The Lure of the Vampire: Gender, Fiction, and Fandom from Bram Stoker to Buffy the Vampire Slayer

by Milly Williamson

"The Lure of the Vampire: Gender, Fiction and Fandom from Bram Stoker to Buffy the Vampire Slayer" explores the curiosity and fascination surrounding the enduring myth of Dracula and vampires. Over one hundred years after Bram Stoker's influential novel was published, an interest in vampires is still prevalent in popular culture. This is suggested by the recent popularity of such television shows as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and it's spin-off, "Angel." Milly Williamson examines this phenomena and looks at the issues of gender pertaining to both vampires and their followers, the modern portrayal of vampires, the nature of identity and identification, and the fans themselves.

Genres: Vampires, Nonfiction, Academic, Pop Culture, Monsters, Fandom, Reference

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Milly Williamson is Senior Lecturer in Film and TV Studies. She teaches the undergraduate TV Genres, TV Forms and Meanings and British Film and TV. She teaches Researching Cult Media for the MA Cult Film and TV.

Current Research Areas
Celebrity culture; fan culture; contemporary television; television and the sociology of ‘taste’; the press, gender and Islam.

Reviews

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book, studying and exploring the fascination of the figure of the vampire and its impact on the many different facets of society, primarily focusing on issues of gender and identity. Milly Williamson does this by exploring different representations of the vampire and the fandom built up around the figure of the vampire, or "the virtual vampire star".

Williamson takes three seminal texts in the vampire canon – Bram Stoker's Dracula, Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles and the TV series Buffy: The Vampire Slayer – and analyses them, showing what they have had added to the vampire mythology or thereabouts or, in the case of Dracula, how it might have been viewed by different levels of the society it was published in. Other texts are examined in lesser detail, such as the 1987 film The Lost Boys, but these often form support for Williamson's analysis of the three main texts

I found this section the most interesting and wanted more exploration of different texts and representations of the vampire in fiction. While Williamson's examination of the vampire throughout these texts suggested a shift from the vampire-as-monster to the vampire-as-hero, the monstrous interpretation of the vampire still exists, seen in the likes of The Historian and The Passage . I also found her assertion that Dracula is no longer central to the vampire figure somewhat strange as Dracula is indelibly entwined with the vampire legend. In addition, I also wouldn't have minded if some time was spent tracing the origins of the vampire in folklore and mythology.

The exploration of the vampire fandom(s) was interesting and insightful, though I never knew how much drama Anne Rice attracted. O.o The text shows its age in the discussions of online fandom (and in the lack of mention of the infamous Twilight, but who cares about that). While I did enjoy getting a glimpse of internet fan sites in the early days and pre-internet fandom, I was also very aware that some discussion and arguments made would need to be revised heavily to be still relevant to today's concepts of fandom.

When all is said and done, The Lure of the Vampire is a revealing book peeling back the curtain to get a glimpse at what makes the image of the vampire so fascinating to Western society. My personal preference would be to see more emphasis on vampire fiction and less on the fandoms produced by this fiction. Despite this, Williamson provides an intriguing exploration of the vampire figure.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a fan of the vampire in any form be it books, TV or film, I have a few ideas as to why I find myself drawn to them, though most of these are half-baked and usually devolve into ramblings about how Buffy and Blade kick ass, Lestat rocks or Edward sucks, so apologies if that happens now...

Looking at portrayals from both classic and modern incarnations and taking in fandom and its various hierarchies and subcultures, its participation and engagement with the vampire, as well as sexuality and the self, I found this serious, academic treatment of the lure of the vampire from a specifically female perspective endlessly fascinating and thought-provoking, even when I wasn't in total agreement. Particular points of interest were the discussions of the antagonism between 'official' and 'unofficial' fandom and the effect of dress in trying to escape gender conventions. The section dealing with gender roles, sexuality and slash fiction on Buffy was illuminating - while some the ideas had occurred to me other areas were entirely new and have definitely added another previously undiscovered layer to the show.

While the lure of the vampire is very complex, a large part of the appeal is explained within as being based around the idea of the 'sympathetic' or reluctant vampire, locked in circumstances beyond their control, refusing their desire for human blood and filled with pathos due to the struggle between their humanity and ontology thus fitting with and reflecting many women's experiences of outsiderdom or 'Other'-ness. The ubiquity of this trope would seem to bear this out, but doesn't necessarily reflect my own experience.

