Vampire Questions
Corvłn Sępius
a project I'm doing and I'd like to get as much imput as I could. I am
not subscribed to most of the newsgroups that I have posted to, I am
only subscribed to the "Angel" and "Buffy" groups, so if you reply
please keep thos NGs in the response or just respond to me as the
sender. I tried to post to a wide range of Newsgroups because I was
hoping for a wide-range of responses. Anyway, here are the questions:
1. Okay, so the only way to kill a Vampire is to cut off its head,
burn it, stake it, or espose it to sunlight. In some movies and books
Holy Water scolds Vampires' skin. If you had enough Holy Water, like
gallons and gallons and gallons, could that kill a vampire in the same
way that acid might kill a human?
2. In some movies and books, Vampires can be injured, but they heal
quickly. Assuming this is true, what happens if you dip it in acid? If
it stays in the acid and doesn't have a chance to heal, wouldn't that
kill it? Or, still assuming Vampires can be injured by normal means
but simply heal at an excellerated rate, what would happen if you say,
cut one down to size with a machine gun and kept shooting until there
was nothing left? Basically, if you can do enough damage to a Vampire
before it has a chance to heal, can you still, theoretically, kill the
thing?
3. What would happen if a really huge monster decided to eat a
Vampire? I mean, chewed it up and swallowed it. Assuming its head
didn't get detatched from [however much of the body must remain not to
constitute decapitation], would it still heal? Or is being digested
the same as being burned? (see acid question above) Or does it heal
after it gets passed through the monster's digestive track or
something?
4. Does it have to be a wooden stake to kill a Vampire? Or will any
sharp object piercing the heart do the trick? If so, why wouldn't a
bullet through the heart work? In the movie Blade, silver stakes can
kill Vampires. Wouldn't a silver bullet do the same thing?
5. I've heard soome places that a Vampire can be turned human again if
you kill the Vampire that sired it - sorta like Werewolves. I've also
head that this won't actually turn the Vampire human again, but that
once you kill a Vampire you also kill all the Vampires it sired. Which
one of these, if either, would you be inclined to believe? (Yes I know
Vampires aren't real...like I said - this is for a project I'm working
on!)
6. If you cut a Vampire's arm off, does it grow back or quickly heal
into a stump? If the latter is true, how much of a Vampires body can
you cut-off before it qualifies as "decapitation"? For example, if you
try to cut it's head off but instead you seperate the head, neck, and
part of a shoulder from the rest of the body, does the Vampire still
die? Or does it have to be a clean neck-cut? Or what happens if you
cut un-evenly while trying to decapitate it and part of it's head is
still attached to the rest of the body? Do you have to remove the
entire head or just more than half of it? Or what happens if you
somehow remove a Vampires brain without cutting off it's head?
7. In the more "classic" stories and movies, Vampires can turn into
bats. Do they just prefer to turn into bats rather than some other
kind of animal, or is this the only animal they can turn into?
8. If a Vampire bites a Werewolf, and a Werewolf bites a Vampire, both
at the same time, do you end up with Vampires who turn into wolves
once a month? Or since Vampires have the ability to transform already,
do you end up with a Vampire that can "wolf-out" at will?
9. Are Vampires suave, seductive, and "cool" (ala Anne Rice), or are
they hideous monsters, the most powerful of which have the ability to
make themselves LOOK attractive (ala Brahm Stoker)? Or is the Vampire
community made up of both the "suave", intelligent variety and the
monstrous imbeciles (ala "Buffy")?
10. What kind of supernatural powers do Vampires have? I've seen
levitation / flight, turning into bats, super strength, seduction, and
whatever the hell you call it when they move faster or slower than the
world around them (what's that called anyway?), are there any I'm
forgetting?
Well, that's all I can think of for now. Thanks in advance for taking
the time to respond. I really appreciate it!
- Corvun
B J Kuehl
by "Corv?n S?pius" <corvun_...@hotmail.com>:
> Sorry for the cross-post, but I had some questions about vampires for
> a project I'm doing and I'd like to get as much imput as I could.
I'll bet your drove your parents crazy. :)
^BJ^
Mathew R. Ignash
> 1. Okay, so the only way to kill a Vampire is to cut off its head,
> burn it, stake it, or espose it to sunlight. In some movies and books
> Holy Water scolds Vampires' skin. If you had enough Holy Water, like
> gallons and gallons and gallons, could that kill a vampire in the same
> way that acid might kill a human?
In the episode Helpless, a vampire is tricked into drinking a glass of holy
water, and he smouldered then dusted from the inside. So yes, you can slay with
holy water alone. It would need to be a lot from the outside, but if you can get
them to drink it, they are toast.
There seems to be come implication that vampire can be killed by the removal of
their hearts as well. It killed James in Heartthrob, eventually, or was that the
magic that they used on him?
The Initiative seemed to think the chip would eventually kill Spike, so death by
chip seems possible.
> 2. In some movies and books, Vampires can be injured, but they heal
> quickly. Assuming this is true, what happens if you dip it in acid? If
> it stays in the acid and doesn't have a chance to heal, wouldn't that
> kill it? Or, still assuming Vampires can be injured by normal means
> but simply heal at an excellerated rate, what would happen if you say,
> cut one down to size with a machine gun and kept shooting until there
> was nothing left? Basically, if you can do enough damage to a Vampire
> before it has a chance to heal, can you still, theoretically, kill the
> thing?
Probably they would stay alive unless the head became detached from their
bodies, or you destroyed the heart. Of course long before they die they would
merely be a quivering mass of half-melted vamp.
> 3. What would happen if a really huge monster decided to eat a
> Vampire? I mean, chewed it up and swallowed it. Assuming its head
> didn't get detatched from [however much of the body must remain not to
> constitute decapitation], would it still heal? Or is being digested
> the same as being burned? (see acid question above) Or does it heal
> after it gets passed through the monster's digestive track or
> something?
I don't think they heal THAT fast. Eventually they would be digested. Expect
indigestion.
> 4. Does it have to be a wooden stake to kill a Vampire? Or will any
> sharp object piercing the heart do the trick? If so, why wouldn't a
> bullet through the heart work? In the movie Blade, silver stakes can
> kill Vampires. Wouldn't a silver bullet do the same thing?
On Buffy, the dusting of a vamp is a wood only thing. Metal and plastic to the
heart have been tried and failed to produce a dusting.
> 5. I've heard soome places that a Vampire can be turned human again if
> you kill the Vampire that sired it - sorta like Werewolves. I've also
> head that this won't actually turn the Vampire human again, but that
> once you kill a Vampire you also kill all the Vampires it sired. Which
> one of these, if either, would you be inclined to believe? (Yes I know
> Vampires aren't real...like I said - this is for a project I'm working
> on!)
Not on Buffy. The only time a vampire was turned human again was when Angel was
exposed to the blood of a regenerating demon in I Will Remember You. Basically
he regenerated to human form.
> 6. If you cut a Vampire's arm off, does it grow back or quickly heal
> into a stump? If the latter is true, how much of a Vampires body can
> you cut-off before it qualifies as "decapitation"? For example, if you
> try to cut it's head off but instead you seperate the head, neck, and
> part of a shoulder from the rest of the body, does the Vampire still
> die? Or does it have to be a clean neck-cut? Or what happens if you
> cut un-evenly while trying to decapitate it and part of it's head is
> still attached to the rest of the body? Do you have to remove the
> entire head or just more than half of it? Or what happens if you
> somehow remove a Vampires brain without cutting off it's head?
Vampire limbs have been removed, leaving them handless.
The cut off body part doesn't seem to dust unless the hole body does when it's
attached. After all, if a cut off body part dusted, then the hair would dust
when they get a haircut, or blood would turn to dust when they bleed.
> 7. In the more "classic" stories and movies, Vampires can turn into
> bats. Do they just prefer to turn into bats rather than some other
> kind of animal, or is this the only animal they can turn into?
They had an episode where we met Dracula and he turned into a bat and a wolf.
They explained that these powers were magic spells he used, not vampire powers,
but since he is the world's most famous vampire, people mistakenly believe all
vamps do that.
In the Buffy comic book some very old vampires became bat-like in the face (more
then the Master!) and some even had arms which had wings in their vamp form!
This is a bit unofficial though.
> 8. If a Vampire bites a Werewolf, and a Werewolf bites a Vampire, both
> at the same time, do you end up with Vampires who turn into wolves
> once a month? Or since Vampires have the ability to transform already,
> do you end up with a Vampire that can "wolf-out" at will?
Vampire are dead and therefore immune to disease, so they are not effected by
werewolf bites, except for, well, it hurts.
Vampire don't turn people into vamp by merely biting them. They have to kill
them by draining, and feed the person their blood. If it did work on a werewolf,
he's probably cease being a werewolf any more, and JUST be a vampire. If it
didn't work, then he'd just be dead.
> 9. Are Vampires suave, seductive, and "cool" (ala Anne Rice), or are
> they hideous monsters, the most powerful of which have the ability to
> make themselves LOOK attractive (ala Brahm Stoker)? Or is the Vampire
> community made up of both the "suave", intelligent variety and the
> monstrous imbeciles (ala "Buffy")?
That depends on the vampire.
> 10. What kind of supernatural powers do Vampires have? I've seen
> levitation / flight, turning into bats, super strength, seduction, and
> whatever the hell you call it when they move faster or slower than the
> world around them (what's that called anyway?), are there any I'm
> forgetting?
They don't seem to age. On Buffy we have seen wall crawling, superleaping, an
enhanced sense of smell (they can track blood, people they know, and smell the
difference between humans and demon in human form). The have good hearing.
Vampires don't need to breath on the show, so they can't be killed by poison
gas, or choking. They have invisibility in mirrors too!
Angel has gotten past heat sensors because his body is more or less room
temperature.
Some vampires can sense the presence of Angel's human soul. Vampires have
demonstrated a psychic link between sire and their those they sire.
In the Buffy movie vampires could fly seemingly by levitation.
In other non-Buffy lore I've seen vampire turn into mist, have mind control and
turn into a swarm of rats.
--
Mathew
Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/
Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/
First Fallen
> burn it, stake it, or espose it to sunlight. In some movies and books
> Holy Water scolds Vampires' skin. If you had enough Holy Water, like
> gallons and gallons and gallons, could that kill a vampire in the same
> way that acid might kill a human?
