LogFAQs > #934753059

ParanoidObsessive posted...

No. Dracula (the book) explicitly mentions Dracula (the character) outside during the day. So does Carmilla. It was never really a major thing before Nosferatu introduced the idea. At most, in some interpretations sunlight would weaken their unholy powers a bit, but they'd still be more or less fine. And in others they were almost entirely unaffected by sunlight other than just being tired because they were awake all night.

So basically your argument is because a fictional book chose to ignore lore that the film later actually used, the lore is somehow invalidated? You can't turn around and claim that Dracula is the inspiration for all vampires when the book was inspired by folklore.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Keep in mind, it would have been almost entirely impossible for anyone to pass as a normal human if they couldn't interact during the day for most of human history. Prior to the advent of electricity/electric lighting, almost every service and social activity only took place during the day. Someone who only went out at night would be an almost immediate suspect for pretty much everything (which would suck for anyone who had a legitimate sunlight sensitivity).

He says overlooking that a lot of traditional vampire lore *doesn't* have them passing as normal people which, humorously enough, was more a thing introduced in Dracula than folklore. In fact, a vampire's reputation as the undead often came from individuals supposedly encountering people they knew to be deceased.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That wasn't why. The point was to keep the vampire counting so you could run the fuck away. The idea was, by the time the vampire finished counting, you'd be gone and it wouldn't be able to follow you. It goes hand-in-hand with the running water thing - it wasn't a method for killing the vampire, it was a method for running away from the vampire (ie, find a river, creek, stream, etc and cross it as quickly as possible).

Except for the lore that explicitly references them doing it for that effect. Again, we're talking things that predate Dracula which -- also again -- was an explicit work of fiction rather than a folk tale or legend.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Yes - silver was a weapon you could use against vampires. And demons. NOT werewolves.

Silver was mostly a weapon that could be used against unholy/demonic things - and werewolves were never actually considered to be supernatural in that sense. Like I mentioned, they were usually considered to be humans using black magic, or under the influence of magic, and silver was rarely used as an anti-magic substance (if anything, silver was often pro-magic for a lot of ritualists). They have more in common with witches than they do vampires - and silver doesn't hurt witches, either.

Are you talking out of your ass at this point? Because earlier you were claiming, "Well, werewolves were just witches!", and now you're claiming that witches can't be hurt by silver *despite* one of the earliest examples of a silver bullet being used against the supernatural was to kill a witch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Brothers

If a werewolf is a witch -- per your claim -- and a witch is killed by silver bullets, it stands to reason that a werewolf would be killed by silver bullets.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Believe me, I spent waaay too long playing White Wolf games. I've done a fuckton of research on this sort of stuff.

Then how are you missing what seems like basic information?

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.