Common Cliché's in Paranormal Romance

Wandering Critic wrote:

I can't understand how a dead man (aka vampire) could father a child, and how it could be a "half vampire" if he did. You can't be half undead any more than you can be half dead. If he somehow could produce sperm (kind of contrary to the whole concept of undeath and all, but if) the resulting child would be either human (if the sperm didn't have vampire-transformation capability when they bit the egg) or vampire (if they did) ... not halfassedly in between. Not, of course, that it would do any good to tell Smeyer that.

I agree with you in theory, but when you consider that you already have the walking dead, things like this feel nitpicky, depending on the universe. If vampires are explicitly magic, I think it's fair to say that A Wizard Did It and leave it there. However, if it's one of the modern, extremely bullshit-laden scientific vampires, yeah, not flying.

I can't really accept A Wizard Did It with the traditional vampires. Consider that the whole concept of undead is that they're an inversion of life, a mockery of everything that life is about. They drink blood (symbolic of life) because they can no longer produce any of their own. They create more vampires because that is the only way they can perpetuate their kind. Reproduction is the essence of life; as such, it must be impossible for a vampire. The sexual nature of a vampire is negative, leading to the sterility of (un)death instead of the continuation of life.

The traditional and legendary monsters are wrapped in layers of symbolism. If an author is going to ignore all that baggage, he may as well call it a squadge instead of a vampire, because it's just as meaningful. It might be easier to accept with the modern vampires -- but we're talking about nil and none here.

Actually, I don't accept that sparklepires are vampires at all. They're contagious Mary Sues.

Wandering Critic wrote:

I can't really accept A Wizard Did It with the traditional vampires. Consider that the whole concept of undead is that they're an inversion of life, a mockery of everything that life is about. They drink blood (symbolic of life) because they can no longer produce any of their own. They create more vampires because that is the only way they can perpetuate their kind. Reproduction is the essence of life; as such, it must be impossible for a vampire. The sexual nature of a vampire is negative, leading to the sterility of (un)death instead of the continuation of life.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here, though I admit I'm prejudiced. I always saw the dhampir legend as an agent to rebalance the natural equation; the vampire is the a perverse mockery of life, consuming the lives of others, but also possesses the means to create a thing designed to kill (re-kill, finally kill, whatever) it. "Evil contains the seeds of it's own destruction" is one of the stock aesops, and I think it works well here.

Wandering Critic wrote:

The traditional and legendary monsters are wrapped in layers of symbolism. If an author is going to ignore all that baggage, he may as well call it a squadge instead of a vampire, because it's just as meaningful. It might be easier to accept with the modern vampires -- but we're talking about nil and none here.

Yes, but one of the problems with symbolism is that you can spin it in multiple directions depending on how you want the story to unfold; add to that the huge amount of lore connected to vampires and vampire-like creatures and you've got a multiple choice past that the Joker would envy. I agree some interpretations are so far out there as to be complete bullshit (sparklepires, venom, and viral vampirism chief among these) but others make sense. I think, for storytelling purposes, that having the ground rules be established early on and never violated is more important than the metaphysical reasoning behind the rules.

Quote :

Actually, I don't accept that sparklepires are vampires at all. They're contagious Mary Sues.

Ooh yeah.

gaijinguy wrote:

Wandering Critic wrote:

I can't really accept A Wizard Did It with the traditional vampires. Consider that the whole concept of undead is that they're an inversion of life, a mockery of everything that life is about. They drink blood (symbolic of life) because they can no longer produce any of their own. They create more vampires because that is the only way they can perpetuate their kind. Reproduction is the essence of life; as such, it must be impossible for a vampire. The sexual nature of a vampire is negative, leading to the sterility of (un)death instead of the continuation of life.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here, though I admit I'm prejudiced. I always saw the dhampir legend as an agent to rebalance the natural equation; the vampire is the a perverse mockery of life, consuming the lives of others, but also possesses the means to create a thing designed to kill (re-kill, finally kill, whatever) it. "Evil contains the seeds of it's own destruction" is one of the stock aesops, and I think it works well here.