It worked on Paul in The Lost Boys. Plus on Buffy we've seen vampire drink
holy water, and then crumble to dust.
Strictly speaking, according to folklore, a stake in the heart didn't kill a
vampire. The intent for that was to either pin it to the ground to prevent
it from rising again, or hold it in place long enough to cut off the head
and burn it.
> 2. In some movies and books, Vampires can be injured, but they heal
> quickly. Assuming this is true, what happens if you dip it in acid? If
> it stays in the acid and doesn't have a chance to heal, wouldn't that
> kill it? Or, still assuming Vampires can be injured by normal means
> but simply heal at an excellerated rate, what would happen if you say,
> cut one down to size with a machine gun and kept shooting until there
> was nothing left? Basically, if you can do enough damage to a Vampire
> before it has a chance to heal, can you still, theoretically, kill the
> thing?
If you destroy the heart, or remove the head a vampire will die. Everything
you've described above would do that.
>
> 3. What would happen if a really huge monster decided to eat a
> Vampire? I mean, chewed it up and swallowed it. Assuming its head
> didn't get detatched from [however much of the body must remain not to
> constitute decapitation], would it still heal? Or is being digested
> the same as being burned? (see acid question above) Or does it heal
> after it gets passed through the monster's digestive track or
> something?
It likely wouldn't come out whole. Enough damage would be done to the
vampire that it would die. In most cases, the ability to heal has to be
aided by the ingestion of blood. If the vampire somehow managed to not have
it's head detached from the torso, or have it's heart destroyed, then
assuming it could get enough blood it would likely heal.
> 4. Does it have to be a wooden stake to kill a Vampire? Or will any
> sharp object piercing the heart do the trick? If so, why wouldn't a
> bullet through the heart work? In the movie Blade, silver stakes can
> kill Vampires. Wouldn't a silver bullet do the same thing?
Traditionally it has to be a stake made from Ash, Aspen, Juniper or Hawthorn
wood. In some tales, a stake of iron is used to pin the corpse to the
ground. More modern storytelling says it must be a wooden stake, but they
don't seem to care what kind of wood it is. Blade either chose to or
accidentally confused Vampire lore with that of the Werewolf. Over the
years a lot of people have confused the ways of killing a vampire with that
of a werewolf. Silver is instrumental in killing a werewolf, but not a
vampire. If it wre (as with Blade) then yes, a silver bullet would likely
do the trick.
> 5. I've heard soome places that a Vampire can be turned human again if
> you kill the Vampire that sired it - sorta like Werewolves. I've also
> head that this won't actually turn the Vampire human again, but that
> once you kill a Vampire you also kill all the Vampires it sired. Which
> one of these, if either, would you be inclined to believe? (Yes I know
> Vampires aren't real...like I said - this is for a project I'm working
> on!)
Both of these scenarios are more modern conventions regarding the vampire.
The first you mentioned was used in The Lost Boys, the second is similar to
some events of Anne Rice's books (exposing the original vampires to the sun
burned all who came after them). Other media have given us ancient rituals,
certain kinds of sex, blood transfusions, etc. as a means of curing
Vampirism. Personally I prefer the notion that once you become a vampire,
there's no going back.
> 6. If you cut a Vampire's arm off, does it grow back or quickly heal
> into a stump? If the latter is true, how much of a Vampires body can
> you cut-off before it qualifies as "decapitation"? For example, if you
> try to cut it's head off but instead you seperate the head, neck, and
> part of a shoulder from the rest of the body, does the Vampire still
> die? Or does it have to be a clean neck-cut? Or what happens if you
> cut un-evenly while trying to decapitate it and part of it's head is
> still attached to the rest of the body? Do you have to remove the
> entire head or just more than half of it? Or what happens if you
> somehow remove a Vampires brain without cutting off it's head?
Different sources have different ideas. Of course Blade shows us that they
regenerte. Buffy (movie and TV) postulate that vampires can suffer
permanent injury.
With regards to decapitaion, I think as long as the heart and brain are
seperated, the vampire will die. Look at how Louis killed Santiago in the
film version Interview with the Vampire. He cut him diagonally with a
scythe.
> 7. In the more "classic" stories and movies, Vampires can turn into
> bats. Do they just prefer to turn into bats rather than some other
> kind of animal, or is this the only animal they can turn into?
It is generally accepted that the different forms a vampire can take are
bats, wolves and mist. At one point or anyother, Dracula assumes each of
these forms. In Christopher Golden's "Shadows" series, his vampires can
turn into any form they choose, but have been brainwashed over the centuried
by the church, thinking they can only take the above 3 forms. Again, it
depends on your source.
> 8. If a Vampire bites a Werewolf, and a Werewolf bites a Vampire, both
> at the same time, do you end up with Vampires who turn into wolves
> once a month? Or since Vampires have the ability to transform already,
> do you end up with a Vampire that can "wolf-out" at will?
The Real Ghostbusters cartoon actually did this. There was a town populated
by vampires and werewolves. In the end there was a big fight, and that's
exactly what was happening. And they all became half breeds.
The differnence between vampires and werewolves is, Werewolves are alive,
and Vampires are dead. I don't think anything would happen in a vampire was
attacked by a werewolf and survived. However, if a werewolf was attacked by
a vampire, and changed, he would most likely only be a vampire. In most
cases, it seems that death effectively cures lycanthropy (notice how in the
movies, werewolves always turn human when killed). There's also been some
stories floating about as to how when a werewolf dies, they acutally arise
from the grave as a vampire.
> 9. Are Vampires suave, seductive, and "cool" (ala Anne Rice), or are
> they hideous monsters, the most powerful of which have the ability to
> make themselves LOOK attractive (ala Brahm Stoker)? Or is the Vampire
> community made up of both the "suave", intelligent variety and the
> monstrous imbeciles (ala "Buffy")?
Traditionally, they were just an animated corpse, or revenant. I think that
if they were real, they would run the gamut. You'd have the suave upscale
vampires like Anne Rice's, and you'd have the the badass killing machines
(Lost Boys or Near Dark) and you could even have the nasty, freaky mindless
ones. Vampire: The Masquerade did this. They took all the different kinds
of vampires we've seen over the years, and made them into different clans
that co-exist.
> 10. What kind of supernatural powers do Vampires have? I've seen
> levitation / flight, turning into bats, super strength, seduction, and
> whatever the hell you call it when they move faster or slower than the
> world around them (what's that called anyway?), are there any I'm
> forgetting?
Again it depends on the source.
The most popular
Immortality
Transformation
Flight
Hypnosis
Strength
Speed
Healing
> Well, that's all I can think of for now. Thanks in advance for taking
> the time to respond. I really appreciate it!
>
> - Corvun
A good resource for this would be - The Vampire Book by J. Gordon Melton
Corvłn Sępius
info! One thing I did hear regarding the Vampire - Werewolf question
when I was searching the web said that in some stories, Vampires are
created when a Werewolf is killed (the corpse becomes a Vampire)...I
think I'll work that into my story.
--
- Corvůn Sćpius
http://oldways.tripod.com/
"Hear now the words of the Witches,
the Secrets we hid in the Night,
when Dark was our Destiny's Pathway,
that Now we bring forth into Light!"
"Corvůn Sćpius" <corvun_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v530k4...@corp.supernews.com...
Hunter
corvun_...@hotmail.com says...
Corvin, First you have to understand vampires kill, are killed, behave
have special powers or don't have special powers depending on the
universe i.e what TV show, movie or book/magazine you read. There are
a lot of similarities between vampire universes but a lot of
differences as well I will consentrate on the two universes I know
well: The Buffyverse and the Knightverse ("Forever Knight).
Power/vulnerabilty Buffyverse: Forever Knight:
Superstrength: Yes Yes (FK vamps seem stronger)
Super hearing: Yes Yes
Super speed: Yes Yes (FKv seem faster)
Gameface: Yes, elaborate Yes, but more humanlike
Morphing ability: No (except Dracula) No
Ailments Fixed: Some, but not all Yes, Including blindness
Amputated arm regenerates: No No, but they can reattach
Death by sunlight: Yes, combustion Yes combustion takes
a bit longer
Death by fire: Yes Yes
Death by decapitation: Yes, explodes to dust Yes
Death by Stake in heart:Yes, explodes into dust Yes, but body
remains intact
also, remove
stake vamp revives
Crosses burn: Yes Yes, and if the
vamp is really evil
hand can burst into
flames
Holy water acidic: Yes Yes
Vamp can fly: No (forget movie) Yes
Power of hypnosis: Some Alpha vamps Yes
Soul leaves body
on turning: Yes. Demon totally No, corrupted by
takes over redemption demon but redemption
not possible is possible
Vampires can have sexual
relations with mortals: Yes No, vampire will
mindlessly kill
mortal upon orgasm
Some vamps operate
normally in the
mortal world: No, on fringes at best Yes, some have careers
Constantly seeking
to enslave mortals: Most of them No, Most feed on
humanity but have
no desire to take
over
They believe themselves
superior to mortals: Yes Yes
Can eat normal food: Yes, but not survive Ditto
All drink human blood: Yes No. some ferel
vamps drink exclusively
rat blood
Dogs can be vamped: Guessing no. Yes.
They are immortal: Yes Yes
They like old but
well maintained cars: Yes Yes
Bullets can harm: Yes. Hurt, but not kill. No, itches maybe.
Non wood weapons can
harm hurt: Yes No
Normal mortals can fight
vamps hand to hand and win: Yes Not a chance
There are supervamps (above
and beyond Alpha vamps like
the Master): Yes (Turok-Han) Yes, Secrecy Enforcers
Well, that is all I can remember right now, but the point is there is
not single vampire type amongst the universes. Couple of bonuses:
"Interview with a Vampire" vamps hair regenerates. Impossible to get a
hair cut. The hair length you had when you were turned is the hair
length you will have for all eternity. Also you can kill a vamp with a
metal sword by slicing him in two.
"Innocent Blood" vampires are very animalistic when they feed. They
roar like Cougars and have red eyes. Also you can kill them by
breaking their knecks. They can fly.
"Blade" vamps aren't afraid of Crosses and other Holy artifacts. Some
want to live in peace with humanity, others want to take over the
mortal world.
Anyway, there are no deffinative vampyres.
