HOME | DD
StampWolf — Twilight Werewolves
Published: 2012-11-30 20:53:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 1342; Favourites: 45; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
Twilight's 'shapeshifters' are werewolves, by the most basic definition of werewolf (A human transforming into a wolf).Stephanie Meyer can change the characteristics of the monsters in her books but she can't change their most basic foundations.
Werewolves are shapeshifters.
Calling the wolf pack in Twilight 'shapeshifters' does not mean they are not werewolves.
They are werewolves, and thus shapeshifters.
EDIT:
I HAVE read the books
A few definitions of werewolf for you all:
Google Dictionary: (in myth or fiction) A person who changes for periods of time into a wolf, typically when there is a full moon
Dictionary.com: (in folklore and superstition) a human being who has changed into a wolf, or is capable of assuming the form of a wolf, while retaining human intelligence.
Wiktionary: A person who is transformed or can transform into a wolf or a wolflike human, often said to transform during a full moon
Merriam-Webster: a person transformed into a wolf or capable of assuming a wolf's form
The Free Dictionary: 1.A person believed to have been transformed into a wolf or to be capable of assuming the form of a wolf.
2. (Myth & Legend / European Myth & Legend) a person fabled in folklore and superstition to have been changed into a wolf by being bewitched or said to be able to assume wolf form at will
Wikipedia: is a mythological or folkloric human with the ability to shapeshift into a wolf or an anthropomorphic wolf-like creature, either purposely or after being placed under a curse and/or lycanthropic affliction via a bite or scratch from a werewolf, or some other means.
EDIT2:
Fixed the spelling mistake.
I'm done arguing this point. I really don't want to waste any more of my time on Twilight. On to the next stamp!
Related content
Comments: 145
I don't really like all the controversy with Twilight..I watched EVERY movie in theaters and I believe Twilight is rather funny,although I cried for .5 seconds at one part in Part 2 of Breaking Dawn.
I used to have a werewolf/shapeshifting thing (Yeah...To explain that,my human FC could shapeshift into a dragon or a werewolf at will) and she got kinda boring so I trashed her idea. So now I'm back to just human characters for Hetalia...
But I still like how Meyer represents shapeshifters of Twilight. I was always Team Jacob though I lost my liking for the Twilight series.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm happy you made this stamp, because to be honest I do get tired of hearing people claim they are not werewolves but just shapeshifters, when technically they are since they only turn into that of a wolf, nothing else. So its nice to see others agree that they are werewolves in the end.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
actually their skinwalkers its a native american thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In my opinion, there is probably many, many definitions and versions of what a werewolf is. In my culture however, a 'werewolf' is anyone with the ability to shift into the form of a wolf. They are most refereed to as skin walkers and are actually in large numbers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm guessing you haven't read the books? It's explained better there, but basically, Jacob and Co. are shapeshifters who just happened to take the form of a wolf....it could have been anything from an eagle to a lion. There are 'real' werewolves in the Twilight universe though, who have nothing to do with Jacob and the pack.
But anyway, it's pretty useless to argue over this. Meyer herself admitted she did no research whatsoever into mythology before writing Twilight, so obviously confusion can arise easily when people try to make sense out of things :l
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have read the books.
Meyer should have done her research if she was going to put werewolves into her story.
wolf shapeshifters are werewolves.
The basic definition of a werewolf is a human turning into a wolf.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, my point is.....in the context of the book they aren't because the author (unwittingly) decided they weren't, since she didn't know anything about werewolves.
In mythology however, werewolves are shapeshifters. (Though not necessarily vice-versa. Other creatures can be considered shapeshifters too).
I read Twilight hoping for some decent mythological action and instead ended up reading a cliche love story. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The worlds ideas of werewolves and vampires and other things that go bump in the night have been warping since they were first invented. For example, Bram Stoker had Dracula out and about in the middle of the day shopping and getting a haircut in London, he just couldn't hypnotize anyone or exercise any of his other dark powers in broad daylight. And don't get me started on werewolves, they've been around since the dawn of time (as opposed to the modern vampire which only materialized in the form we more or less equate with vampires today in the early 19th century [see John Polidir's short story called "The Vampyre" to read the very first prose vampire story in existence; it was one of Stoker's sources he pulled from when he created the story]). Each generation pulls a little bit from what they know and changes the nature of the beasts to serve the purposes they are trying to get across; that's why the stories change.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, throughout the middle ages vampires were hardly something teenage girls would swoon over....they were more like the zombies of today.
