OnlineBookClub.org

Just wondering what the thoughts would be amongst those who had read both?

Personally, I enjoyed The Vampyre more. I thought Polidori's vampire was scarier, and that Dracula was more animalistic, which I understood, but it just didn't impress me as much. The more human the vallian, the scarier they tend to be, because an animal acts on instinct, whereas a person...not so much.

Anyone else ever compare the two?
Which do you think is the more realistic and frightening villain?

I just downloaded it. I'll let you know.

Awesome

After reading The Vampyre, I would have to agree with you that Lord Ruthven is far more a villain than Count Dracula ever was. He seems only to take pleasure from the destruction of innocence as if it is a personal affront to him. He would be just as great a villain if he were not the Vampyre.

hi,
as you know the vampyre is considered the first story to have the elements that we now associate with vampirism. Polidori wrote the book after a staying in lake Geneva with lord Byron and the Shelleys. they use to discuss horror and ghost stories that had an lasting effect on the author. Due to that his vampire is far more cruel and amoral then Bram Stoker's (more victorian in the way of writting- moral rules and punishment).
But I prefer dracula. First he was my first literary crush (I was 13 when I read it). Then he is far more complex. Last I prefer Stoker's writting.

I can't say i got much of anything from reading the Vampyre. Dracula is VERY confused about the abilities and constraints of vampirism but the story is very well told overall.
Carmilla is better than the Vampyre too IMO.

Vampire City by Paul Feval (1867) also looks interesting, its on my to-do list. http://www.tor.com/2010/02/09/vampire-c ... aul-feval/

After reading both, I still like Bram maybe because it was the first vampire book and movie that I saw. First impressions do tend to last

I love the myth about Vampires I am looking forward to reading Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Dracula easy

I really enjoyed both. I'm a fan of vampires in general (well, most portrayals).

I appreciate Polidori's vampire for what it was: the first story to fuse together all the elements of the vampire myth and made the vampire into a literary character rather than just a character into folklore.

Stoker than took Polidori's vampire, added in some of the elements from James Rymer's Varney and Sheridan Le Fanu’s Camilla (both of which are great vampire reads) and gave us Dracula which “has been the definitive description of the vampire in popular fiction for the last century.” In the novel, vampirism is a disease with undertones of sex, blood and death.

Never heard about this one. I will get it to make my acquaintance!

I don't think that he was the better villain, but I can say that I am easily more partial to Dracula because he seemed much more real. He didn't seem that scary and seemed a lot more conflicted which humanized him a bit more. I think that's something that really appealed to me, especially reading it for the first time as a teenager in high school!