I hope the raggedy columns stay on the intended lines.
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
AliceFromHell
Hunter wrote:
> "Interview with a Vampire" vamps hair regenerates. Impossible to get a
> hair cut. The hair length you had when you were turned is the hair
> length you will have for all eternity. Also you can kill a vamp with a
> metal sword by slicing him in two.
In the books, hair and nails don't start regenerating till after sunrise, I
think. I remember one of the female characters cut their hair every sunset
when she woke up. I believe that was Lestat's mother Gabrielle.
--
Remove my clothes to reply.
"Love isn't brains, children, it's blood: blood screaming inside you to work
its will."
--Spike, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," season 03, episode 08, "Lover's Walk"
Get your neck bitten by yours truly {new link}:
http://www.projectjen.net/sire/?s=9658
First Fallen
> Superstrength: Yes Yes (FK vamps seem stronger)
Considering I've seen Nick rip a steel door off it's hinges with zero
effort, I'm gonna have to say yes.
> Super speed: Yes Yes (FKv seem faster)
Hence all the whooshing and swish pans <g>
> Can eat normal food: Yes, but not survive Ditto
Generally FK vamps can't eat enything. It seems very painful for them.
> All drink human blood: Yes No. some ferel
> vamps drink exclusively
> rat blood
In FK, a vampire that doesn't feed on human blood is called a Carouche. It
isn't exclusively rat blood they hunger for. When a new vampire wakes up,
they feed on the first thing they find. If it's an animal, they forever
more crave the blood of that animal.
> "Interview with a Vampire" vamps hair regenerates. Impossible to get a
> hair cut. The hair length you had when you were turned is the hair
> length you will have for all eternity. Also you can kill a vamp with a
> metal sword by slicing him in two.
Or Scythe in the case of Santiago
First Fallen
>
> > "Interview with a Vampire" vamps hair regenerates. Impossible to get a
> > hair cut. The hair length you had when you were turned is the hair
> > length you will have for all eternity. Also you can kill a vamp with a
> > metal sword by slicing him in two.
>
> In the books, hair and nails don't start regenerating till after sunrise,
I
> think. I remember one of the female characters cut their hair every sunset
> when she woke up. I believe that was Lestat's mother Gabrielle.
And Armand used to like to cut his hair before going to bed, and then
videotape himself in his coffin as it grew back.
The Babaloughesian
"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18bb8a2a3...@news.earthlink.net...
Christopher Pike vampires from "The Last Vampire" book series can regenerate
limbs if they've gotten enough blood. They aren't affected by sunlight, but
are weakened by cold. Their vision is more on the level of Superman's
telescopic/microscopic vision i.e. some of the more powerful ones can make
out the detail in the craters on the moon. The longer a vampire lives, the
more powers they gain. Vampire strength is in the "leap from building to
building Spider-Man style with ease" magnitude(one's been shown to be able
to heave around an armored truck), and vampire speed allows them to dodge .
People are turned by losing a lot of blood and then getting a blood
transfusion from the blood vessel of a vampire. Vampires can feed on the
blood of other vampires; if one feeds on the blood of a stronger vampire(one
who is probably closer to the master bloodline), it makes them more powerful
than if one were to just feed on a mortal or a lesser vampire. Decapitation
is fatal. Vampires are not mindless savages- they're capable of developing
a far higher degree of self control than humans, and can feed without
killing. A vampire once turned has the exact same personality they did as a
human. They also have souls- well, whatever hinduism's version of a soul
is. Crosses, holy water, other religious symbols do nothing, as vampires in
this universe originate from a Hindu region and have no connection to
Judeo-Christian religions. Vampires breathe, but can hold their breaths for
a very very long time.
How about John Carpenter's "Vampire$"?
Also, "The Wisdom of Crocodiles" has an interesting form of vampire.
Catherine B. Krusberg
>
> A good resource for this would be - The Vampire Book by J. Gordon Melton
Also: The Vampire Gallery, same author. This is basically an
encyclopedia of vampire characters from a wide variety of
universes. Not only that, it's currently available for cheap
at BookCloseOuts.com:
http://www.bookcloseouts.com/bc/display.book.asp?isbn=1578590531
I have to reiterate what First Fallen says: Vampires'
abilities, vulnerabilities, etc., depend on the source.
Everybody has a different take. David Dvorkin wrote a
universe in which vampires could be shrunk to doll size
by their blood being drunk repeatedly, but when one was
swallowed (even though chewed first!) it reassembled inside
the swallower's body and chewed its way out. That was a
kinda weird universe....
The Mad Bibliographer
Cathy Krusberg
Internet: ckb...@ix.netcom.com
"Strangely enough, I have no compelling desire to drink blood and
murder people." --Storm Constantine, "Just His Type"
Hunter
no...@nope.com says...
Oh OK; I was talking about the movie. In a scene the little girl
vampire cut her hair for Armand I think. Armand looked at her with the
expression of sad realization of what was about to happen. When the
girl returned to the mirror* (see below) she screemed at the sight of
her curly (IIRC) hair having grown back almost instantly.
*That is another difference between vampire universes in the TV show
"Forever Knight" and in the movies "Interview with a Vampire and
"Blade" the vampires had reflections. Buffyverse vamps don't, even the
ones with souls; and mirrors are supposed to be reflections of the
soul.
----->Hunter
Stephen Tempest
buffh...@my-deja.com (Hunter) writes:
>Power/vulnerabilty Buffyverse:
>Amputated arm regenerates: No
Has this ever been definitively stated? Spike was crippled and
confined to a wheelchair half way through S2, but had regenerated all
the damage by the end of the season. You'd also think that the other
really old vampires would have picked up a few crippling wounds over
the centuries, but they all seem perfectly intact - so maybe they "got
better?". And we're often told that it's only specific decapitation,
not general dismemberment, that will kill a vampire.
The only exception I can think of is Claw from Teacher's Pet, but that
can be explained simply by suggesting that the regeneration takes a
very long time. Claw also seemed a bit on the dim side, so perhaps he
doesn't even realise why his claw keeps getting harder to strap back
onto his stump every time he takes it off?
>Vamp can fly: No (forget movie)
Only if they buy a ticket, or take flying lessons...
>Some vamps operate
>normally in the
>mortal world: No, on fringes at best
True in Sunnydale. In LA there are vampire movie producers (not to
mention vampire PIs).
>Normal mortals can fight
>vamps hand to hand and win: Yes
Only if they have the secret power of Script Immunity.
Stephen
Ion-Petru Vancea
Corvųn Sæpius <corvun_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v530k4...@corp.supernews.com...
> Sorry for the cross-post, but I had some questions about vampires for
> a project I'm doing and I'd like to get as much imput as I could. I am
> not subscribed to most of the newsgroups that I have posted to, I am
> only subscribed to the "Angel" and "Buffy" groups, so if you reply
> please keep thos NGs in the response or just respond to me as the
> sender. I tried to post to a wide range of Newsgroups because I was
> hoping for a wide-range of responses. Anyway, here are the questions:
>
> 1. Okay, so the only way to kill a Vampire is to cut off its head,
> burn it, stake it, or espose it to sunlight. In some movies and books
> Holy Water scolds Vampires' skin. If you had enough Holy Water, like
> gallons and gallons and gallons, could that kill a vampire in the same
> way that acid might kill a human?
In VtM not all holy water will harm a vampire; it must be blessed by someone
with "true faith" in order to acquire this quality. The exception in the
bloodline called the Baali, who are so tied to the powers of evil that
anything superficially holy hurts them.
---------
> 2. In some movies and books, Vampires can be injured, but they heal
> quickly. Assuming this is true, what happens if you dip it in acid? If
> it stays in the acid and doesn't have a chance to heal, wouldn't that
> kill it? Or, still assuming Vampires can be injured by normal means
> but simply heal at an excellerated rate, what would happen if you say,
> cut one down to size with a machine gun and kept shooting until there
> was nothing left? Basically, if you can do enough damage to a Vampire
> before it has a chance to heal, can you still, theoretically, kill the
> thing?
As far as VtM is concerned, vamps don't heal at all except by a conscious
effort; this effort can heal just about anything, but it makes the vamp
hungrier for blood (the game system is that your vamp has a certain number
of Blood Points - you use these up to heal or perform certain other neat
tricks)
-----------
> 3. What would happen if a really huge monster decided to eat a
> Vampire? I mean, chewed it up and swallowed it. Assuming its head
> didn't get detatched from [however much of the body must remain not to
> constitute decapitation], would it still heal? Or is being digested
> the same as being burned? (see acid question above) Or does it heal
> after it gets passed through the monster's digestive track or
> something?
See above, I suppose
-----------
> 4. Does it have to be a wooden stake to kill a Vampire? Or will any
> sharp object piercing the heart do the trick? If so, why wouldn't a
> bullet through the heart work? In the movie Blade, silver stakes can
> kill Vampires. Wouldn't a silver bullet do the same thing?
Silver has no unusual properties against vampires in VtM.
-----------
> 5. I've heard soome places that a Vampire can be turned human again if
> you kill the Vampire that sired it - sorta like Werewolves. I've also
> head that this won't actually turn the Vampire human again, but that
> once you kill a Vampire you also kill all the Vampires it sired. Which
> one of these, if either, would you be inclined to believe? (Yes I know
> Vampires aren't real...like I said - this is for a project I'm working
> on!)
None of the above.
-----------
> 6. If you cut a Vampire's arm off, does it grow back or quickly heal
> into a stump? If the latter is true, how much of a Vampires body can
> you cut-off before it qualifies as "decapitation"? For example, if you
> try to cut it's head off but instead you seperate the head, neck, and
> part of a shoulder from the rest of the body, does the Vampire still
> die? Or does it have to be a clean neck-cut? Or what happens if you
> cut un-evenly while trying to decapitate it and part of it's head is
> still attached to the rest of the body? Do you have to remove the
> entire head or just more than half of it? Or what happens if you
> somehow remove a Vampires brain without cutting off it's head?
I would surmise the key is whether the head is separated from the heart...
----------
> 7. In the more "classic" stories and movies, Vampires can turn into
> bats. Do they just prefer to turn into bats rather than some other
> kind of animal, or is this the only animal they can turn into?