But anyway, I just didn't like that Meyer couldn't be bothered to research anything. Modifications to myths are fine......but disregarding everything about mythological creatures when you're going to write a book about them is just stupid :l
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, I think she did. She even showed Bella researching vampires in the first book and came across quite a few concepts of vampires that one could easily research and find on their own. I've seen quite a few departures from the vampire genre that I though were ludicrous myself. One really horrible vampire movie from the 80s, I don't even remember the name because I only watched like three minutes of the movie, had the vampires piercing humans skin with their tongues like there was some bony point on the end of it. So Meyer did something different, it fit in the world she was trying to convey and she was able to make everything make sense within the confines of the story. It's fiction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Within the story itself, I guess things mostly make sense. There are a few gaping holes though. Like how Edward was able to sleep with Bella if he doesn't even have a functioning circulatory system lol I also don't get how female vampires can't have children because their body 'cannot change', yet male vampires somehow can? Please explain if you can, because trying to make sense of certain aspects of those books is pretty hard XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One time I read somewhere (wasn't really paying attention at the time) that Meyer said it was somehow venom based. Sounds cheesy and I don't know if she really said or meant that so take that with a grain of salt.
First, just to get my bearings with how far you read into the books. Have you read the parts in Breaking Dawn where they're trying to figure out how Bella got pregnant in the first place? Just wondering because as I was trying to explain, I found myself tripping over delicacy with process.
I'll try to explain the "changing" part as best I can since I'm a guy, so bear with me please 
The fact that Edward was physiologically frozen at 17 should also explain his ability to father children since, technically, 17 year old guys are biologically capable of that. Guys bodies don't change that much until they're way older (I think Meyer's actually puts the example of Charlie Chaplain fathering children when he was in his 70s in the book).
I hope that sheds some light on it. Remember, it's fiction. I've discovered that the more exacting I am on the detail, the less pleasure, many times, I get out of just enjoying the pure story. Meyer's has done a good enough job to set up a world that a vast majority of folks can believe in and still leaving a little mystery to the reader. Sometimes it's just up to our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Hope this all helped and that I didn't confuse you too much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks ^.^ And yeah, I've read all the books, so I don't mind spoilers
This has nothing to do with the book, but the 'women's mood swings' you mentioned isn't exactly accurate though. I think men find it harder to understand them because society tends to favour men being less emotional, especially from a young age, thereby stunting their emotional growth a little bit. As for hormone changes, not every woman actually has mood swings, though intense period pain would make anyone cranky lol
And I really agree with what you said about detail, as soon as I start picking at plot holes I tend to loose interest in a book....so it's best to just enjoy it I guess. That's what fantasy is all about anyway....thinking beyond the limits of everyday life XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry on the mood swings part, I wasn't trying to make generalizations or play into stereotypes. I've lived on and off at home since I graduated from high school (college is expensive, and so is trying to pay for a two year stay in Brazil) and my sister has lived at home for most of the time and she's been a lot more susceptible to mood swings. I understand it's different for each individual woman. And I didn't mean that hormonal changes cause all women to have mood swings, what I was delicately trying to say was that they can be more susceptible to them because of the more frequent hormonal shifts. Guys generally don't have a lot of those shifts.
Guys tend to see things a little bit more straightforward and are just into having fun when they're younger. I'm weird because I grew up in an all woman household from about ten (well, technically 15, but my dad was pretty much a bump on a log for that last five years before my parents divorced). I think guys (and I am a guy) have a hard time understanding women because we tend to focus on one aspect before moving onto something else, so it takes time and training (and patience on the woman's part) for the man to learn all that's happening in a woman's mind (which is what leads to so many stand up comedy routines). Women have clinically been proven to be superior to men in many ways, except for brute short-term strength. Women have better long term endurance, handle stress better, multi-task better, and analyze a lot deeper quicker than men can. I don't know how much of that's sociological conditioning compared to natural aptitude, but there are quite a few differences to how men and women react to situations.
