Werewolves are a different story entirely, the mythos is as different as vampires and elves. While a vampire versus werewolf book/fic/movie may be entertaining... It probably isn't worth your time. I've seen it done well once, and the author never published anything again. I highly suspect this is due to the fact that most self-respecting Fantasy readers wouldn't even give it half a glance.

And you're right, a vampire that doesn't survive long enough gets what is coming to it. I never said they all grow to that point, just that a proper villain that plays an important part in the story should.

If your vampire is new, unintelligent, not cunning, and otherwise just the big bad so you can drive a stake through its heart in chapter twenty... why are we reading this again? Why are you calling it a vampire? A stake in the heart will kill pretty much anything.

(T-T *Hasn't read the vampire line in Pratchett yet.*)

 

We're approaching this in two different ways I feel. You're approaching it from the perspective of someone constructing a plot, where the vampires have to serve a purpose. How the creature appears depends on what purpose it is to fill. I call this the "JKR approach".

I - and I suspect Hawthorne - am approaching this from the perspective of a world-builder, trying to construct a realistic world that works. I was discussing vampires (and magical creatures in general) in and of themselves and how they may fit into the HP world, combining with what we have seen in canon, simply for the sake of building up the world.

So, what can we see in canon? Firstly, that vampires are not a powerful force within society, since they are subjugated. This seems to indicate that they're not all too powerful as beings - which probably means that most of their traditional weaknesses are intact. Secondly, we've seen that they're not overly aggressive. The vampire we saw in HBP was quite tame. Domesticated. There are also blood-flavoured sweets in wizarding sweet shops. This seems to point to something similar to Discworld's vampires who have taken the Black Ribbon.

I actually see many similarities between the HP and Discworld vampires. Rich lordly-like sophisticated creatures living in castles, strong but with all their weaknesses intact, yet despite these weaknesses they never really die - merely turn to dust which can return to human form if blood is spilled on it.

However, due to the advance of modern society, this is beginning to change, with the emergence of the "modern vampire", like the rather tame Sanguini, but there are probably old-style vampires living in Romania, Transylvania etc. (Harry Potter's Uberworld).

Most of this is speculation, but it's the impression I got from what little there is in the books.

Also, it's likely that vampires can't do "wizard magic" since the Ministry considers them "non-wizard part humans".

 

I don't really buy the blood-flavored sweets bit. Gag-value aside, I have friends who would buy those for the novelty or the sheer weirdness. They're blood flavored, not made of blood. You may as well be tickling a vampire's balls with that.

The problem with world-building is that it isn't necessary. At all. Unless you're writing a source book for an RP or RPG world-building is just an advanced form of outline for a story. If you're not planning on doing anything with it, you're just back to beating people over the head with details.

I suppose you could be "trying to understand the author" but that doesn't really fit up with the idea of writing non-cliche magical creatures.

I see where you're going with the Pratchett angle, but I still don't agree. The entire point of Discworld is poking fun at world-building. Not only does he (admittedly) make shit up as he goes, but the world itself is "as big and it needs to be"

The man is one of the best writers out there, holding anyone up to that level is silly at best. ><

Also, who needs to do magic when you can pay someone to make you a magical item? They're ridiculously commonplace in the HP world.

 

Again, I do not possess your desire to give everything purpose. I talk about the HP world and world-build simply because I enjoy doing so and because I find the world fascinating. The world is what I like about HP, not the characters or plot.

Yes, once a world is in place you can then use it in writing, but the reason for creating it in the first place is simply for the fun of creating a world.

Also, I disagree about only creating backstory and world when it is needed. Just look at Tolkein. How much of that was "necessary"? Hardly any. Having a load of backstory and knowing all about the world you're using, even if you never include it in the plot, gives a story a realistic air. Creating world simply when you need it makes a story feel contrived. The world created to fit the plot, rather than the plot flowing naturally out of a realistic world.

 

See, I think we're making friction over what we consider world-building.

I'm not saying that knowing what's what in a story is a bad thing or that your every detail needs to have purpose. I enjoy fleshing out the details quite a bit, and believe it to be crucial for a good story.

What I'm trying to get at is when writing details become too much. If you're trying to pay specific attention to a backround issue, such as magical creatures, the information needs to be revealed without become mindless a mindless info-dump. If you're good, and especially if you use cliches well, the rest can be inferred from there without you having to say a word.

Creating a world is fun, but that's been done for us already by the author. Recreating it is a subtle balance between how much is too much, because you will lose people's attention.

Remember, the topic is about writing the creatures, not filling out an encyclopedia on them.

(Tolkein was actually my perfect example of "When backround becomes detail bludgeoning." >>)

EDIT: Entertaining as this is, 4am is about to roll round and I need to get to sleep. We shall meet again on the Morrow sir! *Points dramatically*

 

To me, writing the creatures well stems from effectively having an encyclopedia on them. Even if you never include 90% of the information in the story (so as to avoid a mindless info-dump) I think that it's important for the author to have that info, because, as I said, it creates an air of realism. The reader can always tell if an author has thought something through properly or not, even if the information isn't explicit. You can just tell from the tiny implicit details.