Shapeshifting of this sort in VtM is largely confined to one clan of vamps -
the Gangrel. They are able to turn into bats or into wolves; some urban
dwelling Gangrel as rumoured to able to turn into giant rats as well.
----------
> 8. If a Vampire bites a Werewolf, and a Werewolf bites a Vampire, both
> at the same time, do you end up with Vampires who turn into wolves
> once a month? Or since Vampires have the ability to transform already,
> do you end up with a Vampire that can "wolf-out" at will?
In White Wolf's "World of Darkness" vampires and werewolves are enemies.
Werewolves hate vampires because they believe them to be creatures of an
entity they call "The Wyrm" which seeks the corrupt the natural world. WoD
werewolves can't turn other people into wolfies by biting them, either;
you're born that way or you're not. A vamp only creates more of its kind by
draining someone of blood and then feeding him or her some of its own blood.
Werewolves' link to the earth spirit Gaia means they usually die outright
instead of rising again; in the event they don't, this link is usually
severed and the ww simply becomes an ordinary vamp... Wyrm tainted ww's
however have been known to rise again as undead monsters known as
"Abominations".
-----------
> 9. Are Vampires suave, seductive, and "cool" (ala Anne Rice), or are
> they hideous monsters, the most powerful of which have the ability to
> make themselves LOOK attractive (ala Brahm Stoker)? Or is the Vampire
> community made up of both the "suave", intelligent variety and the
> monstrous imbeciles (ala "Buffy")?
In VtM this depends on the vampire clan. Vampires of the clan Toreador, for
instance, will always be suave and seductive types; those of the clan
Nosferatu will always look horrible - like The Master in Buffy or even
worse, while those of the (now extinct) clan Cappadocian aren't necessarily
ugly, but are always pallid like corpses, and the clan Tzimisce are usually
capable of physically moulding their own flesh, so that they will often have
unearthly beauty or be starkly alien in appearance.
-----------
> 10. What kind of supernatural powers do Vampires have? I've seen
> levitation / flight, turning into bats, super strength, seduction, and
> whatever the hell you call it when they move faster or slower than the
> world around them (what's that called anyway?), are there any I'm
> forgetting?
Again in VtM this will depend on the particular clan. Toreador and Ventrue
vamps can mesmerise people (but in subtly different ways - Ventrue more in a
"Yes... master ... I will obey" kind of way, Toreador more in a "Wow, she's
just *so* cool!" kind of way) Gangrel can communicate with animals, change
shape and sink into the ground. Several clans can move blindingly fast or be
very strong. Lasombra can make it dark and bring shadows to life, Ravnos can
make people hallucinate, and so on.
--
IP.V.
First Fallen
> >Amputated arm regenerates: No
>
> Has this ever been definitively stated? Spike was crippled and
> confined to a wheelchair half way through S2, but had regenerated all
> the damage by the end of the season. You'd also think that the other
> really old vampires would have picked up a few crippling wounds over
> the centuries, but they all seem perfectly intact - so maybe they "got
> better?". And we're often told that it's only specific decapitation,
> not general dismemberment, that will kill a vampire.
>
> The only exception I can think of is Claw from Teacher's Pet, but that
> can be explained simply by suggesting that the regeneration takes a
> very long time. Claw also seemed a bit on the dim side, so perhaps he
> doesn't even realise why his claw keeps getting harder to strap back
> onto his stump every time he takes it off?
But we've also seen that some damage can be permanent. Spike got cut over
the eye by the Slayer in 1900, in 2003 he still bears the scar from it.
Kakistos was one of the oldest vampires they've shown on the series, and he
still had the big, ugly gash in his face that Faith gave him.
It would seem that most internal damage will heal given time, but some
external damage can remain forever. I think the reason we don't see more
vampires who have suffered permanent injury, is because they either don't
end up in that situation very often (being more powerful than most puny
humans), or if they do get crippled, they don't live long enough to heal
(the old stake-a-roo)
First Fallen
> vampire cut her hair for Armand I think. Armand looked at her with the
> expression of sad realization of what was about to happen. When the
> girl returned to the mirror* (see below) she screemed at the sight of
> her curly (IIRC) hair having grown back almost instantly.
Claudia cut it off in front of Louis and Lestat in a fit of rage, because
she would never be more than a child. And yes, in the film it grew back
almost immediately.
> *That is another difference between vampire universes in the TV show
> "Forever Knight" and in the movies "Interview with a Vampire and
> "Blade" the vampires had reflections. Buffyverse vamps don't, even the
> ones with souls; and mirrors are supposed to be reflections of the
> soul.
This started with the original pilot - Nick Knight starring Rick
Springfield. There's a scene showing Nick washing up, and looking into a
mirror and seeing his reflection. This was carried over into the series.
One explanaion I had heard was, it was too expensive for them to show him
without a reflection, so they decided to just alter that bit of legend to
suit their needs.
B J Kuehl
>wide-range of responses.
Well, we've heard from the Buffyverse, the Nick Knight watchers, the
V:tMers, the Anne Rice followers, etc. This post is originating from
alt.vampyres where the focus is on vampires from seminal fiction and
folklore. Here, we like to talk about vampires who were really believed to
exist as well as early fictional vampires like Lord Ruthven and Dracula.
It is with these two genres that I will add to the answers that have
already been proffered.
>1. Okay, so the only way to kill a Vampire is to cut off its head, burn
>it, stake it, or espose it to sunlight.
Cutting off the head (and tucking it between the legs) or burning the body
were rash treatments, undertaken only when a dead person had been fingered
as a vampire. Exposing the body to sunlight was not a feature of early
folklore or fiction. Vampires in folklore and early fiction were often
able to walk in sunlight. In fact, in some folklore, the vampire was most
active at noon. The best we've been able to come up with is that the
anti-sunlight thing entered the vampire genre via the movie "Nosferatu",
where Count Orlock was destroyed by the rising sun.
In folklore, the people had several lines of defense.
The first line of defense was to perform burial rituals that warded off
those things that might invade a body and cause it to turn vampire, e.g.
keeping cats from jumping over the body before it was buried.
The second line of defense was to outfit the coffin so that the body,
should it become vampire, couldn't leave. This was accomplished by burying
the body with bags of rice, millet, sand, or other small particles, on the
belief that the vampire was obsessive-compulsive and would be compelled to
count the grains each night.
The third line of defense was to make it difficult for a vampire to find
its way back to the people it knew during life. This meant obliterating
the path from the grave to the house with more rice, millet, sand, etc.,
on the belief again that a vampire would stop to count the grains and
never make it to the homes of those on which it wanted to feed.
The fourth line of defense was to make one's home impervious to vampires
by planting thorny bushes (e.g., hawthorn or roses) near the doorways,
strewing hawthorn or other plants on the windowsills, and hanging garlic
at the portals. On nights when vampires were "known" to be active (e.g.,
St. George's eve), people would stay up all night telling stories or sleep
with their heads at the foot of their beds, on the belief that vampires
wouldn't notice them.
With regards to staking, First Fallen has already pointed out that,
according to folklore, a stake in the heart didn't kill a vampire. It was
used to either pin it to the ground to prevent it from rising again or
hold it in place long enough to cut off the head or burn it. As such, it
was part of the fifth line of defense that began when a particular
individual was suspected of being vampire. The body might be disinterred
and staked to prevent it from escaping the coffin. Or they might pound
nails, needles, or other sharp objects into the body, again on the belief
that pounding sharp objects into the body would prevent it from rising.
If none of these preventatives "worked", the final line of defense would
be to burn or mutilate the body by cutting off the head or taking out the
heart. In Greece, the body might be buried on the island of Santorini in
order to prevent the vampire from crossing the water and returning to the
mainland.
>In some movies and books Holy Water scolds Vampires' skin. If you had
>enough Holy Water, like gallons and gallons and gallons, could that kill a
>vampire in the same way that acid might kill a human?
Holy water doesn't appear to have much of an effect on folkoric vampires.
You must remember that the church was dead set against the belief in
vampires and the methods of killing them. The church would offer
benedictions for the dead but did not make holy water or eucharists
available to just anyone. Even in _Dracula_, it took a dispensation for
van Helsing to get the communion wafers he used to "sterilize" Dracula's
earthboxes.
^BJ^
[continued]
Michel Boucher
<corvun_...@hotmail.com> écrivit:
> 1. Okay, so the only way to kill a Vampire is to cut off its head,
> burn it, stake it, or espose it to sunlight.
Strictly speaking, you cannot kill a vampire. You can stop it or
destroy it. I can't speak for the destroying part, but let me
expound at length here ( :-> ) on the matter of stopping it, based on
historical and archaeological evidence.
In three different locations at different times (all Iron Age sites),
there is evidence that earthbound matter, in this case stone or wood,
was used to immobilize the spirit of a person or animal.
At Baba Jan Tepe in Iran, a hero's tomb contains the remains of a
horse which had been slain to accompany the man in death and whose
chest was covered by a large stone. Just bear this in mind for now.
Almost a thousand years later (in another Iron Age location) in the
Danish bogs, we find that people accused of witchcraft are buried in
the bogs and their limbs are held down, we are told, to keep their
spirits from wandering and haunting the living. In one "recent"
instance, a priest calmed a ghost by staking the body with a long
wooden pole through the bog.
In Ireland in the 9th century, monks composing poetry in the dark
(ok, you may think that's strange but that is how they did it) would
place a heavy stone on their chest to keep their spirit from
wandering.
So...both stone and wood can be used to keep spirits in place in an
Iron Age setting (time doesn't seem to matter)...the monks, the
witches and I extrapolate, but with a fair degree of certainty, the
horse.
Staking vampires should not, in fact, destroy them, but it should
immobilize them. There were Hammer films that dared to present this
concept, in one case where someone removed Dracula's stake from his
otherwise complete body and he returned to activity.
It seems light is their worst enemy, but it seems to be that also
with a lot of politicians nowadays ;-)
--
Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver más que la luz.
José Martí
Bill Bickel
through the heart, you cut out the heart altogether? Will the vampire
survive without a heart? And if so, can you just leave it in a jar somewhere
and kill the vampire any time you want by staking the disembodied heart? Or
does it only kill the vampire when it's IN him?
And if teh campire can survive without a heart, wouldn't it be wide for a
vampire to have his own heart cut up and hidden in a box somewhere, and
essentially become stakeproof?