Anywho, wasn't trying to make any generalizations so sorry if I offended in any way. Glad to have helped, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh no, I didn't mean to sound offended 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't offended, I was worried I was offending you 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol, so true! I see so many old couples who've been together for over 30 years holding hands and looking more in love than young couples. It's sweet yet kind of sad.....it seems relationships are getting worse over time :l There should be some kind of manual on how to train your boyfriend/partner XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think the problem is there's no manual, I think the problem is people nowadays are so caught up in their own little self-absorbed worlds they forget to listen to other people. Most of the divorces I saw growing up (including my own parents) and the ones I've seen today among peers arise from lack of communication and willingness to work together. So many of us are used to having our own way and don't want things to change that we're not willing to work with others to build a relationship that stands the test of time. At lest, that's been my experience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very true, without communication couples don't even realise their relationship is deteriorating before it's too late. :l Rushing into marriage is a big factor too. Marriage seems a lot less permanent nowadays and a lot of people get married already thinking they'll just bail out as soon as things get rough. It's better not to get married at all unless you're ready to do everything to make the relationship work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's no point in arguing about the correct term for a mythological creature that has meant many different things at many different points in history.
Hell, western dragons were furry before they were ever scaly, and had anywhere from two to six limbs. Vampires didn't used to have fangs or drink blood (they were more like sentient zombies with OCD). The first Western 'werewolf' (Lycaon) was a man who was turned into a wolf against his will by Zeus, and had nothing to do with voluntary shape changing or involuntary changing based on moon cycles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
They may be true but there are some things that hold true with werewolves.
A person can transform parts or all of the body to resemble that of a wolf.
The western werewolf was a man who could turn into a wolf.
The European werewolf was a savage wolf that was killing a lot of people. They hunted it down and found out that it was really a man from their village that could become a wolf.
Both of these stories have a man becoming a wolf. That's the very basic foundation to the werewolf mythology. A man becoming a wolf.
A werewolf's changes don't have to be controlled by the phases of the moon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not disagreeing with you that you can call them werewolves. But all the same, trying to put absolute truth values on folklore which changes so much is foolhardy.
In the story, they're not called werewolves because there's already something else in the story that uses that classification, and she doesn't call it the same thing for disambiguation. Is that the right call? Maybe not. But she's not the only one to make it. Hell the person that you clapped to is doing the exact same thing. Trying to say that something by definition isn't a vampire, or isn't a werewolf, despite that it is called such in folklore and by folklore professors today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually the vampires did drink blood. I think what you are referring to is the more general term revenant.
Also if you deny argument about the term for a mythological being you can just as well deny the validity of the term human and call everything however you like.
The maker of this stamp clearly critizises this approach. In my eyes this is legitimate, especially since many people think that Meyer'stance is right. And that is the problem because the average person simply doesn't know the difference between the typical fictional and folkloric werewolf. Based on your comment about vampires and fangs it seems you made that confusion as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, really, the vampires in many mesopotamian folk myths ate flesh and digested life force. Blood was not a requirement. They also ranged in appearance from human to bloated corpse. The suave vampire with fangs was an image created an popularized by fiction beginning in the 1800's with 'The Vampyr,' not with folklore.
Unlike mythological creatures, humans are described by characteristics all people of all cultures can observe, because they're tangible beings and not malleable concepts. Like creatures in folklore.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What were these mesopotamian "vampires"?
And the stuff about the fangs I stated myself, no point in repeating that. You nonetheless made the mistake off citing the feature of the fictional vampire in connection with that of the folkloric one.
As a matter of fact many people have accused others of not being human and mythological beings as being human (e.g. some dog-heads). So this concept has not been that clear over time as you claim.
But lets use your "way." What for you is a vampire?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"As a matter of fact many people have accused others of not being human and mythological beings as being human (e.g. some dog-heads)"
No more relevant to this discussion than the posters that depicted Japanese people as rats. It was a propaganda campaign, not an actual belief that they were dog-headed people.
"But lets use your "way." What for you is a vampire?"
What, for you, is a dragon? Because dragons are not always scaled, not always furred, not always feathered, not always winged, not always flying, not always fire-breathing, not always reptilian and so on and so on. These traits are sometimes existing, but not always, because dragons, like vampires, are malleable ideas that represent different things to different cultures and times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its rude to avoid answering a question. And I actually expected you to act that way. That's why I put the word vampire in quotes because, quite frankly, I don't believe you.
