Vampires---can they ever be "good"

[Devil Hanzo]

That's exactly right--a bad ass hero. He has all the answers, never says much, the typical "western" hero in the sense of the "old west" if you know what I mean. Spaghetti westerns they are called sometimes (though I don't know why). Tough dude who says little comes to town, saves the day by handing out serious ass kickings, and then strolls off into the sunset.

Thats why he's better then Alucard, who falls to the ground in a seizure of laughter when looking at a table because somehow that makes him laugh like everything else and he'll smile and snicker.

[Red Sun]

That's exactly right--a bad ass hero. He has all the answers, never says much, the typical "western" hero in the sense of the "old west" if you know what I mean. Spaghetti westerns they are called sometimes (though I don't know why).

As far as I know, Western made by Italians had dirty heroes more often than American Western. Sergio Leone comes to my mind first, but there are others. I think American directors, like Hughes and Ford, later picked up these inspirations.

Re Vampires. It is very interesting that the mythos is a blend of very different motives of legends or mythology or even historiy. On one side, you have the link with the vampire bat which is just an animal that feeds on blood, and though, the bite and the blood-sucking itself wouldn't always be the dead of the person, perhaps sometimes the following infection.

On the other side, you have the link with the myths around Vlad Tepes as a person who simply lost humanity because of his personal tragedy and later is only driven by revenge and lust for bloodshed. In the Middle Ages and Early modern time, this kind of person would be considered as possessed by a demon, and the legends are older than Bram Stoker anyways. It's also possible that you have a merge with the story of Gilles de Rais who was a) a companion of Joanne of Arc and ill-reputated as a sorcerer, because he had killed several children and probably also drinking their blood.

[Galactus]

The vampire myths were actually firmly established long before Tepes...

It should be noted that Vampires are not native to western europe or Scandinavia. (at least in any recognizable form apart from "blood sucking monster") a lot of the myths about vampires in Scandinavia deals with werewolves instead.

[Brys]

Of course vampires can be good. There are certain stereotypes which are applied to vampires, but it depends on how the author uses them. There is no reason for it to be impossible for them to be "good". Partly because good and evil are in real life meaningless terms. I accept they need blood to survive. Fine. That doesn't make them evil, any more than humans needing to eat. Are we all evil because we kill animals and plants? They are both living, and do we really have a right to live more than they do? It's simply a matter of survival. Being a vampire is a condition - it can be no more evil than a disease. An author can portray them as pure evil or not, but in the end, it's meaningless. You can't generalise an entire species. Each author will have a slightly different perspective on vampires. None are right or wrong because vampires are fictional creatures. A vampire cannot be evil be definition any more than an elf can be good. If an author writes a vampire as a paragon of virtue or an elf as an epitomy of evil, he isn't wrong, because those are what his creations are.

[PhoenixFlame]

I agree with you, Brys!

So why dont you like anne rice?

I used to like her, but she just started to annoy the hell out of me.

I originally liked how louis would fight the temptation to kill but then he just did it to eat, i liked how they lived disconnected from the world.

However, the thing is, after that it was all just bitching and complaining again and again or how ''badass'' lestat is, how ''unique'' he is.

What the hell is so special about him?

My reasons for disliking Rice...

From a technical standpoint, I dislike her urpley style of writing. You can't get through a book without different, detailed references to Lestat's smexiness. I think we get it, he's a hot vampire, ok, enough. Also, the quality of her writing seems to ratio out to the increasing number of random sex scenes that appear more for shock value than anything. As well, she refuses to get her stuff edited, claiming that editors ruin an author's vision. Her later books are in desperate need of an editor.

From a content standpoint, ok I'll say it now, the first 2 or 3 books weren't terrible. I rather liked them, despite the purple prose. For their time they were pretty new in concept. Also, Louis (while often bitching) did struggle with his vampirism. Lestat was cool as a quasi-villainous character (before he went all saintly) and Claudia was oddly sympathetic at times. But then the books went totally to hell. A bunch of convuluted backstory and characters that made very unrealistic character developments. Also, Anne Rice fell into a major trap-- she fell in love with her character Lestat. So Lestat was immune from death and even worse, reflected the author's personal changes, such as becoming a born-again Christian. This totally contradicts what he was like in the earlier books.

So yeah, in a nutshell, I dislike Anne Rice. That and she's made of crazy.

[Zahir al Daoud]

You know, the thing that bothers me about this thread is folks acting like they know what vampires are.

Folks--the vampires most of you are talking about (at least in this forum) are FICTIONAL CREATIONS. It is up to the writer to come up with the rules, which include just how much compassion a vampire can intrinsically have or how much free will.

If anybody was going on and on about how a book gave a dragon two legs when "of course" dragons have four, they'd be the justified target of some humor. Same here.

For the record, I think the idea of (for lack of a better term) "morally gray" vampires is dramatically more preferable than just as walking monsters out to eat you. Usually. Because therein lies conflict, which is the heart of good drama.

[Bellis]

I loved Interview with the Vampire when I read it in my early teens. I read it again about 10 years ago and it was still pretty decent. The next couple books were OK, QotD was a bit over the top and I kind of stopped after Tale of the Body Thief since it was getting more than a little repetitive. A little self-indulgent, but I actually liked the portrayal of vampires. The sex didn't bother me, maybe because I was a hormonal teenager

I don't get all the Anne Rice hate. I would go as far to say that I prefer IWTV to Fevre Dream. There, I said it.