Considering the fact that vampires already have a boatload of things that harm/kill them (ranging from garlic to crosses to stakes through the heart and back again, although this varies hugely depending on whatever canon/myth/lore is currently being applied), I always saw the dhampir as a tad too overkillish. I prefer it when the humans can fend for themselves, instead of needing a superhuman agent to protect them from the superhuman threat.
Preferences aside, though, I always find it a bit strange that vampires would be able to procreate in multiple ways: they already can multiply their numbers by turning a victim into a vampire, so what's the necessity of also being able to procreate the - er, 'natural' way? Especially if you throw some evolutionary/biological considerations into the mix.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Preferences aside, though, I always find it a bit strange that vampires would be able to procreate in multiple ways: they already can multiply their numbers by turning a victim into a vampire, so what's the necessity of also being able to procreate the - er, 'natural' way? Especially if you throw some evolutionary/biological considerations into the mix.

Plus there's the whole business of them being dead. They no longer need their heart to beat to keep them alive or their lungs to breath. They no longer need to eat, so the digestive track has been rendered unnecessary. I would imagine that their womb and penis would likewise serve no real function. Female vampires no longer have periods. Male vampires (traditionally, at least) don't get erections, and both had next to no interest in anything beyond where their next meal's coming from and staying out of the way of people who want to kill them. I imagine sex would be the last thing on their minds. And since they gave up their soul when they were turned, I doubt they'd have any interest in 'love' either, except as a useful way to lure someone they can turn them.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Preferences aside, though, I always find it a bit strange that vampires would be able to procreate in multiple ways: they already can multiply their numbers by turning a victim into a vampire, so what's the necessity of also being able to procreate the - er, 'natural' way? Especially if you throw some evolutionary/biological considerations into the mix.

Plus there's the whole business of them being dead. [biological considerations]

Actually, this situation calls more for a 'for example' or 'considering the business of them being dead, here are some examples of', rather than a 'plus', given that you're expanding on my point, rather than introducing a completely new one. It's a pity you live so far away, because I have a special crossbow I use for these kind of unfortunate incidents. Wax it every day, too.

Cris,
Anal-Retentive Grammar Nazi
(specialized in dealing with wrongly applied words that are meant to link two paragraphs together and then fail)

Jay/Cris wrote:

Considering the fact that vampires already have a boatload of things that harm/kill them (ranging from garlic to crosses to stakes through the heart and back again, although this varies hugely depending on whatever canon/myth/lore is currently being applied), I always saw the dhampir as a tad too overkillish. I prefer it when the humans can fend for themselves, instead of needing a superhuman agent to protect them from the superhuman threat.

I agree with you here, but it really depends on the vampires- if they're operating at Sparklepire or Captain Blood power levels, a supernatural agent is pretty much required unless you have Executive Outcomes on your speed dial. I'm just of the opinion that since vampires are already walking around despite being dead, you've already suspended disbelief about the laws of nature enough to allow said dead creature to have a child as well.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Preferences aside, though, I always find it a bit strange that vampires would be able to procreate in multiple ways: they already can multiply their numbers by turning a victim into a vampire, so what's the necessity of also being able to procreate the - er, 'natural' way? Especially if you throw some evolutionary/biological considerations into the mix.

Because the creation of a dhampir isn't "procreation" in the normal sense; neither parent is creating something like themselves, they're creating a hybrid that's somewhere between vampire and human- and, like most hybrids, I don't believe it breeds true. (I don't know this for sure, considering that these legends originated long before the discovery of any genetics-like system.) As far as evolutionary/biological considerations go- they're dead. The normal rules clearly don't apply in these cases.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Plus there's the whole business of them being dead. They no longer need their heart to beat to keep them alive or their lungs to breath. They no longer need to eat, so the digestive track has been rendered unnecessary. I would imagine that their womb and penis would likewise serve no real function.

None of their biological systems should be working. They're dead. They're not engaged in respiration, yet their muscles are still working somehow. They have no more immune system, but they don't rot. We've passed beyond a point where the standard laws of nature strictly apply.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Female vampires no longer have periods. Male vampires (traditionally, at least)

Does Anne Rice count as "traditional?" I didn't think she was that old.

Rabid Badger wrote:

don't get erections, and both had next to no interest in anything beyond where their next meal's coming from and staying out of the way of people who want to kill them. I imagine sex would be the last thing on their minds. And since they gave up their soul when they were turned, I doubt they'd have any interest in 'love' either, except as a useful way to lure someone they can turn them.

If I remember correctly, the origin of dhampirs was when a newly-risen vampire would have sex with his wife; I don't know if love factors into it, but I always understood it to be more of a matter of reflex, recreating what he did in life because he didn't know anything else.