I also expected that you would simply declare the topic of the usage of the word "human" as irrelevant.
Your two "vampires" are good examples as to why I don't believe you. Based on that a werewolf is a vampire as well when they eat humans, or so would the goddess Kali have been, or any man-eating ogre or blood-drinking witch.
And what exactly is your source for these statements? Were do you have your information from?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Its rude to avoid answering a question."
I did answer your question. I didn't answer it in the way you wanted to, because I found the answer you were baiting to be misleading.
"That's why I put the word vampire in quotes because, quite frankly, I don't believe you."
It's not that you don't believe me, but that you've already defined in your head, against all folklore study, that vampire means one thing.
"I also expected that you would simply declare the topic of the usage of the word "human" as irrelevant."
No, I declared the usage of propaganda as not defining the word 'human.'
"Your two "vampires" are good examples as to why I don't believe you."
It's not that you don't believe me, but that you've already defined in your head, against all folklore study, that vampire means one thing.
If you had ever done any research into Mesopotamian mythology, you'd know this already. And there are numerous websites and books, both encyclopedic and specializing, to come to these answers. But instead, you're trying to bait me into feeding you links that you will invariably dismiss out of hand. If I don't feed you links, you'll call what I say unsupported, without actually addressing the argument but just my commitment to hand feed you things you could easily Google yourself. And I don't feel inclined to play that game. If you really care about the topic, do a Google search and see where it takes you. I've given you names and regions you can start with. If you only care about your personal bias, then there's no point in talking to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's also the Celtic vampires, which fed off the life force of their hosts, usually artisans. They also doubled as the celtic muses, inspiring the bard or poet to phenomonal heights in a short time but also to an early death usually due to madness. She was called the Leanhaun Shee, and you can actually look up a little bit about her in his collection "Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasentry." That is if you like.
I think the argument that needs to be addressed here is that yes, Folklore is different from modern fiction. But, modern fiction does phase into fiction and then can pass into legend with the passage of time. The vampire wasn't what we think of it today really until Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897 (correct me if I'm wrong on that date). And even then, vampires only had a 73 year run up to Dracula to really solidify what a vampire really was. Before that, they were a motley collection monsters that had very little in common. The word "vampire" itself didn't even exist before the mid-1700s (at least according to Oxford). It was the writers of fiction in the 19th century that breathed life into today's favorite monster.
Werewolves on the other hand can trace their roots back to Ancient Greece and Rome, and I have a sneaky suspicion that other places in the world had a much more cohesive concept of werewolves stretching back farther than that even, to the dawn of storytelling. The shape-shifter is an archetype buried in the human psyche (and don't even get started about the whole Jungian archetype stuff), found where ever you find mankind exposed to the wolf. All of the primal fears that mankind has harbored since it's inception has been channeled into the werewolf, the eyes in the dark, the stalking, the howling, the blood-freezing snarls of a hunter about to pounce on helpless prey. Mankind has channeled that for millennia, molding and reshaping what we see as the werewolf. And even what we see in fiction today will change into whatever we as werewolf aficionados, fans, and supporters want to make them. They've changed before, and they will change again.
I-stamp is absolutely true. He's merely pointing out what legends and stories have contributed into making the modern day vampire. I can understand what you're getting at Asanbonsam, but I think the confusion lies with you just looking at the immediate past (last century or so) as compared to the overall human picture
"As a matter of fact many people have accused others of not being human and mythological beings as being human (e.g. some dog-heads). So this concept has not been that clear over time as you claim."
-Depends on the culture. And by dog-head, are you referring to St. Christopher and his people of dog-headed half humans. Because that's debatable that they were considered human at the time. Didn't the Christians of the era consider them monsters and try to exterminate them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Man I really wonder what your sources are, beause your information seems pretty screwed.
The oldest tale of a man turned into a wolf is from the Gilgamesh epos and not from Ancient Greece and Rome.
As a matter of fact your statement "The shape-shifter is an archetype buried in the human psyche (and don't even get started about the whole Jungian archetype stuff), found where ever you find mankind exposed to the wolf." is definitely wrong. There are no indigenous werewolf tales in Japan and India for instance. Also shapeshifters appear where there are no wolves.