Okay, this was more than one question.
Bill Bickel
http://www/comicsidontunderstand.com
http://www.FindLaciPeterson.com
Catherine B. Krusberg
> And if teh campire can survive without a heart, wouldn't it be wide for a
> vampire to have his own heart cut up and hidden in a box somewhere, and
> essentially become stakeproof?
Isn't there a group (not sure it's a clan) of vampires in the
V:tM universe that does exactly this? I seem to recall a short
story about a guy who won some brownie points by finding
hearts like these and presenting them to someone who wanted
a hold on their owners.
Some folktales use the idea of an ogre that hides his heart
somewhere outside his body; he can be killed only if the
heart is found and destroyed. This isn't part of vampire
lore, however.
The Mad Bibliographer
Cathy Krusberg
Internet: ckb...@ix.netcom.com
"The passion that the vampire seeks and that the victim wants to give
is an appalling and consecrated gift." --Mary Turzillo
B J Kuehl
by "Corvun Saepius" <corvun_...@hotmail.com>:
>2. In some movies and books, Vampires can be injured, but they heal
>quickly. Assuming this is true, what happens if you dip it in acid?
>If it stays in the acid and doesn't have a chance to heal, wouldn't
>that kill it? Or, still assuming Vampires can be injured by normal
>means but simply heal at an excellerated rate, what would happen if
>you say, cut one down to size with a machine gun and kept shooting
>until there was nothing left? Basically, if you can do enough damage
>to a Vampire before it has a chance to heal, can you still,
>theoretically, kill the thing?
Unfortunately (or fortunately), there were no machine guns until the
end of the 1800s, so machine guns didn't figure into earlier fiction
and folklore. There were other types of guns, though, and they were
sometimes used by vampire hunters as they roamed from town to town,
offering to rid the towns of those pesky invisible vampires who
carried diseases and caused your bread not to rise.
There were several methods of using guns to destroy vampires. One
was to find the vampire's grave and fire a bullet into the coffin.
Another was to challenge the vampire to a fight in the town square at
noon and, when the vampire showed up, the vampire hunter (after
wrestling with the invisible creature) eventually pulled out his gun
and shot the vampire. Problem solved.
As for acid, I've never read of anyone using acid to destroy a
vampire, so it would be pure speculation as to what acid might do.
But, there once was a "vampire" who used acid to destroy his victims.
One John George Haigh, dubbed "the vampire of London," lured his prey
to his laboratory where he killed them, drained their blood, and then
tossed their bodies into a vat of sulfuric acid. When Haigh was
finally apprehended in the 1940s, undissolved body parts such as
teeth were found in the acid and used to identify the victims.
>3. What would happen if a really huge monster decided to eat a
>Vampire? I mean, chewed it up and swallowed it. Assuming its head
>didn't get detatched from [however much of the body must remain not
>to constitute decapitation], would it still heal? Or is being
>digested the same as being burned? (see acid question above) Or does
>it heal after it gets passed through the monster's digestive track
>or something?
The purpose of chewing is to smash up your food and mix it with
saliva and ptyalin to begin the digestive process. After swallowing,
the stomach continues to grind the food into a watery mass which is
squirted through a small sphincter into the duodenum where the tiny
particles are absorbed and transported via the portal vein to the
liver. It's pretty hard to imagine that any fleshy body, be it animal
or vampire, could come through that process intact.
However, the key word here is "fleshy." Not all vampires were
believed able to leave the grave in the flesh. In many folktales,
vampires were thought to leave their bodies behind while their souls
went forth to hunt. A vampire in this form would probably not make
substantial fodder for a hungry monster. And if, by some unlucky
stroke, the vampire did find itself in the mouth of such a monster,
he could change himself into mist and easily ooze his way out between
the monster's teeth.
[continued]
mephisto
> Vampire? I mean, chewed it up and swallowed it. Assuming its head
> didn't get detatched from [however much of the body must remain not to
> constitute decapitation], would it still heal? Or is being digested
> the same as being burned? (see acid question above) Or does it heal
> after it gets passed through the monster's digestive track or
> something?
I don't think they heal THAT fast. Eventually they would be digested. Expect
indigestion.
Mephisto says.
Vampires may be suave and all that, but never underestimate their feral
ability. After about ten minutes in a stomach, a true vampire would relaize
where they are, and have a bite to eat. That would heal them. Once they
have enough energy, they would burst/eat/claw their way out. It would be
messy, and make for a great movie scene.
Corvłn Sępius
chewing something, the stomach starts to produce acid. By the time it
swallowed the Vampire, the Vampire would already by ankle-deep in
bile. In as little as five minutes, the acid would completely dissolve
the Vampire. Would five minutes be enough time to heal if the
overgrown leach (Vampire) were chewed into tiny pieces of mashed-up
undead flesh and then "curplunked" into a slowly deepening puddle of
stomach acid?
I think that in addition to staking, decapitation, sunlight, etc.,
"eaten by a bigger monster" should be on the Vampire vulnerability
list.
After all, I can't imagine anything other than a PURELY incorporeal
being surving the process of being digested. Even some kind of liquid
monster (think "the Blob") who could survive the chewing process would
be toast once it came in contact with the stomach acid.
However - if Vampires are like Superman (bullets bounce off them,
etc.) then they could concievably survive. But as far as I know,
Vampires never show this degree of invlunerability - not in any movie
or tv show I've ever seen, anyway.
--
- Corvůn Sćpius
http://oldways.tripod.com/
"Hear now the words of the Witches,
the Secrets we hid in the Night,
when Dark was our Destiny's Pathway,
that Now we bring forth into Light!"
"mephisto" <meph...@efni.com> wrote in message
news:BA791663.438C%meph...@efni.com...
B J Kuehl
>4. Does it have to be a wooden stake to kill a Vampire? Or will any sharp
>object piercing the heart do the trick?
As others have pointed out, staking the body was to prevent the vampire
from escaping or changing shape, not to kill it. In _Dracula_, for
example, a wooden stake was first pounded through Lucy's heart, but this
did not destroy her ability to rise again as a vampire. What it did was
release her soul ("No longer she is the devil's Un-Dead. She is God's true
dead, whose soul is with Him!"*) and restore her to her human face, "as we
had seen her in her life, with her face of unequalled sweetness and
purity"*. The actual destruction, that which prevented Lucy from rising
again as a vampire, was accomplished by cutting off her head, filling her
mouth with garlic, and soldering her tomb shut.
Must the stake be made of wood? In some traditions, yes; in others, maybe
not. Dracula was destroyed by a bowie knife plunged into his heart and a
Kukri knife that slashed his throat. I suspect that wood was more commonly
used because it was cheaper and easier to get than metal and could be left
in the vampire's body, whereas swords or knives were too expensive to be
left behind. The fact that it had to be a particular type of wood in some
legends might have been a feature promulgated by vampire hunters, who
zealously guarded their profession with all sorts of requisites and
rituals. Their livelihood was based on convincing people that only they
had the special power to detect vampires, particularly invisible ones,
and the secrets of how to appropriately destroy them.
>If so, why wouldn't a bullet through the heart work?
I'm sure it would, particularly on invisible vampires or those lying
"undead" in their coffins. :)
>In the movie Blade, silver stakes can kill Vampires. Wouldn't a silver
>bullet do the same thing?
Sure, but not because of the silver. Silver may be associated with
werewolves, but it never had any special effect on vampires in early
fiction and folklore. It might be interesting to attempt to trace back the
earliest reference to silver with respect to vampires. I doubt that it's
much older than 20 years at most. Someone mentioned "Blade". Can anyone
find references earlier than that?
>5. I've heard soome places that a Vampire can be turned human again if
>you kill the Vampire that sired it - sorta like Werewolves. I've also
>head that this won't actually turn the Vampire human again, but that once
>you kill a Vampire you also kill all the Vampires it sired. Which one of
>these, if either, would you be inclined to believe?
Thanks for asking. Here's my opinion. I don't buy either of them. I go
along with the school that says "once a vampire, always a vampire," and I
don't believe that killing one vampire will also kill all the vampires it
has created. I think those are recent additions to the vampire lore,
probably because they are quick fixes and easy to portray in a 90-minute
movie. A story that ends with the vampires being turned back into humans
by a blood transfusion (as in "Near Dark") impresses me as a cheap trick
and an easy writer's plot. Soon we'll have stories about people trying on
vampirism as they would a new shirt. Don't like it? Vampirism isn't all it
was cracked up to be? Just go get your blood transfused.
I also don't believe that anyone who is bitten by a vampire will turn into
a vampire. It didn't work that way in the older legends. In most folklore,
vampires could come back again and again to the same person, the result
being that the victim might, over time, become weakened and waste away.
Even Stoker makes it clear that it is not the bite of the vampire that
creates a new vampire but the fact that those who "die from the preying of
the Un-Dead becomes themselves the Un-Dead." Being bitten by a vampire,
however, did increase the chances that the bitten person would also become
a vampire after his death.
*all quotes from Dr Seward's diary, 29 September
^BJ^
[to be continued]
B J Kuehl
>a stump? If the latter is true, how much of a Vampires body can you
>cut-off before it qualifies as "decapitation"? For example, if you try to
>cut it's head off but instead you seperate the head, neck, and part of a
>shoulder from the rest of the body, does the Vampire still die? Or does
>it have to be a clean neck-cut? Or what happens if you cut un-evenly
>while trying to decapitate it and part of it's head is still attached to
>the rest of the body? Do you have to remove the entire head or just more
>than half of it? Or what happens if you somehow remove a Vampires brain
>without cutting off it's head?
All questions for which there are no tidy answers. Having no undead
vampires to experiment on, it's up to the story-teller.
In folklore, it was commonly believed that the head needed to be removed
from the body or it would reattach. It was for this reason that the head
was usually placed between the legs so that there was no chance of it
reattaching to the neck.
However, I'm not so sure that it takes decapitation to destroy a vampire.
For example, Dracula wasn't decapitated in the end. He just had his throat
slit open. From Mina Harker's Journal, 6 November: "I shrieked as I saw
[Jonathan's great knife] shear through the throat; whilst at the same
moment Mr Morris's bowie knife plunged into the heart. It was like a
miracle; but before our very eyes, and almost in the drawing of a breath,
the whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight."