Not on vampires: I liked The Witching Hour fine (lots of incest ) but the rest of that series was pretty B-movie. Feast of All Saints is pretty good historical fiction, perhaps a bit too much sex but that's her signature. Cry to Heaven is a bit OTT. The only marketed-as-erotica I read by her (one of the Beauty books), umm.. , served its purpose, I guess.

[PhoenixFlame]

bellis coldwine-- Interview and 'The Vampire Lestat' were the best, imo.

The sex doesn't bother me as in "omg, WHAT are they doing?" Of all the things I am, prudish is not one of them. Rather, they irk me because of a lot of the pointlessness except for Anne Rice's (and her readers') fantasizing sighs and giggles. But I fail to see how Lestat drinking menstrual blood is 'hot.' Wouldn't a vampire know the difference between that and real blood?

I have similar thoughts about Laurel K. Hamilton. I found Anita Blake a more interesting heroine when she was a ball-busting cop rather than the center of a love triangle (that seems to grow into a love hexagon.)

Zahir al Daoud-- Thank you! I've been waiting for somebody to say this. Your dragon analogy works well. I too prefer morally gray vampires, but that's just me.

Devil Hanzo-- D is very badass and he backs it up not by menacing words or threats or sexy struts, but sangfroid ass kicking. He's much better than Alucard who tries way to hard to be badass while simultaneously being pussy-whipped by that girl.

[Bellis]

Wasn't there a thread a while back about 4-legged vs. 2 legged dragons??

:|

[Merentha]

I thought it was commonly accepted among fantasy readers and authors that a two-legged dragon is called a wyvern.

[Devil Hanzo]

Devil Hanzo-- D is very badass and he backs it up not by menacing words or threats or sexy struts, but sangfroid ass kicking. He's much better than Alucard who tries way to hard to be badass while simultaneously being pussy-whipped by that girl.

Hahahahahaha!

You put that in such lovely words.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Hahahahahaha!

You put that in such lovely words.

Now who is Alucard and what is he from? I mean I know Alucard from Castlevania, and know Alucard (dracula backwards!) is widely accepted as Dracula's son, but is there a specific story you are referring to?

[PhoenixFlame]

Alucard is a vampire from the anime Hellsing. He is this guy, who is this girl's bitch. He tries way too hard to be creepy and badass. A point in his favor is that he is voiced by Crispin Freeman in the English dub. (I usually dislike dubs but Freeman is excellent...Albedo!)

[Walpurgisborn]

Alucard is a vampire from the anime Hellsing. He is this guy, who is this girl's bitch. He tries way too hard to be creepy and badass. A point in his favor is that he is voiced by Crispin Freeman in the English dub. (I usually dislike dubs but Freeman is excellent...Albedo!)

Crispin Freeman was the voice actor for Albedo?

That gives him extra creepy bad ass points in my book.

Also, it turns out vampires can be good, but only if they're psychic, elven, pirate vampires.

[PhoenixFlame]

Crispin Freeman was the voice actor for Albedo?

That gives him extra creepy bad ass points in my book.

Also, it turns out vampires can be good, but only if they're psychic, elven, pirate vampires.

He sure was! One of his best roles methinks. Damn, Albedo was one creepy bastard.

creeps me out to this day.

Eeeek, that book looks terrible! The MST made me laugh though.

[Devil Hanzo]

This anime you guys are talking about, what is it about?

Is it worth buying?

[Devil Hanzo]

Let me re-phrase that:

Do i have to play the first two games to understand the third?

[Walpurgisborn]

Let me re-phrase that:

Do i have to play the first two games to understand the third?

Umm yeah, Xenosaga is something you really should start from game one. It's a bit of a mixed bag, some people really like it, others find it a little convoluted. Episode one ran pretty well, Episode II was a little short and I have yet to play III.

It also makes a little bit of sense to play Xenogears before hand. An excellent game, except for the final sections, which was kind of mashed together.

[Devil Hanzo]

If i go off and just buy the third game right off the bat, how confused would I be.

[PhoenixFlame]

If you bought the third, you would be incredibly confused. It is very story driven. Also, you would lack the character connection built up from the first two games that makes the third so poignant. Start with Xenosaga I: Der Wille zur Macht; it's easy to find and pretty cheap.

While it's nice to, you don't have to play Xenogears. It's a 'spiritual' sequel with no direct connection (well, hints of one, but it doesn't make or break the story)

I HIGHLY recommend Xenosaga if you like a rich storyline. It has a lot of biblical, theological, and philosophical themes and undertones. Luckily there is a database in the 1st and 3rd games that points out a lot of them. It's very very interesting.

Anyways, I love it! It has a varied cast of characters. Many dissapear only to make a reapearance that'll have you going "Oh my God!" And while this alien race appears to be the big bad, there are a whole slew of different antagonists or quasi-villains. My favorite has to be the deranged-yet-kinda-pretty Albedo. Among the protagonists, you have a scatter-brained scientist, an icy android, a strange angelic young man, and a young artificially-made human, along with many others.

The second game isn't as good as the first and third though. I skipped through a lot of it because the gameplay was frustrating. I was in for the story.