I know what legends have contributed to fiction, but fact is that the average person cannot differentiate between the two and so I always point out what werewolf I am talking about. And I am well aware of older werewolf tales over the centuries and it is clear that there is a clear distinction between folklore and fiction. Just like the fictional vampire is mostly based on Bram Stoker's novel so is the fictonal werewolf based on The Wolf Man and folkloric elements were added later for entertainment purpose. MTV's Teen Wolf is the most recent example for that phenomenon. Which itself is no problem. But as I stated the average person just has to hear "based on legend" and they assume there is some truth to it.
And I was referring to a christian missionary who pondered the question on whether the dog-heads (he was probably not referring to St. Christopherus because his land was in the east, not the north) should be considered humans or animals. And a higher ranking churchman considered them human because they wore clothes.
I know of no extermination movements towards the dog-heads.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Man I really wonder what your sources are, because your information seems pretty screwed."
-No, my sources are just different from yours. They come from books, scholarly journals, my university classes and professors (I graduated from a university with one of the, if not the, biggest folklore archives in my country; although I didn't get to really dig into folklore while I was there due to my major) I'm sorry that you fail to open your horizons to new information since it's such a fascinating subject. Perhaps you're just not getting my meaning. I understand a slight mistranslation/misunderstanding can send someone astray.
You are clearly not understanding what I'm saying either. I didn't say every place that has shapeshifters has werewolves; I just said everywhere you find werewolves, you'll find shapeshifters. There are some exceptions. Japan's got the Kitsune, and other cultures have different ones too. And if you payed attention to my comment, I didn't say St. Christopher was in the North at all. I mentioned the Christians that called him a saint were in the north. But you will find the idea of shapeshifters everywhere since changing between a man and an animal does exist. I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, I hardly call that slight.
And on what basis should I believe that your sources came from "books, scholarly journals, my university classes and professors"? Do you expect me to just believe you?
What University was it?
What where the journals and books etc?
Did you read Boudray? Summers? Levi? Which ones? Any of them?
You sit somewhere I don't know, so unless you say what your statements are actually based on I have no way of checking them for validity.
You said: "The shape-shifter is an archetype buried in the human psyche (and don't even get started about the whole Jungian archetype stuff), found where ever you find mankind exposed to the wolf."
And now you say that it meant: "everywhere you find werewolves, you'll find shapeshifters". With all due respect but why do you think that statement has any weight? A werewolf is a shapeshifter by definition, the shifting is either permanent or temporary but unless you go about it ala lets say Brad Steiger shapeshifting is a defining feature of the werewolf. So of course you will find shapeshifters were there are werewolves because werewolves are shapeshifters. That is like saying that where you will find frogs, you find amphibians.
And in what way are there "some exceptions?" The Gray Wolf is only distributed over the Northern Hemisphere. Which leaves huge parts of dry land without them.
And I didn't say that you suggested that Christopher was in the North. I said "he was probably not referring to St. Christopherus because his land was in the east, not the north". Translation: Christopher's land was in the east, the lands the guy was talking about was in the North. What was so difficult to understand about that, especially since you know of St. Christopher?
You know I think about how my statements might sound to others. Have you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Werewolves can only turn on the full moon. They are also more human-like creatures. Twilight has created Skin-walkers. Skin-walkers can turn into a certain animal by wearing it's pelt or tattooing it's tribal symbol to their body. Skin-walkers can change no matter what time of day it is and they look just like the animal that they change into. As I said. Werewolves are more human-like and only change on a full moon. There for, the Book "Twilight" does not feature werewolves, but skin-walkers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
The original werewolves were actually humans that changed into wolves, not humanoid wolves. Those came later.
Werewolves don't have to change at the full moon. There are stories that the werewolf mythology is based on where that does not happen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those aren't the only kind of werewolves. The first 'lycanthrope' to ever exist as named in lore had nothing to do with the moon, but was changed into that form by Zeus once, and stayed that way. Some sources say he was changed into a man-shaped wolf, others say he was turned into a wolf period.
