Pussification of Vampires

[Theophilus]

When (and better, why) did vampires become such wussy love story fodder? These are supposed be virtually immortal servants of Satan, spreading their evil through their countless minions. Supposedly able to control hordes of vermin, hypnotize with a glance, and able to set in place plans that span centuries. Instead, now they have this whiney lovey dovey teenagerish air about them.

Me, I blame Ann Rice and then Joss Whedon for the pussification of vampires.

[Santaman]

Vampires suck!

[PhoenixHope]

Somebody's been exposed to too much Twilight, haven't they?

Although, to be fair, it's not just Twilight.

And, personally, I can see where some vampires are made to bad. Okay, lets see if I can clear that up a bit, cause I don't mean all vampires should be like Edward Cullen...

*full body shivers at the very thought*

Lets look at Whedon's verse, since you mention it, and I generally like talking about it. *grin*

You have Angel, who used to be Angelus, and from what we were told Angelus was the baddest of the bad. Fine, it's not a bad concept, but the fatal mistake Whedon made was having Angelus appear in present day, which wasn't the mistake in and of itself, the mistake was that Angelus couldn't be totally badass, otherwise he would've beat the Buffy gang. So, what you end up with is an insane vampire that will certainly kill you - if he can, but can't manage to kill even Buffy's normal human friends, let alone really affect Buffy. Now Whedon tried to be clever here by turning Angelus into a more psychogical villian, but he even failed there, because Angelus never really screwed with any of the characters minds.

I mean think about how much more scary it would have been if Angelus had "played" Angel with Buffy and the gang for longer than he did. He could have really screwed with Buffy's mind doing that, instead he almost instantly reveals to Buffy AND the whole damn gang that Angel isn't home anymore, which immediately lets them know that they cannot trust him AT ALL. But that isn't the worst of his stupidity, no, he then goes on to stupidly remind them (Buffy and Willow) that he has free access to their homes, which of course they immediately fix, and now he no longer has access.
(And that doesn't even count the scene's from Angel that made Angelus more into a juvenile bully instead of a genuine badass. I know we were supposed to see Angelus going against The Master as something truly badass, but honestly he just came across as a stupid child there - think about how much more badass it would've been for Angelus to have stolen (or at least tried to steal) The Masters flock out from under him, not just riding away with his lady-love Darla. So, yeah, Angelus - kind of a sucky villain, cause in the end, Angelus comes across more stupid then actually badass, but I said I wasn't going to go into how Angel the Series really made more of a mess of Angelus then Buffy The Vampire Slayer ever could, didn't I?)

So, what I'm saying is that I don't mind an evil vampire that isn't just all about the blood and guts, I'd kinda like seeing smart (but evil) vampires. However, the only kind of vampires I really hate are the ones like Nick Knight and Angel who sit around going "woe is me, I'm a vampire - PITY ME!" Um, how about NO! Cause I've started to age now, my body is not the fine running machine it used to be, and so I loathe the PITY ME vampires even more now-a-days then I did back in the day, and I've never really liked them.

Okay, fine, I can tolerate it a bit more from Angel then others, because at least Angel is a type of vampire that really has no control over himself, unlike Nick Knight and others (Alex O'Moonlight, I'm looking at you!).

To Santaman: Suck me, baby!

In closing I personally blame the unwashed masses for the Pussification of Vampires, if it weren't popular people would stop watching/reading/whatever, and then most people would stop making shows/books/movies about these types of vampires.

I mean, again with Whedon, I think Spike's personal pussification was due more to fan influence than Whedon's own desires. Okay, I might be wrong, but even now when I go back and watch I get the impression that Whedon never intended to turn Spike into a good guy character, but probably ended up doing so because fans loved the character of Spike so much, and at a certain point (after season four) to keep the character of Spike from getting stale Whedon either needed to have Buffy (or someone) stake him, let him revert back in to a killer (which would probably lead to the being staked thing), or pussify him, Whedon ended up doing the latter, and (for the most part) fans LOVED it.

[Theophilus]

I specifically pointed out the Whedon verse because you have Buffy having this long drawn out romantic relationship with Angel, and then the hard physical romp with Spike.

First with Rice, you have the vampires being introduced as characters that have all sorts of sex and plans and feelings. Then Whedon takes that idea, and introduces it to mainstream non-book readers, the teenage population, and guys who watched it to lust after the female characters.

Then in the evolution of pussification, you have Twilight.

