~ N i c e  N e w  R a t t l e ~
rattle2


 

 Writing Desk » RULING VAMPIRES

 6 Comments- Add comment | Back to Home Written on 18-Dec-2008 by patencia

C:DatosSinRespaldoplinaresEscritoriovamp[1].jpg

Creatures of horror films are transgressive by nature. Monsters are monsters because they violate human categorical boundaries. Mummies, zombies, vampires et al are impure because they are “categorically interstitial, categorically contradictory, incomplete and formless”*.

Now, the fact that monsters contradict natural categories doesn’t mean that their nature has to be contradictory. “Even the undead ought to obey a few simple rules”, says Stephen Harrigan who complains about there being many inconsistencies among celluloid vampires. 

 First, it is not clear how vampires are killed. In Murnau’s Nosferatu, a vampire dies “if a woman ‘pure in heart’” lies beside him all night “until ‘the cock has crowed’", while in 1931’s Dracula “Bela Lugosi has to be impaled through the heart in his coffin”. But then, Tom Cruise in Interview with a vampire “informs us that the stake-to-the-heart method is ‘nonsense’” and Blade and Carpenter’s Vampires provide their own recipes to kill such bloodsucking creatures.

The case of transmogrification, as Harrigan calls it, is no different; nor is the question of motility. If you think someone turns into a vampire just by being bitten by one of them, you’re missing the subtleties of Interview with a Vampire or forgetting that in Blade, as in “several other AIDS-conscious vampire movies” vampirism is “an infectious blood disease”. Similarly, if you assume that vampires can fly, it is because it’s recent films what you have in mind; 1921’s Nosferatu, in turn, “shuffles arthritically around his castle, and when he rises from his coffin he's as stiff as an ironing board”. But not even something as salient in vampires as dentition is, has a standard: it is not clear whether fangs are retractile or fixed. Actually, Harrigan reminds us, in the case of Bela Lugosi, we never get to see his canine teeth.

To mitigate such a lack of canon of vampirism, Harrigan proposes some standardizing criteria. Here’s a summary:

Mortality and Mortification: “crucifixes and garlic to be regarded as nonlethal irritants. Vampire death to be assured by penetration of heart muscle by any foreign object or by prolonged exposure to sunlight”.
Transmogrification: “Vampirization to be contingent upon total extraction of victim's own blood and its subsequent replacement by blood of donor vampire. If more than 24 hours occur between initial suckage and revivification, victim no longer qualifies for living death designation and will be considered conventionally deceased.”
Motility: vertical flight only, to a maximum of 20 feet above the ground. Sustained flight permissible if vampire takes the form of a bat, owl, or other authentic nocturnal species. Vampire is specifically prohibited from turning into a flying homonculus.
Dentition: “retractable fangs as default characteristic. Strongly recommend, when appropriate, on-screen discussion of physical requirements for said phenomenon--as when a character in Blade observes an "odd muscle structure around the canines."

It’s always good to know what a canonic vampire is like. But just in case, never trust someone who wants to bite your neck.

More on this at slate.com

 

Send to a friend

Comments

  • written on 18-Dec-2008

    albertob says:

    Hi, nice topic Paloma.
    I don't know if you had the chance of reading my own vampire shot tale (based on real facts), you can find it here: http://www.webjam.com/beforeman

    The vampire is an archetype, not sure yet what it represents, but the different shapes and properties answer a unique model.
    I meet two main types of fascinating women in my life: the vampires and the mermaids. I can expand on the topic while drinking a glass of Bourbon, as it is a great antidote against the influxes of the femme fatail.


    Munch, The Vampire

  • written on 18-Dec-2008

    albertob says:

    where I said "fatail" I meant "fatale"

  • written on 18-Dec-2008

    cuaimon says:

    If only Ulysses had known that a glass of Bourbon was enough to resist the charm of the mermaids... (or maybe they weren't selling it aboard).

    Tie yourself up to the fauteuil (the chair, not the femme), just in case.

  • written on 18-Dec-2008

    albertob says:

    The Bourbon doesn't really help to resist any charm, but it makes the pain more bearable.
    I would let myself to be tied to the fauteuil by the fatale (la femme, not the chair) after a few glasses.

  • written on 19-Dec-2008

    patencia says:

    It is a pitty that Munch's picture is not at the Tate... that could have been a great end for a fabulous story. Perhaps, we can look for mermaids and vampires at the Tate at some point, and whether we find them or not... we can have that Bourbon.

    As for D (alias cuaimon) you're the real devil in disguise... but your speciality, I'm affraid, are not vampires or marmaids, but snakes CUAIMOOON!

  • written on 19-Dec-2008

    Rodrigo [http://www.pormisfogones.eu] says:

    Alberto, a song for you, for the other type:

    "A novidade veio dar à praia
    Na qualidade rara de sereia
    Metade o busto
    D'uma deusa Maia
    Metade um grande
    Rabo de baleia...

    [...]Alguns a desejar
    Seus beijos de deusa
    Outros a desejar
    Seu rabo prá ceia..

    [...]

    A novidade era a guerra
    Entre o feliz poeta
    E o esfomeado
    Estraçalhando
    Uma sereia bonita
    Despedaçando o sonho
    Prá cada lado..."

Leave a Comment









 

Advertisements

Loading …
  • Server: web1.webjam.com
  • Total queries:
  • Serialization time: 672ms
  • Execution time: 719ms
  • XSLT time: $$$XSLT$$$ms