Skin-walkers doesn't have one definition either, because it's a general term describing many things from many legends. Really, when people quibble over vague mythological creatures, it's often forgetting that these mythical creatures didn't stay the same throughout history.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You make an excellent point. Lycanthropy has branched out into so many different categories it's easy to get mixed up with all the creatures. But the point I am trying to get across is that these men are not werewolves, or at least not the kind of werewolves I studied.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not the kind of werewolf you studied. The word can mean almost anything that incorporates man-wolf. Heck, there's a series called Dresden Files that runs the gauntlet of different varieties of valid werewolves. Having werewolves (which are spell casters that only have one spell to change into large wolves. Mind, this came out before Twilight), wolfweres (wolves that were either magically innate or enchanted, and learned how to turn into humans), lycanthropes (body of a man, spirit of a wolf.) Hexenwolf (changed into a werewolf by a magical talisman such as a pelt). And loup-garou (a blood inherited curse, transforms on full moons).
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
I loved "Fool Moon." I think it tied with "Summer Knight," for best in the series. Of course, I stalled out on Death Masks so I haven't read the whole series yet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think the best ones after Death Masks are Turn Coat, Changes and Cold Days.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay. I just need to start kicking myself back into reading them. They seemed to get quite repetitive after a while and I just needed to stop. I'm told though they start getting really good again after the one I'm on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Without spoiling, the last three, Changes, Ghost Story and Cold Days, really obliterate the Dresden Files formula, to the point where he can't go back to the old format anymore. So it's gotten really interesting. But there are some major story revelations in Blood Rites and Turn Coat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fair enough. But still, if we were to go by "original" werewolf, then we are talking, full moons, transformation, witches, things like that. Same way as vampires don't sparkle in the sunlight, they burn up and die.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wouldn't say origional werewolf, because the moon aspect was not brought around by folk tale, and certainly not the first 'man into wolf' folk tales.
Vampires are hardly recognizable from folklore either. Usually they weren't pretty or suave like Dracula, but feindish bloated corpses that fed on either blood or flesh and couldn't stand to be around each other.
Meyer's vampires are no more dissimilar to folklore than Rice's vampires, or Dracula.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well Im sure you know the story about Vladimir the Impaler, which is what Bram Stoker's: Dracula was based on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Which was mostly not true, and the historical character Vlad was not considered a monster but a hero in his time, defending Bulgarians from the Turks. It's 'based' on Vlad somewhat like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is 'based' on the story of Abraham Lincoln. Except perhaps even less so, because Dracula's description looks nothing like Vlad's description.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, that story inspired the character Dracula, but the nature of the vampire as a creature was pulled from various pieces of fiction and folklore. Four main previous stories were principal in Dracula's inception, but I only know (and have read) two of them: Joseph Sheridan le Fanu's Carmilla and John Polidiri's The Vampyre (the first ever modern vampyre story that was actually originally written for the same round of ghost stories Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein for). I don't think the connection the real life Count Dracula had with vampires before the novel was even tenuous at best, seeing as how what we consider vampires didn't exist before the early to mid-1700s. And even then it wasn't until 1819 that Polidiri got his story published (his friend Lord Byron pushed him to do it since he thought it was so good). Le Fanu's novella about a female vampire only predated Stoker's novel by 25 years, and in comparison, the influence is remarkable.
Actually, some of the legends and myths the modern vampire is based from resemble more that old German silent film, Nosferatu, than anything we would today consider a vampire. They were hideous, walking corpses that didn't look good at all. The whole idea of vampires being good looking, suave, albeit a little sickly, but still drawing in the ladies, stems from Polidiri. He based his vampire in various ways off his friend, the famous poet, Lord Byron, who was a little sickly and deathly looking himself. Yet, Byron, being one of the biggest poets of his age, commanded a charisma few could match. Stoker just built off of that image and used Dracula to be different.
That's what's I find is so fascinating about the whole werewolf versus vampire debate: werewolves have been around since ancient times and vampires, as we know them at least, are not quite even two hundred years old.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dresden Files sounds interesting!
My whole take on werewolves is the fact that, yes, there are different mythological definitions of them throughout history. However, since none of these accounts have been proven fact, I believe that, as a writer, you have the freedom to change whatever you want to fit the needs of your story. Just because the myths are there doesn't mean you have to stick with them. Personally I like Meyer's portrayal of the "werewolves". Some people like to carry on traditional definitions but there's no rule saying it has to be that way. Meyer called them "werewolves" and "shapeshifters". If that's what she wants them to be in HER story, then she can do that. I think the whole argument on what they are is pointless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree. While I didn't really care for the Twilight series, I don't fault people for changing the status quo on mythological creatures since they're changed all the flippin' time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>