One minor bone of contention for me with this idea was the reading of The Lost Boys, where the author posits that Michael is the female draw, cast in the role of sympathetic vamp (though he doesn't transform, which she states mars the film somewhat for most women). For me Michael was never the draw (in fact I couldn't have given a toss about him), and only served as a gateway to David, who is unsympathetic (and barely namechecked in this). In fact, Michael doesn't even rate in my top 3 as David is swiftly followed by Nanook and the Frog Brothers. I'd even go so far as to argue that The Lost Boys isn't really a vampire text at all but an Oedipal tale revolving around Sam, but that's a whole other rant.

With regard to two of my other favourites, Lestat and Spike, I would say that I was drawn to them despite the sympathetic leanings that their characters took on through the progression of their respective series, and never found either of them more alluring than when at their least sympathetic, most fiendish and most dangerous. My adoration of Spike in particular was only sustained after this progression due to my already established affection for the character (from earlier seasions), the show and my admiration (ahem) of the actor. I would not have been so enthusiastic had he been cast sympathetically from the start, and was never as invested in Angel (who is the epitome of this trope, and again never more alluring to me than when he reverts to Angelus). Instead, what appeals to me about these characters is the lack of self-censorship that their vampire nature allows for. Their blatant disregard for the accepted norms of society (both human and vampire) means they do exactly as they please, and a vicarious thrill is experienced from watching them do so. That said, I certainly don't believe that I have an 'affinity' with vampires, nor do I relate any of their traits to my own or want to be one in any way as seems to be the position of many of the fans interviewed for this book.

It is entirely possible that I'm simply more shallow than many of the fans talked about in here - I've already mentioned my 'admiration' for Spike (David had a similar effect on my teenage hormones), and I couldn't help but think that this accounted for more in the difference between fan reactions to portrayals of the character Dracula in the book version and the Francis Ford Coppola adaptation. Apparently, women tend to dislike the book version in which he is simply a monster preferring the more sympathetically portrayed film version. I believe that the Gary Oldman factor is instrumental in this, and that even if he had been more monstrous in this version the fact that he looked like Gary would still have ensured a large female following.

Though somewhat under-represented in vampire fiction, for a book that focuses on gender in relation to the genre I would have liked to have seen a little more on female vampires. Given that a considerable amount of time is spent looking at The Vampire Chronicles and Buffy I'm surprised that Claudia, Drusilla and Darla (all very memorable characters in their own ways) weren't given anything more than a brief mention. However, considering there isn't nearly as widespread fandom of these characters I suppose that this exclusion is justified.

Considering all of the above (I think it may be one of my longest reviews to date!) I'd say that this book is well worth your time if it makes you spend even a little bit of the time I did thinking about the points raised.

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the stuff in here felt like a reach even for me. Chapter on slash fan fiction is what I came for.

Skim read the non fandom chapters.

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

It would not end. If you want a research guide to movies and tv shows from the nineties that’s about the only helpful thing you will find here.

[Alyssa · Rating 3 out of 5]

So much information. Very interesting.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good and interesting.

Best parts were discussion of -vampires- such as Dracula and Buffy vampires and Anne Rice vampires.

I felt personally less interested in the (very long) passages on abstract fan theory and on specific Anne Rice fan club scenes.

[Nicole · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book for a college 4000-level Studies in Genre:Romance Term Paper topic on the Knightly Tropes of Edward Cullen in the Twilight Saga. I've always loved Vampires, though, and I loved this book just the same. I found it to be very interesting and informative. There was a great deal of information in it for my paper, as well. I really liked that broad spectrum of time and topics that it covered from the legendary Bram Stoker and Dracula to the legendary Anne Rice and Interview With the Vampire to Lord Byron and all the way to Buffy, which is legendary in itself. I must say that this cover is pretty amazing in and of itself.

I also loved that whole fandom chapters...even if that didn't have anything to do with my paper, per se.

And, too, the ending of the book, specifically the last paragraph or so, made me look at the Twilight series, as a whole, in a whole new light and Vampires, in general with a whole new perspective as well.

I'm glad that I went out of my way to order this book from another college library and get it sent to my college library so that I could use it for my paper! =)

[Lida · Rating 3 out of 5]

Would have given this four stars if it weren't for the egregious errors in the book! With noticeable typos and factual errors regarding Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Williamson clearly needed a better editor. But the books is overall a unique investigation of vampires in literature and pop culture, with an emphasis on fandom and gender studies.

[[ J o ] · Rating 2 out of 5]

[ to review at a later date - possibly even re-read at a later date as well, though not urgent ]

[Erin Tuzuner · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit repetitive, but with interesting points made via the fan interpretation vs. the literary implications.

[Allan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a thorough examination of vampire/goth fandom and it's subcategories and how the content of the texts influence the fannish expressions.