Also in _Dracula_, there is evidence that vampires don't necessarily heal
quickly or even completely. While imprisoned in Dracula's castle, Jonathan
Harker comes upon Dracula in his coffin and picks up a nearby shovel with
the intent to drive it into his face. At the last moment, however, Dracula
turns his head, and the shovel makes only a deep gash in his forehead.
Months later, when Harker recognizes Dracula in London, the gash is still
there.
An unusual remedy for beheadings and other severences was shown in the
Subspecies movies. If incapacitated in any way, Radu the vampire simply
twisted off his fingertips and tossed them on the floor. Almost
immediately, the fingertips would turn into little imps who would carry
the severed bodypart back to Radu so that he could reattach it.
>7. In the more "classic" stories and movies, Vampires can turn into bats.
>Do they just prefer to turn into bats rather than some other kind of
>animal, or is this the only animal they can turn into?
Other posters have mentioned wolves and rats along with mist. According to
Dr van Helsing, Dracula was able to turn into any of these. He was also
able to "come on moonlight rays as elemental dust," to "at times vanish
and come unknown," as well as to make himself "become so small [as to be
able to] slip through a hairbreadth space" as Lucy did at her tomb door
[from Mina Harker's Journal, 30 September].
In folklore, the forms that vampires can take are even more creative.
Birds of various types (e.g., ducks, owls, geese, doves, turkeys,
buzzards, and chickens) and insects (e.g., moths, flies, bees, and fleas)
have been mentioned in various mythologies, along with dogs, cats, even
ants. In some cases, vampires don't turn into animals at all but take the
form of a ball of light similar to a will-o-the-wisp. I've even read that
they can turn into dustballs, just like the kind living under your bed.
^BJ^
[continued]
Catherine B. Krusberg
>
> Okay, I'll by this, except for one thing - once an animal starts
> chewing something, the stomach starts to produce acid. By the time it
> swallowed the Vampire, the Vampire would already by ankle-deep in
> bile. In as little as five minutes, the acid would completely dissolve
> the Vampire.
Whoa. I don't think it's safe to assume that monsters have
adopted the good chewing habits Mom tries to inculcate in
human "little monsters." Certainly not all animals eat food
in this way. Everybody has seen domestic dogs bolt down
fair-sized chunks of food "as-is," and I think this is
typical for carnivores. Extreme example I heard about (warning:
anecdotal evidence approaching): pet dog ate a dried penis
(pig? don't recall the source species, but think analogous to
a pig ear) and later vomited it up whole and recognizably
"reconstituted" from its exposure to whatever fluids were in
the dog's stomach -- not just hydrochloric acid, evidently.
It does take the stomach a while to reduce solid objects to
mush acceptable to the intestinal tract.
The Mad Bibliographer
Cathy Krusberg
Internet: ckb...@ix.netcom.com
"We should all be like Miriam [Blaylock] -- sexually, that is.
Her diet is another matter." --Whitley Strieber
B J Kuehl
>the same time, do you end up with Vampires who turn into wolves once a
>month? Or since Vampires have the ability to transform already, do you
>end up with a Vampire that can "wolf-out" at will?
We have that question and others like it asked on alt.vampyres every few
months, usually in the form of "If a vampire and a werewolf get into a
fight, who would win?" This is another of those questions that has no pat
answer, nor is there any folklore or early fiction from which to derive
possibilities.
In fact, what folklore says about werewolves is that they were much like
vampires in that they were able to change into an animal form. The biggest
difference, as several posters have already pointed out, is that
werewolves are alive while most vampires are dead. Another is that
werewolves ate the flesh of their victims while vampires usually went for
the blood. Also, as First Fallen has pointed out, werewolves (witches,
too) were believed to become vampires after they died. As such, it's often
hard to separate werewolf folklore from vampire folklore.
Nowhere is the werewolf and vampire more intricately wound together than
in the Greek vrykolakas. The term "vrykolakas" (plur: Vrykolakes) is
thought to have been derived from an older Slavic (Serbian) term 'vblk'b
dlaka' [or vilki dlaka], meaning "wolf pelt wearer." By the 16th century,
vyrkolakas came to refer to vampires and as such passed throughout the
southern Balkans into Greek culture where it appears today as vrykolaka
(Greek), vircolac (Romanian), vurvulak (Albanian), vikolak (Macedonian,
Bulgarian) and vukodlak (Serbo-Croatian, sometimes shortened to kudlak).
In some places, the term vrykolakis could also apply to a shepherd who is
compelled by the full moon to go about biting and eating both man and
beast. As such, it is still strongly suggestive of a werewolf.
Of course, none of this tells what would happen if a vampire and werewolf
got in a fight and each bit the other simultaneously. From the folklore
legends, though, it could be surmised that either werewolves and vampires
were similar creatures or that the two types of beings lived side by side
and didn't much interfere with each other. Personally, I think the idea of
vampires fighting with werewolves is a recent invention, perhaps brought
on by role-playing or computer games (where everyone is trying to best
everyone else).
Just as an aside, we have a little interactive fiction saga that's been
going on on alt.vampyres for the last year. In one of the "episodes," one
of the main characters was bitten by a werewolf and began to transform
into one. We treated him by transfusing him with vampire blood, on the
theory that vampires' bodies are rapid-healing and impervious to
infections so the presence of their blood in the young werewolf might
lessen his werewolf symptoms and slow the transformation. It worked
somewhat, but it wasn't a cure. The werewolf infection was apparently
stronger than the healing properties of the vampire blood.
>9. Are Vampires suave, seductive, and "cool" (ala Anne Rice), or are they
>hideous monsters, the most powerful of which have the ability to make
>themselves LOOK attractive (ala Brahm Stoker)? Or is the Vampire
>community made up of both the "suave", intelligent variety and the
>monstrous imbeciles (ala "Buffy")?
In folklore, the undead either look much as they did when alive or they
looked like any rotting corpse would look after laying in a grave.
However, unlike the pale, emaciated vampires of today's stories, the
folkloric vampire was visualized as ruddy-faced and engorged with blood.
In some of the fiction from the early 1800s, such as John Polidori's "The
Vampyre" or "Varney the Vampyre", the vampire was described as beautiful
and pale with dead grey eyes (Ruthven) or possessing bloodless skin,
fanglike teeth, and shining metallic eyes (Varney).
Dracula wasn't particularly attractive, at least not by Jonathan Harker's
description. From Harker's journal: "His face was a strong--a very
strong--aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched
nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the
temples but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost
meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own
profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy mustache,
was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth;
these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed
astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were
pale, and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong,
and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of
extraordinary pallor."
On the other hand, Harker was quite smitten with the three vampiresses.
"Two were dark, and had high aquiline noses, like the Count, and great
dark piercing eyes, that seemed to be almost red when contrasted with the
pale yellow moon. The other was fair, as fair as can be, with great wavy
masses of golden hair and eyes like pale sapphires...All three had
brilliant white teeth that shone like pearls against the ruby of their
voluptuous lips...I felt in my heart a wicked, burning desire that they
would kiss me with those red lips."
Peter Skinsky mentioned the repugnant "Count Orlock" in the first
"Nosferatu" [played again in similar fashion by Klaus Kinski in the 1970s
remake and by Willem Dafoe in the recent "Shadow of the Vampire."] Here is
a vampire whose fangs I wouldn't want near my neck. However, when I first
saw the 1970s BBC production of _Dracula_ starring Louis Jourdan and was
introduced to the vampire as a suave, romantic, seductive albeit evil
creature, I was was ready to bare my neck anytime he asked. Taken from the
same story (_Dracula_), Count Orlock and Jourdan's Dracula were opposite
sides of the same coin. I suspect vampires are like that. Some are more
appealing than others. It may also be that the appearance of the vampire
is in the eye of the beholder. At any rate, in my opinion there's room for
all kinds of vampires.
^BJ^
[continued]
T. Koivula
Catherine B. Krusberg <ckb...@ix.netcom.com> typed:
> Isn't there a group (not sure it's a clan) of vampires in the
> V:tM universe that does exactly this? I seem to recall a short
> story about a guy who won some brownie points by finding
> hearts like these and presenting them to someone who wanted
> a hold on their owners.
The Serpentis power possessed by the Setite clan allows one to remove his
heart. You're immune to "personal staking" but the heart is still connected
to you mystically so if someone finds it and stakes it you're immobilised
and if it's destroyed you die.
--
T. Koivula
Catherine B. Krusberg
> It might be interesting to attempt to trace back the
> earliest reference to silver with respect to vampires. I doubt that it's
> much older than 20 years at most. Someone mentioned "Blade". Can anyone
> find references earlier than that?
As early as 1950 Robert Bloch used this idea in the short
story "Tooth or Consequences." A dentist puts a silver
filling in a vampire's tooth; the silver gets into the
vampire's bloodstream and kills him when it reaches his
heart.
The Mad Bibliographer
Cathy Krusberg
Internet: ckb...@ix.netcom.com
This post has been brought to you by Edam, the only cheese that is
made backwards.
First Fallen
In the old Dark Shadows series of the 60's, they used Silver against the
vampires. (At least in the movie House of Dark Shadows)
B J Kuehl
>levitation / flight, turning into bats, super strength, seduction, and
>whatever the hell you call it when they move faster or slower than the
>world around them (what's that called anyway?), are there any I'm
>forgetting?
The vampires from today's fiction (e.g., Buffy, Forever Knight, Blade,
V:tM, Anne Rice) have so many supernatural powers that they're hard to
believe. No wonder every other teeny who shows up on alt.vampyres wants to
be turned into a vampire. IMO, this is related to the types of computer
graphics we can generate...things that couldn't be done, except in
cartoons, as recently as 20 years ago.
Folkloric vampires were rather wimpy, actually. Some of them possessed the
ability to shapeshift and mesmerize or to do odd things like slip a long
tongue down the chimney in order to draw blood from sleeping humans or
leave behind their skins when they went in search of victims. But mostly,
the only other powers they might possess were invisibility (except to
their loved ones and/or certain vampire hunters), the ability to take the
form of a lovely women or handsome man in order to seduce or enslave a
victim, or various magical powers given to them by Satan in return for
their obedience or the blood they would procure for him.