And we're not so much recreating JKR's world as creating detail where she was vague.

 

I have been patiently waiting for a story with Incubi and Succubi. The last story I featuring an Incubus!Harry is Black Kisses by Mehetabelo which appears to be abandoned. I have stopped reading vampires and werewolf stories a long time ago. Part of the reason is the many slash magical creature fanfictions out there. To me, it appears that 39/40 magical creature stories are slash.

Hetero Male Veela!Harry stories are also something I keep an eye for. Ever since Mr. Riddle has abandoned his Male Veela story I have wanted to read another one. So far, I still have not encountered any. By chance if you encounter any Hetero Incubus!Harry or Veela!Harry, please post it!

Elf stories are something I greatly dislike out of personal preference. Elves have never appealed to me and those stories normally feature a Super!God!Harry after he finish his training in the elven world.

 

You've probably come across it before, but you didn't mention it, so:

Fury of the Hellspawn: The Tale of an Incubus
http://www.restrictedsection.org/story.php?story=2186

 

David Eddings wrote the book on this. Literally, it's called the Rivan Codex, four hundreds words on background information on the world of the Belgariad that he laid out before word one of Pawn of Prophecy hit the typewriter. The history of the world back to year dot, exchange rates, governments, population, clothing styles, geographic details, the lot. Me and a few other IRCholes have a bad habit of doing this to each other and causing minor plot bunnies to blow out into entire worlds. It's why I've got the skeletons of epic-length crossovers with KotOR and Starcraft and Black Lagoon buried in the back of my mind, waiting to be written.

On the subject of Terry Pratchett, sure his writing are a parody of fantasy, but it also works. Trolls turn to stone in the morning because the sunlight overheats their silicon brain. Dragons breathe fire due to either chemical reactions in their stomach(s) or by tapping into raw magic. It's taking fantasy literally and working out the science behind it.

 

That is perhaps the most epic thing I have ever read in my life. I want to see Harry wading his way through hundreds of house elves trying to claw his face off. Reducto! Reducto! Avada Kedavra! Die you stupid ugly rats! For Merlin's sake, die!

 

Reducto is not a dueling spell, Aekiel. It does not kill, break bones, cause internal damage, or do any sort of damage fanon attributes to the spell.

/pet peeve

 

This is an example of a pet peeve getting in the way of reason. Don't worry, we're all guilty of it.

However, it is worth mentioning that there is no such thing as a "dueling spell". There is simply magic, and pretty much all of it could be used in a duel by a clever wizard. Certainly some spells lend themselves more to dueling than others, but I would include "Reducto" in this group.

It is a low-level blasting curse (Confringo is an example of a more powerful blasting curse): it hits things with roughly the power of a hard kick, hard enough to knock a door down or break apart wood. Such a spell definitely falls into the "dueling spells" group. It's practically the perfect fit for the fanon favourite "bludgeoning curse".

 

Meh, I just pulled it out of my ass really, I couldn't remember Confringo and couldn't be bothered to look it up so I just went with that.

 

I used the term 'dueling spell' to encompass any damaging spells such as curses, hexes, and jinxes, as well as any creative use of Transfigurations or Charms that you might use in duels. You knew this is what I meant however, so the "there is no such thing as a dueling spell" comment was unnecessary.

I didn't take the time to word it as well as I should have.

What I meant is that (IIRC) it doesn't cause any worthwhile damage to the body. While I'm pretty sure it only works on inorganic objects, I will allow it the force of a solid punch or kick, that is if you absolutely need the spell to work on people and can't come up with an original bludgeoning spell, which btw, shouldn't take more than a few minutes with an english/latin translation tool.

My problem with Reducto, which I've stated many times before, comes from its extensive use in fanon as an 'end all' spell for 'light wizards', (I hate that term btw, but it works in this instance) such as Harry and co. and the Aurors, which causes body parts to explode in a shower of gore, or cause immense internal damage, most often resulting in the recipients death. Authors use this because they are too lazy to come up with their own spells, and they can't have Harry and co. using dark magic (btw if Reducto did indeed work in that manner, it would certainly be classified as dark, and it definitely wouldn't be in any books a 4th year could access), so they use Reducto as the main lethal spell in the 'light wizard's' arsenal.

I don't have a problem if it's used on the environment to cause fragmentation damage, but the instant it's used to explode body parts, I stop reading. I don't care how good the story is. If the author can't come up with anything better than having Harry and co. cast Reducto over and over, it's not worth my time.

 

Meh... I kind of like to believe that the weaknesses are portrayed by where they live in HP. Like the normal cross, garlic, blah blah in Europe and the can walk in sun but if you put a pile of rice in front of them they HAVE to count all of the grains in Asia for vampires. It works alongside Darwin's theory about survival based on where you live.

