Which I explicitly stated, twice. The point being that restricting instrinic properties of vampires in fiction to folklore is pretty limiting.
Of course you don't mean vampire works that are centuries older than motion pictures. Or even a decade older than motion pictures (though a couple decades older than Nosferatu), you basically just mean Bram Stoker's Dracula, apparently.
No, I mean every
work of fiction or lore that has not adopted Nosferatu
's innovation of vampires being killed by sunlight. Obviously nothing before that movie would've used it, and at least some works after that movie have not used it either, including I Am Legend
and, ugh, Twilight
Then the only intrinsic part of the vampire idea is that they're called vampires (if that). They don't need to suck blood, be undead, have the ability to change into wolves or climb walls (to cite Bram Stoker), they just need to be identified as vampires.
"Intrinsic" means essential, part of the fundamental nature of a thing. If it were intrinsic, then it would be impossible to tell a vampire story without it.
Well, yeah, that's basically my point. Burning up in sunlight is not an intrinsic trait of vampires because it's not used in every vampire story. I think that's a very straightforward statement. I don't understand why you object to it. It sounds as if you're reacting to the word "intrinsic" as if it were some kind of value judgment, as if it were somehow offensive to say something wasn't intrinsic. I don't understand that. I've already pointed out the definition of the word.
By analogy, holodecks are not an intrinsic element of Star Trek
stories; they're something used in a lot of ST stories that came out after a certain date, but they weren't part of the original conception and they aren't used in every ST story. It's as simple as that.
So no, I'm not talking about folklore versus fiction. I'm talking about stuff before 1922 versus stuff after 1922 -- and there's a lot of vampire stuff, both folklore and
fiction, from before 1922. Surely you don't deny that? Not to mention, again, the various works of fiction after 1922 that have portrayed vampires as able to survive sunlight.
That's all I'm trying to do here: to make the simple point that it is possible to tell vampire stories that don't include them dying when exposed to sunlight. I don't understand why that's objectionable to you, since it's a matter of documented fact.