Living with the Vampire: Dracula's Legacy

Vampire stories, whether in cinematic or literary form, seem to be stalking us these days. Has it always been like this? Contemporary representations of the vampire depict him as the good guy. Was this always the case?

It has often been said that Bram Stoker's Dracula is the forerunner of the vampire genre, contributing the several literary and cinematic vampire stories. In Living with the Undead: the appeal of the vampire, I briefly discussed how the vampire has lurked in the shadows of our imagination, manifesting himself in Gothic fiction, horror movies, contemporary vampire stories and popular culture.

Indeed, Bram Stoker’s Dracula is said to have been inspired by Elizabeth Bathory’s story and that of Vlad III of Wallachia who lived in the 15^th century. Vlad III had a habit of impaling his victims on stakes.

It has been suggested that Stoker's Dracula is the forerunner of modern vampire stories. However, unlike the modern vampire such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s Spike, True Blood’s Eric Northman or Twilight’s Edward Cullen, Stoker’s Dracula is a truly terrifying vampire.

Compared to our current crop of vampires, Stoker’s Dracula is the ultimate bad guy.In Stoker’s Gothic horror, Dracula is physically repulsive. Stoker described Dracula as having eyes that were blazing red, a deathly pale face, thick eyebrows that met over the nose, bad breath, long pointed finger nails and pointed ears.

Two decades after Dracula, F.W. Murnau adapted Bram Stoker’s story for his film Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922). Better known to English-speaking audience as Nosferatu: a Symphony of Horror, Max Schreck's representation of the vampire is deeply creation. Unlike the pale, masculine beauty of Eric Northman or Edward Cullen, Schreck’s vampire is a bat-like and creepy creature. Given that contemporary audiences have grown used to the plethora of current horror narratives, Schreck’s vampire is unlikely to strike terror to the hearts of the modern viewer.

However, it is undeniable that, in Schreck's performance, the vampire is a decidedly gruesome and unglamorous creature. His performance provides a stark contrast to today’s highly sensual vampires. We have only to pause for a moment here and contrast Schreck's vampire with True Blood's Viking vampire, Eric Northman or Twilight’s Edward Cullen or Carlisle Cullen to realize just how far these fanged creatures have come in adapting themselves to fears and desires of modern society. As I had mentioned in Living with the Undead: the appeal of the Vampire, they are the mirror to our social and political fears and desires.

In short, Stoker’s Dracula isn’t exactly the modern vampire heart-throb we've come to recognise. Unlike the villainous Dracula, the modern vampire is depicted in multi-faceted ways and is often represented as an angst-ridden, existentialist anti-hero.

For instance, in Anne Rice’s Interview with a Vampire, written in 1973, the main character Lestat chooses to live his life eternally as a vampire. However, after he has made his decision he is forced to live a solitary life forever.

Similarly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is based on the premise that the blood-thirsty creatures are evil. Buffy, played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, is the only person capable of killing vampires who are dangerous to mankind. However, as the series progresses, we see how both Angel and Spike wrestle with morality, ideas of good and evil and ethical action in their struggle for redemption.

In short, we can see how the vampire has shape-shifted down the centuries. From Stoker’s Dracula to the modern vampire, this creature of the night has transformed in ways Stoker would probably barely comprehend or even recognise.

Nonetheless, while certain aspects of the vampire mythology have been tweaked, basic details of vampire lore remain unchanged. For instance, I would like to suggest that, in the last 200 years, the vampire has become the repository of all our social fears. These include, for example, the fear of blood, sexuality, women, foreigners, along with changing notions of masculinity.

Nevertheless, one thing remains constant with our fascination of the vampire. Whether it’s Spike, Angel, Lestat, Eric Northman, Edward Cullen or Blade, one of the most enticing aspects about these vampire is that they are titillating. They are wild, untamed and ultimately un-tameable creatures. I would suggest that the vampire embodies the Romantic idea of the troubled, isolated, existential stranger. He is mysterious, untameable, and is pure appetite and impulse.

From Dracula to Twilight , True Blood , Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Vampire Diaries and Being Human, it seems that the vampire has undergone a makeover. He has shifted from an evil antagonist to a sympathetic protagonist. It appears that the metaphor of the lost soul can be applied to thefigure of the vampire. Being Human’s John Mitchell and Twilight’s Edward Cullen depict a creature who struggles against his appetites, forever wandering yet constantly being drawn to life and seeking redemption. Yet, because of his nature, he is cruelly fated to destroy life.

What I am suggesting is that the modern vampire is rather similar to the 19th century Romantic hero. Similarly to the persecuted angst ridden Romantic individual, the vampire is the James Dean of his day. In the hands of the 19^th century Romantics, the vampire is no longer evil incarnate, the enemy. Instead, in Romantic Gothic literature, he is transformed into an anti-hero, a sympathetic individual who is tormented by guilt, who struggles with himself, his identity. For example, the Byronic Lord Ruthven in Polidori’s The Vampyre (1819) therefore shares several common traits with the modern vampire, Lestat. Both are tortured souls. Both are the vampire equivalent of the Byronic poster-boy for both men and women who struggle with their identity and therefore identify with the vampire’s search for identity.

Dacre Stoker, Bram Stoker’s great-grandnephew, has recently published his sequel to his ancestor’s Dracula. Now based in the US, he delved into his ancestor's handwritten notes on Dracula for his sequel, Dracula: The Un-Dead. Apparently, the latter was meant to be the original title for Bram Stoker’s book before an editor changed the title.

The new book Dracula: the Un-Dead is the first Dracula story to be fully authorized by the Stoker family since the 1931 film starring Béla Lugosi. On publication, the book provoked a storm in the publishing world, selling for more than $1m (£575,000) to Dutton US, HarperCollins UK and Penguin Canada. The new book is set in 1912 London. Quincey, the son of Stoker's hero, Jonathan Harker, has become involved in a troubled theatre production of Dracula, directed and produced by Bram Stoker himself. The play plunges Quincey into the world of his parents' terrible secrets.

In summary, Bram Stoker’s vampire has influenced the popularity of subsequent vampire stories. Stoker’s Dracula has been singularly responsible for many literary and filmic interpretations in recent contemporary history.

With the tidal wave of recent media exposure ranging from best-selling novels to several TV series to vampire films drawing in multi-million dollar, the obsession with vampires appears never-ending. From Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire,to HBO’sTrue Blood and Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga series, it seems that the public's appetite for the vampire is insatiable.

In allowing himself to be the source of never-ending vampire stories, it seems that the vampire, our fanged friend, has truly been generous to us down the centuries. Mutating from odious monster, misshapen hunchback to a modern 21^st century heartthrob, the vampire has remained with us through thick and thin down the centuries.