Immortality is one of the powers that has been mentioned. I question the
notion that vampires have "immortality." To be immortal means that you can
never be killed. But we've already addressed the question of how to kill a
vampire and found several options (e.g., beheading, burning, cutting out
the heart, staking, exposing to sunlight), so vampires are *not* immortal.
It just takes extreme measures to destroy them. I'd go along with
longevity, youthfulness (if they're getting enough blood. Even Dracula
got younger when he fed on blood), and immunity to human diseases, but
not with immortality.
^BJ^
T. Koivula
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> typed:
> Immortality is one of the powers that has been mentioned. I question
> the notion that vampires have "immortality." To be immortal means
> that you can never be killed.
That's the way you apparently define the word but it's not the only way...
There are at least two varieties to the concept of immortality. One is
simply immunity to age (often accompanied with immunity to disaese etc.) and
the other immunity to just about anything harmful. The latter covers the
former is therefore more than just invulnerability.
Both interpretations can be found in use. Someone uses immortal when talking
about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
As a side note: I agree that Vampires are most often portrayed as immortal
in the sense that they don't die of old age.
--
T. Koivula
Wulfgar se laða
> In news:b338tj$rsl$1...@uwm.edu,
> B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> typed:
>>Immortality is one of the powers that has been mentioned. I question
>>the notion that vampires have "immortality." To be immortal means
>>that you can never be killed.
> That's the way you apparently define the word but it's not the only
way...
> There are at least two varieties to the concept of immortality. One is
> simply immunity to age (often accompanied with immunity to disaese etc.)
Do you mean a complete immunity - as in 'un-aging' - or simply having a
long life span - as in 'possessing longevity'. Neither of these should
imply immortality.
> and
> the other immunity to just about anything harmful.
Invincibility would perhaps be more a appropriate definition.
> Both interpretations can be found in use. Someone uses immortal when
talking
> about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
'Immortal' has a specific definition, as above. Attempting to reinvent
that definition simply makes one appear uneducated.
B J Kuehl
by "T. Koivula" <pli...@hotmail.com>:
>In news:b338tj$rsl$1...@uwm.edu,
>B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> typed:
>> Immortality is one of the powers that has been mentioned. I question
>> the notion that vampires have "immortality." To be immortal means
>> that you can never be killed.
>
>That's the way you apparently define the word but it's not the only way...
It's not *my* definition. Even the Webster[1] Collegiate Dictionary
of the English language defines it:
IMMORTAL: adj, 1. exempt from death, 2. exempt from oblivion: imperishable,
3. connected with or relating to immortality.
IMMORTAL: noun, 1. one exempt from death, 2. the gods of the Greek and
Roman pantheon, 3. a person whose fame is lasting.
IMMORTALITY: noun, the quality or state of being immortal, a. unending
existence, b. lasting fame.
>There are at least two varieties to the concept of immortality. One is
>simply immunity to age (often accompanied with immunity to disaese etc.)
Where does it say "immunity to age" in Webster's definition?
If "immortality" was the same thing as "immunity to age," we wouldn't
have the story about the Greek (whose name I've forgotten) who asked for
"immortality" and received it. He couldn't be killed. But he forgot to
ask for "immunity to age" and he spends his existence as a crisp, dried
up, shriveled old man in the bottom of a glass jar.
That is also the premise of Whitley Strieber's _The Hunger_, where
all of the lovers made immortal vampires by Miriam Blalock eventually
aged but could not die, so they wound up as shriveled old beings
"living" in coffins in Miriam's upstairs bedroom.
Vampires are not immortal.
For example, there's Lord Byron's "Fragment of a Novel" [1816] in which
the vampire Augustus Darvell is dying and asks to be buried in a magical
ritual which revolved around burying him in a tomb on which a stork sat
with a snake in her beak and then tossing a magical ring into "the salt
springs which run into the Bay of Eleusis...on the ninth day of the month
at noon precisely." This would presumably restore him to life.
And then there's the vampire Ruthven who, in some stories about him,
could also be killed but was revivable if buried in moonlight.
Not even the most famous vampire of them all, Count Dracula, was either
immortal or ageless. He, Lucy, and the three vampiresses all were
killed in the end. Not to mention that, when Jonathan Harker first met
Dracula, he described him as "a tall old man, clean shaven save for a
long white moustache," but just before Harker saw Dracula leave for
England (after Dracula had fed on blood) "looking as if his youth had
been renewed, for the white hair and moustache were changed to dark
iron-grey; the cheeks were fuller, and the white skin seemed ruby-red
underneath..." [both quotes from Jonathan Harker's Journal, 5 May and
30 June].
>Both interpretations can be found in use. Someone uses immortal when talking
>about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
And "someone else" is using the term incorrectly. The bastardization
of the meaning of "immortality" in order to ascribe it to vampires who
may be killed but, until such time, can keep themselves looking younger
by drinking human blood and don't have to worry about catching human
diseases[2] is an incorrect twisting of the meaning, probably attributable
to vampire role-playing systems and recent vampire movies, which seems
to be where the majority of those who have replied to Corvun Saepius
have obtained their knowledge.
Now you may counter with the fact that Stoker himself has Van Helsing
referring to vampires as immortal in Dr Seward's diary of 29 September,
when he says, "...it is out of the lore and experience of the ancients
and of all those who have studied the powers of the Un-Dead. When they
become such, there comes with the change the curse of immortality; they
cannot die, but must go on age after age adding new victims and
multiplying the evils of the world..."
I will counter that this is what Stoker's novel is all about...that
everyone believed vampires to be immortal or, as van Helsing defined it
[correctly, I might add] "they cannot die." However, one of the purposes
of the novel was to show this was NOT so. Vampires could be killed by
the collective efforts of such brave individuals as Arthur Holmwood,
Quincey Morris, John Seward, Abraham van Helsing, and the Harkers.
^BJ^
[1]Perhaps other dictionaries have different definitions, definitions
which will support your contention that 'immortality' can also mean
'immune to age.' Does anyone have access to the OED" Or to a Greek
language dictionary?
[2]The reason vampires are immune to disease is because they're already
dead. Diseases don't affect the living.
B J Kuehl
by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wulfgar_se_la=F0a?= <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk>:
> T. Koivula wrote:
> > Both interpretations can be found in use. Someone uses immortal when
> talking
> > about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
>
> 'Immortal' has a specific definition, as above. Attempting to reinvent
> that definition simply makes one appear uneducated.
He's Finnish. Perhaps they translate kuolematon [immortal] differently
there?
^BJ^
Wulfgar se laða
>>T. Koivula wrote:
[...]
>>'Immortal' has a specific definition, as above. Attempting to reinvent
>>that definition simply makes one appear uneducated.
> He's Finnish.
That probably explains it.
Shadow Walker
dead. Diseases don't affect the living."
you mean the dead. Not trying to start anything. Just saying that so others
don't start crap over a small mistake.
Happy Hunting,
--
______________________________________________________
"Everyone's opinion is their own truth."
-Shadow Walker-
"B J Kuehl" <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:b35vpr$nri$1...@uwm.edu...
B J Kuehl
by "Shadow Walker" <shadowe...@hotmail.com>:
> "[2]The reason vampires are immune to disease is because they're already
> dead. Diseases don't affect the living."
>
> you mean the dead. Not trying to start anything. Just saying that so others
> don't start crap over a small mistake.
You're right. I'm sorry. It was a mistake. I was thinking "Diseases
only affect the living" while, at the same time, thinking "Vampires
are dead." It came out wrong. Your version is what I meant to say:
"The reason vampires are immune to disease is because they're already
dead. Diseases don't affect those who are already dead."
^BJ^
SteeI Legs
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wulfgar_se_la=F0a?= <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk> writes:
More likely explanation: he's read good fantasy, and knows the well-established
use he refers to.
SteeI Legs
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wulfgar_se_la=F0a?= <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk> writes:
>T. Koivula wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > Both interpretations can be found in use. Someone uses immortal when
>talking
> > about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
>
>'Immortal' has a specific definition, as above. Attempting to reinvent
>that definition simply makes one appear uneducated.
As uneducated as, say Professor Tolkein, or William Morris, both of whom
referred to unaging elves as immortal?
The lexicographers at most "major" dictionaries are notoriously averse to
"lesser" literary genres, and thus uses of words found therein. Hence,
depending solely on dictionary definitions when speaking in a community such as
fantasists is likely to cause errors.
In short, immortal-meaning-unaging is an established usage in fantasy, and
*you* have shown yourself as lacking in education---admittedly, education in a
narrow field, but that narrow field includes the subject of vampires.
BTW, the OED online, in a subsidiary definition, has
"2. a. In wider sense: Not liable to perish or decay; everlasting,
imperishable, unfading, incorruptible."
While that's not the same as "ageless," neither is it the same as "unkillable".
SteeI Legs
>>Both interpretations can be found in use.
From at least as far back as Lord of the Rings, true.
>>Someone uses immortal when talking
>>about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
>
>And "someone else" is using the term incorrectly.
Such as Professor Tolkein?
>The bastardization
Expansion, perhaps, but not bastardization.
>of the meaning of "immortality" in order to ascribe it to vampires who
>may be killed but, until such time, can keep themselves looking younger
>by drinking human blood and don't have to worry about catching human
>diseases[2] is an incorrect twisting of the meaning,
Incorrect according to you, perhaps, and to the snooty anti-genre attitude at
Websters, but if it's good enough for Tolkein, it's good enough for any
reasonable person.
>probably attributable
>to vampire role-playing systems and recent vampire movies, which seems
>to be where the majority of those who have replied to Corvun Saepius
>have obtained their knowledge.
I cannot speak to the sources of knowledge of others, but my knowledge comes
from a wide reading in fantasy (which is, after all, the genre vampires come
from--"horror" is a sub-genre of fantasy), and from personal discussion with a
lexicographer with a PhD and the attitude I've spoken of.
Your knowledge, on the other hand, appears to come from dictionary-olotry, and
a sense of self-importance. Isn't it enough you're trying to run alt.vampyres
*and* this NG? Do you also have to try to "lay down the law" about "what words
mean"?
Piffle.
Harold Groot
>From article <b35n1o$pvk$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>,
>by "T. Koivula" <pli...@hotmail.com>:
>>In news:b338tj$rsl$1...@uwm.edu,
>>B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> typed:
>>> Immortality is one of the powers that has been mentioned. I question
>>> the notion that vampires have "immortality." To be immortal means
>>> that you can never be killed.