 

There's nothing to say that it doesn't work on organic body parts. And I would a have an objection to an author creating another spell that does the same thing, because in my opinion the fewer spells there are the better (see my spellcasting theory).

1. The Reductor Curse is indeed a curse, so it's already Dark magic.

2. They do teach Dark magic at Hogwarts, despite what they say. They just call it Defence against the Dark Arts. As the magical theory book that Umbridge had said, the spells are the same, only the use is different: using a curse in a defensive context gets it renamed to a counter-curse. But the spell is the same spell.

Not really. If you used the word "dueling spell" to encompass any curse, hex, jinx, transfiguration or charm used in a duel, then Reducto certainly fits into this definition, and therefore your statement,

"Reducto is not a dueling spell"

is a contradiction.

Edit: Woot, 3000th post.

 

There's nothing to say that it does either. I don't know why you are arguing for this when there is no canon evidence supporting that it does work on organic body parts. I'm arguing against it because it's so cliche, cheap, and unoriginal on the authors part. I honestly think you just like being contrary.

As for evidence of it only working on inorganic objects, every time someone has used the Reductor curse in canon, it has been on inorganic objects:

• Snape used this on rosebushes at the Yule Ball after his talk with Karkaroff (GF23)
• Harry learned this spell as part of his preparation for the third task. He used it to blast a hole in the hedge (GF31)
• A Reductor Curse during D.A. training reduced a table to dust (OP19)
• Used by the various D.A. members at the beginning of the battle of the Department of Mysteries to smash shelves in the Hall of Prophecy as a diversion (OP35).

Not all curses are dark magic. Lets look at the HP lexicon list of curses:

The following spells are known as curses.

• Babbling Curse
• Blasting Curse
• Body-Bind Curse
• Cruciatus Curse
• Curse of the Bogies
• Entrail-Expelling Curse
• Fiendfyre
• Flagrante Curse
• Gemino Curse
• Impediment Curse
• Imperius Curse
• Jelly-Fingers curse
• Killing Curse
• Leg-Locker Curse
• Reductor Curse
• Sponge-Knees Curse
• Thief's Curse
• Unforgivable Curses

While some of these are indeed dark magic, I wouldn't classify the jelly-fingers, leg-locker, sponge-knees, impediment, babbling, and gemino curses as dark magic. Back when I made the thread about what separates curses from hexes and jinxes, most agreed that curses are much more serious and damaging than hexes and jinxes. Yet nearly half of the curses on this list are pretty harmless.

There is a negative stigma that goes along with dark magic in canon. I highly doubt that dark magic would be so feared and discriminated against if a lot of it was harmless. I also doubt parents would be supportive of their children learning dark magic at Hogwarts, which is what you are claiming. Thus, not all curses are dark magic.

This is your opinion, which I disagree with, and which relies on all curses and counter curses (counter jinxes?) being dark magic. See above.

Even that wasn't specific enough for you I guess. Perhaps I should say, "Reducto is not a spell you would use directly on a human body while dueling. It may be used as a distraction, to clear a path, or to cause fragmentation/explosion damage, but it has no effect when used on organic objects". Like I said, I have no problem if the author has a character use Reducto to make a wall/boulder/any large object explode, sending lethal shards traveling at high velocities, but I object to it being used directly on the human body.

Now are we done with the exercises in pedantry?

 

I don't know what definition of "organic" you're using, but in my experience both rosebushes and hedges are organic life forms.

Personally, it feels more like you who's being contrary*. Your call of "there's no proof that it does work on inorganic objects!" sounds like the Christians call of "There's no proof that God doesn't exist.". We've seen what the "Reducto" does, and there is no good reason to believe that it would work on some types of objects but not others. And that's not even bringing into it the fact that flowers and plants are organic, so that counts actively against your idea.

Actually, they are, as defined by the author. As I've linked to you before.

Only if you know the counter curse. Or would you consider being forced to babble for the rest of your life harmless?

Ignoring your rather ridiculous belief that it can't work on organic objects, that's an extraordinarily narrow defintion of "duelling spells" you have there. It would in fact also disallow transfiguration and charms used on the environment in a duel, which you previously allowed as "duelling spells".

*You know, I can't help but notice that you accuse me of arguing for the sake of being contrary in pretty much every disagreement we have. I'm not sure if you think it gives your arguments more weight but I'm afraid to say it doesn't. Ad hominems are rather unprofessional. I argue not because I'm being contrary, but because I believe youto be wrong.*

**Which, now that I think about it, is pretty much what being contrary means. So yes, I'm arguing because my opinion is contrary to yours and believe it to be more justified. But is this not what all arguments are?

 

A much more solid argument to put forward Demon's argument would be:

If it could harm a human being, would Snape be firing them at the Rose Bushes with students in, during the Yule Ball?