The Age of the Vampire

Two trails of thought are wending their ways through my brain regarding the presence of vampire stories on our culture. They are related. One has to do with the era in which the vampire becomes a strong presence in our literature and the timing of the waves of interest that have followed. That is, The Age of the Vampire, culturally speaking. The other is the chronological age at which we depict vampires. Let's start with the latter, shall we? I imagine this will be, at least, a 2-part exploration. (Of course, there are always more depths to plummet, but we'll begin here.) (And, yes, I know I didn't follow up on the question of what's eating at Bill in that first kiss scene with Sookie. Will get back to that, I promise.)

Have you ever noticed that most of our vampires are young? The characters predominaly range in age from about 16-30. Even Bill Comptom (True Blood) is only 30. Sookie remarks at one point that he looks older and he tells her that "life was harder then." Giving a sense that he had lived through a lot even before becoming a vampire. Bill's seeming maturity is unusual in our vampire lore. At least currently. The original Dracula was not young. When Jonathan Harker first meets his host in Transylvania, he matter-of-factly reports that he is an old man.

Still, our vampires aren't too young. Even in the construct of an evil world of vampires, it is considered an abomination to "turn" a young child. It was a shocking aspect of the Ann Rice novel, but is rarely depicted at all. I guess even vampires have limits. While I think that the authors and creators of the character may have limits regarding cultural sensitivity, it's interesting that no matter the level of amorality assigned to their fictional vampiric societies, it's near universal that "turning" children is simply not done. As amoral creatures, ti can't be a moral dilemma for vampires. It's something else. We get a sense of that something else when we consider the other end of the spectrum.

While we don't see child vampires, neither do we see elderly vampires. (Generally speaking. There have been cases where vampires have aged - see The Hunger - but this is a rare exception.) So, the whole of vampire society is between 16 and 30, then. Children and the elderly may be preyed upon, but never "turned". Why?

The obvious answer is that the vampire represents sexuality. We don't like to think about older people being sexual. Thankfully, we're not looking to sexualize children. So, we depict all of our vampires in the sexually potent age range. Is that all there is to it? Have we really been this fixated on vampires, for so long, and in so many variations, simply because they're sexually charged? If so, it seems pathetic. I know that, in many ways, our mainstream culture has become vapid, but I still thinks there's more to why this particular metaphor is so compelling to us. One thought I have is that the sexuality is itself a symbol. A symbol of power. An ironic symbol of power.

Read Harker's description of Dracula again. Go ahead, go back up and read it. In Dracula, the vampire is old and, I don't know about you, but I'm not picturing an attractive man when I read that description. The dashing vampire is a more recent invention. Still, Dracula had a powerful impact in his day and is the foundation for nearly every vampire story written since. So, the metaphor wasn't just about sexuality. Certainly, Dracula could mesmerize his victims and lure them into an intimate act of communion. But was the story about the sex? Or was it about power?

Dracula was stronger than normal humans. Faster. He could steal a woman from under her fiancé's nose. In one scene, Dracula has bitten Mina while Jonathan sleeps in the same room. Dracula's powers makes the other men seem impotent. Interesting that we depict someone with such power as evil. Interesting that we're fixated on stories about that. Also interesting that whether or not a vampire is evil has become more ambiguous lately.

I find irony in the realization that we are fixated on these powerful characters who leave us feeling relatively powerless. It also seem ironic to see sexuality as a metaphor for power. Certainly, the energy of sexuality feels powerful. Does that mean we are powerful when we generate it? I ask because the inability to control ourselves when those sexual hormones get going is the oldest story in human history. Innumerable people have let their lives be destroyed for the sake of sex. Is that what it is to be powerful? Of course, the idea here is that the vampire has mastered the power. But if you can't go out in the daylight and you're so vulnerable to destruction if discovered where you're sleeping, it's an awfully precarious life. Also, so many of the vampire characters are lonely. Most often they have to trick people into joining them. It's an awful lot like Zeus. Funny how men are always writing these supposedly powerful characters who can't attract a woman in a straightforward way, based on their own merits.) How powerful is that?

Perhaps the fascination is about what it is to have power. What to do with power. What sacrifices must one make if one wants power. We can explore the difference of having power over versus being powerful with others. (Dracula is destroyed by a team working together.) Does absolute power corrupt absolutely? Is it innately evil to have too much power? If someone with power lives long enough is he sobered and wise with his power or on a continual projection of increased coldness and savagery? What might make the difference? Are we exploring whether to pursue power and/or how to manage it?

If it's all about power, why do vampires have to be between 16 and 30? Dracula was old. He wasn't attractive. His power derived from his knowledge and experience and his well-manored ability to be charming. Oddly, there would be a sense of security with someone who knows how to navigate the big, bad world. A woman might be compelled to him for this worldliness, not his polished biceps, gelled hair and chiseled jaw. The reader is not drawn to Dracula because we never meet him directly, so we can only guess as to what would cause Lucy and Mina to fall prey to him so willingly. Bill Compton, on the other hand, has some of these charactertistics. Okay, he's not ugly. (Though, I doubt I would look twice if I saw the actor walking down the street. I don't find him particularly physically attractive.) But he's worldly from his many years walking the Earth. He expresses more wisdom and sense than any of the human characters. His core strength is not derived from his sexuality, his sexual appeal is derived from his core strengths. Once you get to know Bill, he's profoundly attractive. (Well, except for that brooding thing. sheesh, that could get boring.) This is different from many of the vampires depicted today. And Bill is different from Dracula, because it is suggested that we consider that he is not evil.

Still, Bill possesses a different appeal from the vapidly handsome vampires in leather jackets prowling night clubs. I've seen other more complex vampire characters, as well. Selene from Underworld and Dante from the novels of The Maker's Song. Are we coming back around to Stoker's vision of the metaphor? This is where we start to cross into that other aspect of the Age of Vampires. The cultural eras in which these stories are told and how they reflect upon our perspectives of power and sexuality. We'll play with those thoughts next time around....