Nowadays, a lot of folks are vampire-ed out. Since they're so famous, we can’t seem to be able to avoid hearing about them. Vampire narratives aren't uncommon, though; there were several before the year 2000. Why hadn't we had enough of these previously? We always want to see a comparison of classic vampire narratives and new vampire fiction. Was there a time when they were stronger? Or is it simply less prevalent? Are there any differences in the target demographics? Was it simpler to connect to the stories because they were more impactful? Nastier? What makes some people wary of vampire tales now but not tired of them before, even though there were enough of them?

The most notable difference in current vampire tales from prior vampire fiction is the frank declaration of their sexuality.

Bloodsuckers have come a long way since the legends passed down over pots of gruel in some Romanian town. But at the very least, shows about them are now much more appealing!

CRACKED VS. FOLKLORE VAMPIRES VS MODERN VAMPIRES TEETH Folkloric vampires did have At some point, the modern fearsome teeth, but they vamp got a cool new pair of weren't quite as... efficient. hollow teeth to mosquito up Turns out ripping someone's blood. Also resulting in the thooat to smithereens also cliche 2-hole vampire bite produces a lot of blood. usually shown in media. CRACKED.COM

Source: Smithsonian

CRACKED VS. FOLKLORE VAMPIRES VS MODERN VAMPIRES GARLIC Some think the garlic legend Garlic as a vampire comes from the sulfur in repellent/killer is less garlic triggering outbreaks popular in media than the of porphyria, a disease now more... cinematic methods. thought to be mistaken for Now it's mostly for jokes vampirism in olden times. about italian vampires. CRACKED.COM

Source: Vocal

Sign up for the Cracked Newsletter

Get the best of Cracked sent directly to your inbox!


Forgot Password?