Old School or New School?

...And by that, I mostly mean pre- or post- Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, as (while her later works may have degenerated into self-congratulatory porn) IwtV was a Very Important Book in vampire fiction, and single-handedly introduced the idea of the vampire as a sympathetic human character with vampirism, rather than a traditional one-dimensional bogeyman.

While I like both old and new school books, I like more of the old ones per amount that I've read. They're creepier. And I think that a lot of the really new stories tend to de-fang the vampire too much in trying to create an original canon instead of reiterating what they consider to be a tired old mythology, and you end up with a bunch of Mary Sues. All the strengths of the traditional vampire and none of its weaknesses. Even Twilight kind of irked me at times; the idea of a "vegetarian vampire" just makes me twitch no matter how good the rest of the book is.

So... do you tend to prefer the people-vamps or the monster-vamps?

Well, I'd take an average vampire hunting book over an average vampires moping around book, in general.

I love Dracula but also really enjoyed Tom Holland's book (1990s I think) on why Byron could have been a creature of the night.

I don't much care for monster vamps. I find them so boring. I prefer shades of gray, and vampires with more on their minds than blood and food.

The angst can get a bit much, and so can the sex and the power politics, but to me it is a wider field to work in than 'monster', 'food', 'evil'.

I don't know who introduced the idea of the vampire as a sympathetic human character with vampirism, but Dark Shadows was doing it long before Anne Rice.

I love Bram Stoker's Dracula and enjoy some of his other books. I also loved Barnabas Collins. :-)
Interview with the Vampire was interesting; after that I lost interest.

Thinking some more, didn't Fred Saberhagen portray a sympathetic Count Dracula in The Dracula Tape and The Holmes-Dracula File, also before Anne Rice?

I tend to like my vamps with a touch of humanity, but I feel like too many vampire tales are all glamour and glitz. Is every single vampire really going to be rich and sexy?

A friend of mine really liked the vampires in Night Watch, since they were butchers and lived in a crappy apartment. Regular joe-schmoes. Only saw the movie, though, so no idea if this entirely applies to the novels.

6> I concur about the glamor and glitz. And more often that not, an immunity from the "traditional" weaknesses, without any new ones, or a matching reduction in "traditional" strengths.

I tend to find myself going for seriously old-school vamps, even if they have less humanity, because they're more likely to work under a set of rules that makes some sense by any standards other than the author's wish fulfillment.

To me, it's definitely vamps with more depth... as you call it here, people-vamp.

They seemed to be more engaging rather than the usual "hunting and choping down of human beings vamps".

Vampires should mean mystery. So long as they have a hidden side, and agenda that the reader can ponder, then that works for me

Actually, I think Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Hotel Transylvania came out before Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire. Her vampire protagonist has always been more humane than all the humans around him. Ms. Yarbro incorporated the most common vampiric traits from all cultures and pulled it together in a humane and sympathetic character.

As far as what I like - it all depends on how it's written. I like to see different authors' take on vampirism. I don't blame them for trying to find a new angle to it. I do tend to get irked by some of the paranormal romance types.

Bram Stoker succeeded in creating a monster that was both alluring and repulsive. Other fiction that I've read with monster-vamps hasn't been as effective or engaging.

The people-vamps to me make more sense. The character of the vampire is going to be pretty much what any human being would be if they lived a very long life. It seems logical that some vampires would be bad, and some good. I like the shades of gray. The potential history of the many, many years that would lead an individual to pick one road or the other, or possibly to have been both at different times.

The Mary Sue type of vampire fiction for me gets old very fast. The whole meant for each other/soul mate thing is tiresome. To me, it seems like a cop out by the writer.

I'm for both as long as they can control for sucking my blood. Heres a book for moster vampire lovers, it's called Vampire Kisses. It a vampire romance series.

i agree w/ midnightrose. there both cool

I prefer the people-vamps. Sometimes, authors portray vampires as being Dracula cookie cut-out. Come on, capes? They went out of style with big hair and parachutes. :0 Can vampires be just regular guys and gals on the streets?

yeah but there always somrthing that makes them a vampire.

I agree with madmaddie, there has to be something that sets them apart.

