Talk:Vampire literature

Possible explanation for novel appearance

I don't have the source to hand, but I think I have an explanation for the difference in the appearance of vampires between folklore and fiction. I was watching Vampire Hunter D with the commentary on when it mentioned something of interest. In America (I can't remember when) a reporter went to an abattoir (slaughterhouse) to do a report, when he saw a number of pale individuals, when he asked about them he was told that they were anemic. He watched with interest as the employees collected blood from the animals and gave it to the anemics to drink. He wrote an article about this after.

I can't remember if the commentator suggested this, but it's possible that it inspred the appearance of many vampires in fiction. 62.31.68.253 (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

- I very much doubt this. When did paleness first become a factor in vampire literature? I always assumed it was associated with the fact that they cannot enter sunlight, as well as the fact that blood only sustains them temporarily (therefore draining from their system). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.46.154 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-published books

I removed a number of books that were basically self-published. Also, removed links to other Wikipedia articles when it was clear that it was referring to someone else.70.107.0.34 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Main picture

Aren't there any free pictures that could be used for vampire literature instead of a movie screenshot? I was thinking Image:Carmilla.jpg, maybe?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of using something from literature instead of from a movie. Your suggested choice looks good, too. Pi zero (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Anne Rice in lead

As I'm fairly new to the article, I won't remove it myself yet, but does anyone think Anne Rice shouldn't be in the lead, or at the very least, by herself with a whole paragraph? I think it's a bit original research to single her out and say that she's the most influential modern vampire writer, especially with other works such as I Am Legend and 'Salem's Lot to name a few.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a great fan of Anne Rice, but do think she was very influential within the genre. I am old enough to recall the days when she was acclaimed as the great red hope of supernatural fiction, before we were deluged with the stuff...which I hold her to blame...IMHO Varney the Vampire is a similar example of vampire fiction which, though not great literature, was quite influential. Colin4C (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion of her either way. (I saw some of Interview and I thought it was good.) I think she should be mentioned in the article, as she is fairly important, just not in the lead. I'm going to see if I can move it somewhere else if no one has any problems with that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That she is unimportant is your POV, not fact. Please discuss matters before deleting referenced stuff which is not obviously stupid. Colin4C (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, if you had bothered to see what I did, I didn't delete anything. I just moved it. And as for being referenced. I just checked the link. ALL the reference says about Rice is "Not since Anne Rice's best-selling series about Lestat have so many readers thirsted for novels about blood drinkers who are sexy as well as scary." I don't see how that would indicate that she's "probably the most influential recent writer in the genre", maybe you can explain it to me?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? The link doesn't back up the claim at all.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being very negative and unfriendly. I was trying to have a civilised discussion with you about Anne Rice and vampire literature but I see you do not want to know. Colin4C (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be 'unfriendly', and I'm sorry if I came off that way, I'm just getting frustrated. There's nothing in the source to back up the claims that are mentioned in the article. What we have is little more than a fluff article about vampire romance that only briefly mentions Anne Rice being used to source a monumental claim about her being the most influential modern vampire writer. I mean, there's no wiggle room at all here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I altered it in order to compromise with you but I see you want to have an edit war rather than discuss vamnpire literature in a civilised manner. Colin4C (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

CyberGhostface was right to remove that wording. First, "consensus" doesn't apply to editors misinterpreting a source. Original research should be removed on sight. Just because YOU (or any other editors) believe that she was influential does not mean that she was. That source attached to that statement says nothing about her being the most influential writer in Vampire literature, nor does it say that she "set the trend for multi-volume vampire epics and was the ultimate inspiration for the new and very popular sub-genre of vampiric paranormal romance." Please read the policy on original research. Actually, please go back and read that source more carefully. You are attributing two different statements to one person. What it says about paranormal romance was not directly tied to Anne Rice. Just because you feel that it was doesn't make it so. The article says there is a growing trend for the type of book Danse Macabre writes, not for the multi-volume vampire epics. What it is saying is that the paranormal romance is on the rise in popularity. Again, none of this was directly attributed to Anne Rice. They merely state that the genre has not been this popular (refering to the popularity of Macabre's books) since Anne Rice published her books. That doesn't mean that she influenced it, it just means there was a gap in the popularity timeline.