>>
>>That's the way you apparently define the word but it's not the only way...
>It's not *my* definition. Even the Webster[1] Collegiate Dictionary
>of the English language defines it:
>
>IMMORTAL: adj, 1. exempt from death, 2. exempt from oblivion: imperishable,
> 3. connected with or relating to immortality.
<snip>
>If "immortality" was the same thing as "immunity to age," we wouldn't
>have the story about the Greek (whose name I've forgotten) who asked for
>"immortality" and received it. He couldn't be killed. But he forgot to
>ask for "immunity to age" and he spends his existence as a crisp, dried
>up, shriveled old man in the bottom of a glass jar.
>>Both interpretations can be found in use. Someone uses immortal when talking
>>about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
>And "someone else" is using the term incorrectly. The bastardization
>of the meaning of "immortality" in order to ascribe it to vampires who
>may be killed but, until such time, can keep themselves looking younger
>by drinking human blood and don't have to worry about catching human
>diseases[2] is an incorrect twisting of the meaning....
<snip>
>[2]The reason vampires are immune to disease is because they're already
>dead. Diseases don't affect the living.
Over the course of time the meanings of words often change, and it
usually takes a while for dictionaries to catch up. I suspect that is
what is happening here. As far as I know you are correct that the
dictionary definition of immortal is limited to "not subject to
death", but the other person is correct that common usage has expanded
this to mean essentially "immune to aging" or "will not die on their
own but can be killed by outside means."
Even with the traditional definitions there is a certain amount of
wiggle-room. "Immortal" in my Random House Unabridged Dictionary is
(among other things) a term applied to the Olympian gods - but they
could be killed by their fellow gods. It also applies to things that
people THINK will last forever even if one can see possible
alternatives. For example, one might refer to the Gettysburg Address
and say "In the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln...." while thinking
that his words will last forever. But what happens if we have a full
nuclear World War III or a huge asteroid strike which kills off
mankind entirely? Are those words really immortal if no one remains
alive who understands them?
The usage of "unaging" as a definition of "immortal" may be a
bastardization. It may have simply been a mistake. Everyone makes
mistakes - just look at your line above in note [2] where you typed
"Diseases don't affect the living" when you obviously meant either
"Diseases don't affect the dead" or "Diseases only affect the living".
But even if a mistake was the start of the additional definition, it
still remains that the "unaging" usage is now reasonably common.
B J Kuehl
> In article <b35vpr$nri$1...@uwm.edu>, b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl) writes:
>
>>>Someone uses immortal when talking
>>>about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
>>
>>And "someone else" is using the term incorrectly.
>
> Such as Professor Tolkein?
I am also a professer. Being a professor is a moot point.
> I cannot speak to the sources of knowledge of others, but my knowledge comes
> from a wide reading in fantasy (which is, after all, the genre vampires come
> from--"horror" is a sub-genre of fantasy), and from personal discussion with a
> lexicographer with a PhD and the attitude I've spoken of.
I have a PhD. Having a PhD is a moot point.
But you are right. The current use of the word 'immortal' to refer
to the 'immune to age' aspect of today's vampires is a recent
affectation from the the fantasy rpg genre.
Keep talking. You just keep proving my point.
^BJ^
Wulfgar se laða
>>>>'Immortal' has a specific definition, as above. Attempting to reinvent
>>>>that definition simply makes one appear uneducated.
>>>He's Finnish.
>>That probably explains it.
> More likely explanation: he's read good fantasy, and knows the well-established
> use he refers to.
Realistic explanation: he's been influenced by too much second rate
televised fiction.
SteeI Legs
>The current use of the word 'immortal' to refer
>to the 'immune to age' aspect of today's vampires is a recent
>affectation from the the fantasy rpg genre.
Neither recent (unless you consider Lord Dunsany recent---he, it seems, called
unaging elves "immortal" more than a century ago [Tolkein certainly did 60+
years ago]), nor from RPGs.
>Keep talking. You just keep proving my point.
What, that you get to lay down the law? I doubt that, dear.
--
"Well, what he _actually_ said," she added, "was never enter an arse-
kicking contest with a porcupine."
Terry Pratchett, _Sourcery_
SteeI Legs
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wulfgar_se_la=F0a?= <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk> writes:
So, you have a camera in his house, and know what he's doing? Or do you enjoy
assuming the worst about people, in order to bolster your self-esteem?
B J Kuehl
by stee...@aol.combat (SteeI Legs):
>>The current use of the word 'immortal' to refer
>>to the 'immune to age' aspect of today's vampires is a recent
>>affectation from the the fantasy rpg genre.
>
> Neither recent (unless you consider Lord Dunsany recent---he, it seems, called
> unaging elves "immortal" more than a century ago [Tolkein certainly did 60+
> years ago]), nor from RPGs.
With respect to vampires, anything that was added in the past century
is "recent."
>>Keep talking. You just keep proving my point.
>
> What, that you get to lay down the law? I doubt that, dear.
Piffle. (I like that word. Thanks for suggesting it.) Newsgroups have
no laws. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. No one
is holding a gun to your head.
^BJ^
Wulfgar se laða
>>'Immortal' has a specific definition, as above. Attempting to reinvent
>>that definition simply makes one appear uneducated.
> As uneducated as, say Professor Tolkein, or William Morris, both of whom
> referred to unaging elves as immortal?
I would suggest that such a reference was given as a matter of style .
Any discerning reader would know not to take the word in its literal sense.
> The lexicographers at most "major" dictionaries are notoriously averse to
> "lesser" literary genres,
As well they should be. Any writer worth his salt knows the correct use
of a word and applies it otherwise knowing the same and intending that
it be a matter of form.
> and thus uses of words found therein. Hence,
> depending solely on dictionary definitions when speaking in a
community such as
> fantasists is likely to cause errors.
It is those who misinterpret a word's broader meaning based upon its
stylistic application within a genre who are giving rise to errors.
> In short, immortal-meaning-unaging is an established usage in
fantasy, and
> *you* have shown yourself as lacking in education---admittedly,
education in a
> narrow field, but that narrow field includes the subject of vampires.
On the contrary, I simply recognise artistic licence when I see it.
Wulfgar se laða
> In article <3E5750A0...@heorot.fslife.co.uk>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wulfgar_se_la=F0a?= <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk> writes:
>>SteeI Legs wrote:
>>>>>>'Immortal' has a specific definition, as above. Attempting to reinvent
>>>>>>that definition simply makes one appear uneducated.
>>>>>He's Finnish.
>>>>That probably explains it.
>>>More likely explanation: he's read good fantasy, and knows the
>>well-established
>>>use he refers to.
>>Realistic explanation: he's been influenced by too much second rate
>>televised fiction.
> So, you have a camera in his house, and know what he's doing?
I might ask the same of you.
> Or do you enjoy
> assuming the worst about people, in order to bolster your self-esteem?
As above.
Wulfgar se laða
> In article <b35vpr$nri$1...@uwm.edu>, b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl) writes:
>>>Someone uses immortal when talking
>>>about unkillable and someone else limits immortality to unaging.
>>And "someone else" is using the term incorrectly.
> Such as Professor Tolkein?
I have addressed that issue elsewhere, so I won't repeat myself here.
>>probably attributable
>>to vampire role-playing systems and recent vampire movies, which seems
>>to be where the majority of those who have replied to Corvun Saepius
>>have obtained their knowledge.
> I cannot speak to the sources of knowledge of others, but my knowledge comes
> from a wide reading in fantasy (which is, after all, the genre vampires come
> from--"horror" is a sub-genre of fantasy),
I think of them as two separate genres. Whilst there is some degree of
'crossover', it is not accurate to deem one a sub genre of the other.
> Your knowledge, on the other hand, appears to come from dictionary-olotry, and
> a sense of self-importance.
A case of the pot accusing the kettle of being swarthy.
> Isn't it enough you're trying to run alt.vampyres
> *and* this NG?
Ah, that old chestnut. As they say (or at least, they should), simple
minds think alike.
> Do you also have to try to "lay down the law" about "what words
> mean"?
This is a public forum where the discussion of terminology applied to
vampires is surely on-topic.
Or are you trying to lay down the law about what topics are acceptable here?
> Piffle.
Wulfgar.
B J Kuehl
by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wulfgar_se_la=F0a?= <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk>:
>Piffle wrote:
>> Such as Professor Tolkein?
It's Tolkien. Try using a dictionary.
>> I cannot speak to the sources of knowledge of others, but my knowledge comes
>> from a wide reading in fantasy (which is, after all, the genre vampires come
>> from--"horror" is a sub-genre of fantasy),
Sounds like a fanatical fantasist. Not enough that they have their own
genre: now Piffle wants to subsume others.
>I think of them as two separate genres. Whilst there is some degree of
>'crossover', it is not accurate to deem one a sub genre of the other.
Next we'll be hearing that, since both elves and vampires have pointy
ears, vampires stemmed from elves.
>> Isn't it enough you're trying to run alt.vampyres
>> *and* this NG?
>
>Ah, that old chestnut. As they say (or at least, they should), simple
>minds think alike.
It would be nice to hear something original. At least, Tolkien had
imagination.
>> Do you also have to try to "lay down the law" about "what words
>> mean"?
>
>This is a public forum where the discussion of terminology applied to
>vampires is surely on-topic. Or are you trying to lay down the law about
>what topics are acceptable here?
Perhaps Piffle thinks this is alt.culture.elves?
>> Piffle.
>
>Wulfgar.
I wouldn't let it get to you, Wulfgar. Look at where Piffle is posting
from. It's not the first time some whippersnapper [alter. of
snippersnapper] from AOL has shown up here and/or on alt.vampyres and,
after gracing us with two or three piffleposts, come to the conclusion
that they are so capable and knowledgeable about vampires that they
deserve to run the group.
Like a bowel movement, this one, too, shall pass. It's hardly worth the
strain.
^BJ^
B J Kuehl
by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wulfgar_se_la=F0a?= <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk>:
Piffle wrote:
A word not in my dictionary. Is this another of your fantasist
argot?
>> a sense of self-importance.
>
> A case of the pot accusing the kettle of being swarthy.
Is that like the burnt stainless steel kettle telling the castiron
pot that it is bad because it is black?
^BJ^