I was actually bored by Interview with the Vampire, but that might be because I read Vampire Lestat first. The Riceian vamp was needed 30 odd years ago, but it has become a copy of itself. If the market was not so over done with vampire stories, I could actually choose a "side" but the last story I read that was fresh was "Like a Pilgrim to the Shrine" by Brian Hodge. It was a short story in collection called Dracula:Prince of Darkness 15 years ago.
I do agree that NightWatch was a good movie, just bought the book and the second one Day Watch but yet to read.

I'm a people/vampire fan myself. I just think it gives them a much more interesting edge than the monster/vampire thing.

got a point.

I like vampires that are "human" but retain a mean edge. I like them to be able to fall in love or be afraid but also be able to fight and kill when necessary and not go around analyzing it to much. I like the monster to be under the civilized skin. Vampires should be both human and monster as needed. They should like being vampires, not pee and moan about it. I hate it that so many are written as wealthy and overly humanized, looking for that one soulmate. Let them be poor and scrap to hide and survive. Let them fight for a woman's love instead of having her fall like an idiot at their feet. Write them as having human issues to deal with. I can't stand how vampires now have retractable teeth. Where did that pantload come from? And for pity sake, they have to drink blood and enjoy it! Not be vegans or something. Crips, I have a long list, lol.

I'm sorry that this is off topic but FINIALY SOMEONE TYPE IN THIS TOPIC!

Hah, I can discuss vampire fiction from dusk till dawn...or something like that. My book collection is full of vampire fiction.

Now, about those retractable teeth...who is the author that started that crap? Anyone know?

probably from the first Dracula book

Don't remember. It's been to many years since I read Dracula.

I've never read the book, but my friend said it was bording, and we have MANY similiarities so I'm taking her word for it

I think the retractable teeth have probably been around for some time. I don't remember Dracula mentioning anything about the fangs being prevalent when Dracula meets Jonathan Harker at his castle. Dracula also could also take more forms. In a lot of the modern vampire fiction that I've read, the vamps are restricted to just the human form.

'Salem's Lot' was one of the first novels bringing vampires to America (vampires on American soil)...before that was 'I am Legend' and I can't recall the other...but King's vampires did not have retractable fangs. I am almost positive that was started by romance writers. Frankly, I don't like it. It's a cheat to make it easier for the character to get by and not be discovered.

yea if they had fangs and blood red eyes most would suspected that person in a book...unless the people were very stupid.

All the writer has to do is make the character keep his piehole shut enough that they don't show so much. So he can't go around grinning like a baboon, so what. It's better than treating teeth like cat's claws because it doesn't fly.

true true false false

What's logical about it? It just seems strange to me.

since when are some books logical?

Good point, lol.

Some book are though

I've read pretty much every vampire book in the Old School... and I liked most all of Anne Rice's vampire books, too, particularly Vampire Lestat (Interview with the Vampire not so much).

I enjoy a lot of the New School, too, but I prefer the vampires to retain most of their classic characteristics. If they are too much like ordinary humans a lot of the drama and interest is lost.

Oh... and retractable fangs don't bother me (reminds me of snake fangs a bit)... Although if I wrote my own vampire characters I'd probably prefer non-retractable fangs.

I'm reading Interview with the vampire, I'm on the thrid part and im happy about it. they are good books.

Interview is my favorite of Rice's books.

I prefer more human vampires (like in Rice's fiction). For me, having a human mind stuck inside an inhuman body is far more interesting than just "I vant to suck your blood" 24/7. And, yes, Anne Rice hasn't been good in a long time. The series just fell apart after Memnoch. Blood and Gold was redeeming (it's actually my favorite) and Armand was good up until Part III. I'm a fan of the Twlight series as well, but if you put IWTV and Twilight next to each other, I'd have to go with Interview.

Anyway, that's my two cents. =>

I prefer a "human" vampire. A "monster" vampire tends to be one dimensional while a human vampire has many difficult choices. For example: A human vampire that has to decide between killing and living is more interesting to read than a monster vampire that sees humans as only food and is unable to feel empathy.

I like a good mixing of the two. In the human realm we have "humans" and "monsters." Why shouldn't the vampire realm also incorporate both? I like books that have some of both.

It always depends on the writing, though. Even a strictly "monster" vampire can be interesting if written properly.

I like both but I prefer ne school books. sometimes I like a good fright, but usully I like a nice human like vampire that does not kill people.