P.S. Colin4C, you have reached your three reverts for this 24 hour period. See the three-revert rule.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't: I restored a deletion twice and then I modified it in order to compromise with the concerns of CyberGhostFace who thinks that Anne Rice is "fairly important" rather than "influential". I am trying to achieve a consensus between those two positions. Colin4C (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You modified "probably influential" to "Is influential", that wasn't a real change. Also, you claim CyberGhostface agreed with you when he clearly didn't. He's still saying the same thing that I just explained, that the NY Times sources says absolutely nothing about what is being claimed in that edit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you two are making such a big deal about this. I thought it was common knowledge that Anne Rice was an important writer in the genre. I am not a fan of hers, just stating what seems to be obvious. If you want more references I can provide them. Please assume good faith. Colin4C (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that the Sun is yellow and the sky is blue (for the most part). It is not common knowledge that Anne Rice is an influential writer for vampire novels. The average reader might not even know who Anne Rice is, let alone what impactful she is in the genre. Please read original research, it explains this idea of "common knowledge". If it doesn't, then WP:V certainly does. Colin, please read WP:AGF as well, because I was in no way assuming bad faith. I told you straight up, the information being presented is not what is actually published in that source. Assuming bad faith would be me assuming that you are intentionally placing it on the page knowing that your source doesn't back up your claim, but you just want to assert your personal opinion. I, in no way, made that accusation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good wikipedia practice if an editor deleted the 90% of this present article article which is unreferenced and reverted all attempts to restore the deleted info? Would the editor who tried to restore the 90% be worse than the editor who deleted it? And is it praiseworthy to systematically gut all unreferenced sentences in wikipedia articles even if this reduces them to total incoherence? But let's hold a moratorium on such wikilawyering and talk about vampire literature instead. I am a good faith editor.Colin4C (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

From memory I think that Julia Blackburn adverted to the importance of Anne Rice within the genre. I might have to conduct an archaeological excavation of the books on my bed-room floor in order to re-discover her book on supernatural literature though! Colin4C (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, policy would be with the editor that deleted the material. See the policy on verifiability. To quote: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Now, would be it be best to remove all unsourced information and then run away...no. It would be best to move it all to this talk page and say, "we need to find sources for this information so that we can place it back in the article". Now, is it ok to add whatever you want to an article just because YOU know it is true? Well, there is a policy on that as well, and it's in favor of not adding things that you cannot back up with reliable sources (WP:NOR]). Also, please read WP:WIKILAWYER, as, like WP:AGF, you're throwing out Wiki terms that suggest we are attacking you, and/or your credibility as an editor, when neither of us (especially myself) has done such a thing. I'm frankly getting quite annoyed by the constant accussations of accussations. How about you just stick to the actual article and what's wrong with it, instead of assuming that we are persecuting you somehow (when we are not). Here's the facts. The page made a claim that was not backed up by the source that was beside it. That claim was removed, as per the policy on original research and verifiability. That being said, if the information can be sourced, reliably and accurately, then it can be placed in the article again. Furthermore, nothing should be put in the lead that isn't stated elsewhere in the article (since the lead summarizes the entire article). The lead should, as stated before, be a summary and not just one descriptive claim to the next.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, to get things straight do you think that the original statement "Probably the most influential recent writer" has exactly the same meaning as my modification "an influential recent writer". Does "most influential" = "influential"? Colin4C (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the word "influential", which isn't supported by the source that is the problem. It doesn't matter if you're vague ("Probably the most influential") or generalized, specific ("An influential recent writer"), as you're still making a bold claim that needs a source to back it up. If I had never heard of Anne Rice before I wouldn't have any idea that she was as influential as you claim her to be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, even if the source DID say that Rice was influential (and it did not), I would disagree with putting her as the sole example of modern vampire fiction in the lead with her own individual paragraph. She is clearly not the undisputed definitive writer for the modern vampire subgenre, as the lead originally tried to claim, and even if one review called her that, I'm sure there are dozens of other reviews for different authors all saying the saying the same thing about their respective authors. She's important enough to be mentioned in one of the sections below, but not in the lead with Stoker.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again I have no axe to grind on this matter, but in my long personal experience (I am quite old), which I am not claiming to be the definitive truth or even a 'claim', the amount of vampire and other supernatural literature fairly exploded after Rice's works. I even recall pre-Rice some commentators saying that supernatural fiction was 'dead'. IMHO Rice was something of a false messiah as regards a supernatural fiction renaissance, but others I recall, had a different view. I'll try and dig out some refs. Colin4C (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Twilight

