Dracula, I knew I was in love, lol! Not a big fan of the Twilight series, but I love the werewolves!

Ruby wrote: "Raising awareness and making an effort to educate children and young adults should be the objective of those writers who feel any responsibility in making the society a better place for all.

Wh..."

Interesting thoughts, and I would agree there is a political undertone in Dracula.

Censorship certainly existed in Britain in 1897 (when Dracula was published), but writers did directly write critical works in that era. I'm not quite sure what you meant by "the inquisition".

The attraction is the fantasy. It is magical and the entire attraction is the fact that it isn't real or couldn't happen. Stephanie Myers has created compelling characters, that I don't think has anything to do with the movie actors. Her books are well written and the love story she weaves between Bella and Edward as well as Jacob is timeless.

Does it bother me that they are vampires? No more than the talking lion in Chronicles of Narnia. It is a make believe world with make believe characters. Who couldn't use a little make believe?

The fact that they are "good vampires" vs "evil vampires" is the same plot of any good novel. There are heroes and villans. I think the story of Bella and Edward is a very moral story and if you don't think so then you haven't read it, and are just listening to the hype.

People have always been fascinated with the genre and it will never go away, or at least I hope not. It is a wonderful escape from the dull and sometimes boring world we all live in.

I've always been a fan of vampires. It kind of went along with me being a horror fan. Though I defiantly prefer the vampires of the True Blood series in book and tv forms.

I love vampires. I tend to call myself a "vamp freak" from time to time. I love vampires for the darkness, mystery, and all the flaws. Very interesting. I love reading about characters who are supposed to have it all (can live for eternity, very powerful) but be completely flawed to the point where they're very human...but not really. I dunno. I find vampire books to be enjoyable reads. Yet what disgusts me is all the sex in vampire books. But, oh well. That's just my opinion.

Ruby wrote: "Raising awareness and making an effort to educate children and young adults should be the objective of those writers who feel any responsibility in making the society a better place for all.

Wh..."

Um, Inquisition? No direct criticism of the feudal system allowed?

Ruby, Bram Stoker was a theatrical manager during the Victorian era. Dracula was written in 1897. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Stoker

The symbolic aspects sound bang-on to me, to be honest ... but let's place Mr. Stoker in his correct era. :-)

I agree:-)