[PhoenixHope]

Yeah, I see what you mean, and, yeah, it's pretty clear that Buffy/Angel was all Whedon. But like I said, I do sometimes think the Spike thing came about more from fan influence than a desire on Whedon's part to have Buffy do the vampire thing again.
(I can't prove it cause I can't find a link today, but I remember an interview Whedon gave back in the day where he basically said "(after Angel) no more vampires for Buffy," so that's probably where I originally got the idea that Buffy/Spike was never something Whedon originally planned to do. Then again, Whedon was notoriously untruthful back in the day, so... The big one (or at least the one that pissed off the most fans) was that he'd never (no never) kill Tara, he loved her, then he killed her, and had always been planning to kill her. Before that he said that he never intended Buffy's death (season five) to be the end of Buffy, but he was also recorded saying that season five was originally meant to be the series end, so he has lied, a lot!)

As for Rice, I would point out that her vampires couldn't actually have sex, but in one of her books she actually has Lestat (her main vampire) become human and have teh sex, so...

And that doesn't even count all the whining her vampires do. Sadly, back in the day when I first read her vampire books I LOVED them. So, no doubt some of the blame for the Pussification of Vampires has to be laid at my feet, as well. Though I do like to believe that even as a youngin I wouldn't have loved Twilight.

[RJDiogenes]

Well, it goes way back before Twilight or Buffy. Barnabas Collins was a Romantic character, depressed over his vampiric state, hating himself and always seeking a cure. In movies, Christopher Lee and others in the Hammer films were erotic, sexual vampires; even in the old Universal films, the vampires were sexual, though not conflicted. In folklore, vampires were always a metaphor for sexuality, overtly or not.

I'm not sure who the first vampire who hated being a vampire was; at the moment, the earliest example I can think of is Barnabas.

[Santaman]

To Santaman: Suck me, baby!

I've always liked "Love at first bite."

[PhoenixHope]

This topic would not leave my head, and I think RJDiogenes is right - Barnabas Collins (and Anne Rice) started the modern day Pussification of Vampires. Cause in my head when I go back to vampires before those two I come up with things like the original Dracula and Nosferatu, and I know some of the older (oldest?) legends feature vampires as nothing more than reanimated corpses hungry for blood (basically a much older version of zombies craving brains).
(And while in the original novel Dracula was basically a monster, I think some of the blame for todays oversexed vampires could be laid at the feet of those early Dracula movies, so maybe Collins and Rice aren't completely to blame.)

However, the Victorian era itself probably (more so then any of the above) started the Pussification of Vampires. At least I think that was when vampires as overtly sexual creatures started to rise over the hungry corpse vampire.

So, historically the Victorian era started it, but in modern times it's probably a tie between Collins and Rice for giving it new and sometimes interesting life.

And, as much as I sometimes enjoy whaling on Whedon (see above), he does get some points for having most of his vampires as unrepentant monsters. He'd get more points if he hadn't had his hero sleep with two or three (depending on what you think happened with his Dracula), but at least for the most part his vampires were evil creatures.
(Yes, he loses points for Spike and Harmony, mostly Harmony, as far as I'm concerned he loses almost all his bonus points because of Harmony the vampire.)

My point, I think, is that the overall Pussification of Vampires started before most of us were born - so it really has taken more time then you think to get from zombie!vampires to Edward Cullen.

And, as I indicated, the evil vampires aren't completely dead - they have tried more than a few times to rise back up, but for the most part it's the sexualized vampires that get all the attention these days. And so those vampires aren't going away as long as people (in large numbers) continue to gobble them up.

[Theophilus]

The other side of the coin-why did the evil plotting vampire turn into the sexual figure?

[RJDiogenes]

That goes back a long way, too, at least to the Victorian Era. Perhaps something to do with the sexual repression of that time. I'd have to do some research about that.

[PhoenixHope]

Well, "he's" still plotting, he's just plotting to get laid now, which could be evil. *grin*

Seriously, I'm certain RJDiogenes is right - I remember watching a special on vampires on one of the cable channels (I thought it was the History Channel, but I may be wrong) which talked about vampires - The History of Vampires (for the record was what I thought the title was, but a google search turned up some links for that, none involved a television show). The main thing that relates to this discussion was how (basically) the sexual repression of the Victorian Era transformed vampires into something that was more like a succubus then the vampires of legend.

But I can't even tell you what special it was that I watched, because while I thought I remembered the title clearly I was wrong, or I really sucking at google these days, so I got no proof of the above.

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I saw that documentary, too. I'll see if I can track it down.

[RJDiogenes]

Here we go.

[PhoenixHope]

Thank you. I was starting to think I'd imagined the whole damn thing.

I know why I was confused after looking that page over you linked. I thought the two specials were separate not all in one. I thought there was one about "human" vampires and the other about "immortal" vampire legends. So, I'd have probably never found it on my own.

[RJDiogenes]

Yeah, they covered a lot of ground. It must have been a two-hour show.