The article is unreferenced and uninformative. It has only a short sentence about Twilight, possibly the most popular vampire-related book of the decade. Pmlinediter (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the claim that Twilight is the most popular vampire-related book of the decade extremely debatable due to the fact that by all defintions of vampire, there is not a single vampire in the book. Infact there isn't even a single drop of blood shed throughout the entire novel, blood or somthing akin to it being one of the main themes of any such novel. To call a book a vampire novel based on the fact that you have some immortal, super powered, teenagers who sparkle in sunlight, is like calling a person who jumps around long distances a Kangaroo. On behalf of those like myself who enjoy vampire novels I would like twilight stricken from the vampire liturature listings at the very least.--RenatusUpborn (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what your definition of a vampire is? This is wikipedia's: "Vampires are legendary creatures said to subsist by feeding on the life essence of living creatures, generally by drinking their blood." The vampires in the twilight series drink the blood of living creatures and they are supernatural. So what so you think is missing? Honestly this discussion on whether or not they are 'real' vampires is just silly. What goes in a wikepedia article and what stays out is in no way a question of personal taste. So the books should be mentioned.

Its social vampirism in a vampire book. ironic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.216.113 (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

- Wikipedia is designed to tell things as they are. Not to conform to a specific time. I personally like Twilight (in the sense that I think it's an enjoyable three-star work) but I don't think it should eclipse (ignore the pun) any other works on the page. Any request to do so gives the impression of a dedicated fan trying to convince oneself that Twilight is in fact bigger than they have been led to believe by popular culture. Wikipedia is not culture; it is information. And as for the second entry in this section, it is also incredibly biased to request a work that uses the term "vampire" (and contains several elements associated with the term) be removed. Your assertion that no blood is spilled within the series is also far from true, which leads me to believe that you do not know enough about the series to fairly judge it's place in this article. Both of you, please do not allow your personal opinions to cloud your ability to be rational. The Philosopher--95.146.46.154 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

- Also keep in mind that the "Big Three" are usually considered to be Varney The Vampire, Carmilla and Dracula. These were the works that developed the myths into a genre, popularizing them in the process. Therefore, they should take priority over Twilight, which is simply one of the many works written as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.254.201 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

movies movies movies

For an article on Literature there are a lot of films mentioned and used as examples. Look at how long the section on I Am Legendis compared to the rest of that time period. In traits of a Vampire the film Blade is used. There are many other places where films are inserted. I believe this would be a better article if the film references were toned down. On the other hand, this seems to me to be a fair, inclusive and well written article and so this is only a suggestion for others to consider. Nitpyck (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, to me that would be unfair. It would be better to generalise the page as "Vampires in Fiction", writing is not the only medium that exists... 77.227.38.85 (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vampire in literature is a large enough topic to stand on its own. Film, theatre, dance and painting are not literature but all have used vampires. Nitpyck (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Does a page on vampire movies exist? If not, remove the references here and create an equivalent page. Problem solved. A "list of vampire movies" article does not count - although perhaps such a list could be included in the proposed article, with the standalone list being deleted afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.46.154 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bramstokers dracula

The count is not killed by the kukri blade as people believe. He is wounded and weakened. Elizabeth then cuts his head off to finish him off. Someone was trying to say the sword slash killed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.216.113 (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's this Elizabeth? In the novel the count is dispatched by Jonathan Harker and Quincy Morris. Harker slashes the Count's throat with the kukri knife as Morris plunges a bowie knife into his heart - after which the Count crumbles to dust. Colin4C (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Literature/Fiction/Juvenile Fiction

I struggle to understand why there are three separate sections for the list of works. Literature, by it's definition, covers all written works. Why, then, is Fiction given a separate section, as well as Juvenile Fiction? I propose the three be merged into "Literature", ordered by date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.46.154 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

An editor has just deleted this (and other stuff) from the article, without giving a reason:

"Heathcliff in Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights (1847), is suspected by his housekeeper of being a vampire, in the final chapter of that novel.

Will editors please give their reasons for deleting stuff in edit summaries or here on talk page. Their reasons may be valid, but if they don't state them we have no chance to know what they might be. I have thus restored deleted material. Colin4C (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

hi

hi,i want to know what is the meaning of panch in vampire languge.please do help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.166.221 (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of vampire-films. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Author of The Mysterious Stranger by Anonymous

I heard some new talk that The Mysterious Stranger was written by Karl von Wachsmann --89.142.70.220 (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)