The Vampire by Philip Burne-Jones First, I would like to address the claim that the vampires in Twilight are not real vampires because Meyer changed their characteristics so drastically. Brian Frost, a literary historian, said, "belief in vampires and bloodsucking demons is as old as man himself" and may go back to "prehistoric times." Not only that, but they appear in so many different cultures all over the world that their exact origin is muddied. Wikipedia defines vampires as "mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person." By this general definition, Meyer's vampires qualify. But, did Meyer actually change them so much to begin with? Did she come up with original ideas for her vampires?
If someone were to ask you what a vampire is, I think we would all come up with the same answers. Immortal, drinks the blood of humans, weaknesses include sunlight, wooden stakes, crosses, and holy water. Meyer created vampires who are immortal but choose not to drink human blood and are not killed by any of the above weaknesses. They have to be torn apart and burned. Also, she made her vampires extra "super" with special abilities like mind-reading, clairvoyant abilities, and the ability to affect peoples moods. She also made her vampires with an alluring nature; the ability to draw humans to them. She turned it into a love story between a vampire and a human girl. Unfortunately, NONE of this is new to the world of vampires.
In John Polidori's The Vampyre, written in 1819, his main character is Lord Ruthven. He was the first vampire to be alluring, sexual, elegant, and suave. He is also the first vampire to marry a human girl.
From 1845-47, James Malcolm Rymer wrote a 868-page story about a vampire named Varney. He had fangs, hypnotic powers, and superhuman strength. Like the vampires of Twilight, Varney could eat and drink regular food in the human fashion, but it didn't agree with him. He could go out in daylight and had no fear or loathing of crosses or garlic. In fact, F.W. Murnau's film "Nosferatu," in 1922, was the FIRST vampire to be killed or harmed by sunlight.
In 1897, Bram Stoker wrote maybe the most famous vampire story: Dracula. In this story, Dracula lived with 3 female vampires known as the "Brides of Dracula" as a coven or family. He had sharp teeth and his eyes flamed red when he was angry (not entirely unlike the Cullens' eyes when they are hungry). He had no reflection and had the physical strength of 20 men. Dracula also had special "powers." He had powers of hypnosis, mind control, command of nocturnal animals and the weather. He could also shapeshift into a bat, a rat, a wolf, vapor, and fog. These powers are not unlike the Cullens' special "abilities."
Most importantly, the Cullens were not the first to give up human blood. Varney the Vampire, in 1845, was the first "sympathetic vampire" meaning "a vampire who loathes his condition but is nonetheless a slave to it." There are characters like this in almost every Anne Rice novel as well, most famously Lestat in Interview With the Vampire in 1976. We also see this in Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the character Spike. He chooses to live a life free of human blood.
In Anne Rice's novels we also see that the vampires have to be burned down to ash to be completely destroyed (although there is still a question of whether they completely cease to exist even then).
Not even the animalistic nature of Meyers' vampires is original. In the comic book mini-series 30 Days of Night by Steve Niles (written in 2002), and the film adaptation, the vampires aren't magical. They are animals hunting prey. As you know, Twilight was published in 2005.
Stephanie Meyers did NOTHING completely original with her vampires except for making their skin sparkle in the sun, which is not a significant contribution to vampire lore at all. In fact, it is one of the most criticized decisions she made in her novels.
It is obvious that vampires themselves haven't really evolved much. There have been many different combinations of characteristics attributed to vampires in literature and film for the past 200 years, but nothing really new. But, it is also not necessary to come up with something new. Vampires are beloved and feared, and vampire lore is not tired. People will always be fascinated by stories involving vampires, IF the stories are well-written and compelling.
Sources!
*Sacred Emily by Gertrude Stein
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_days_of_night
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nosferatu
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varney_the_Vampyre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampyre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Dracula
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_of_vampire_traits
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burne_Jones_le_vampire.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Ruthven_(vampire)
8 comments:
Wow. You really did your homework on that. That's cool. I know quite a bit more on vampires now. :)
That was a great read.
I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this post is (and where you found the time for it). I'm going to assume it's directed to me. You take eight paragraphs to say that Meyers ideas weren't original, but I never claimed they were. So what exactly is your assertion?
Very informative. I liked it.
As for the point of the post I think it is very clear that it is to say that Meyer's vampires are real vampires, but not original (with the exception of the fairy dust). Then she gives examples of her argument. Then states that the originality doesn't matter as people will never tire of hearing about vampires. Did I sum that up well enough?
Nic: I have been studying, researching, and writing about literature academically, and for my own enjoyment, for 10 years. Literature is my passion. Also, I have many family members and friends who have read the Twilight books and have seen the Twilight movies and who are interested in what I have to say on the subject. I thought I was clear in stating the purpose of the post, but let me reiterate. 1. I wanted to defend Meyer's vampires against those who claim they are not “real” vampires. 2. I wanted to show that not only do they fit into classic vampire lore, but that they don't even differ from it.
“You take eight paragraphs to say that Meyers ideas weren't original, but I never claimed they were.” No, you never used the word “original.” Instead, you wrote the following:
“I'm saying that her take on things is new, different, and refreshing. It's also very welcome in a genre that, like vampires, hasn't seen anything new in centuries.”
“do you agree that Meyers did something new with this genre? Forget whether or not it's good, can you admit that it's new?”
“Meyer has made a significant contribution to vampire lore, one that makes sense and gives a breath of fresh air to a previously spent genre.”
“The 'breath of fresh air' I'm referring to isn't the love story, it's the new idea of what vampires might be. A family of vampires who don't want to be monsters, a girl who finds that the vampires of 500 years of repetitive, monotonous literature aren't quite what we think they are, that they are actual animals like you and me and not necessarily magical.”
I disagree with you. That's all.
Okay, semantics. New, different, and refreshing. Let's face it: if Twilight weren't new, different, and refreshing, no one would have any complaints about it. The only complaints people have is that it isn't exactly like other extant vampire sagas.
However, if you're saying this post wasn't directed to me, then I misinterpreted. Apologies.
Bryan: You got it exactly :)
Nic: I wish you would stop making generalizations about people. I understand that you feel attacked by those who criticize you for liking Twilight, and perhaps it has been your experience, but there are plenty of people who have complaints about Twilight that have nothing to do with the idea “that it isn't exactly like other extant vampire sagas,” me being one of them.
However, I wasn't trying to criticize Meyer in this post; I was merely writing about my observations.
Post a Comment