Three vampires and each a little different. Vampires we've learned over time differ because readers and fans differ. We don't all like the same things.
Who says fictional monsters can't differ? Yes, we have our purists and that's fine but variety is the proverbial spice of life.
I would say I go for the Dracula as depicted by Gary Oldman in the brilliant Coppola film, Dracula. That characterisation is for me completely. We get to see a before to the character: how he came to be the way he came to be!
Purists (myself included when the mood suits) will say that the horrifically monstrous vampire, Nosferatu, as depicted in the film (s) by the same name is the Dracula.
I say if you take Nosferatu's creature and you blend him with say Gary Oldman's or even Bela Lughosi's, you will get the Dracula that I happen to think Bram Stoker envisioned.
Now, Edward Cullen has an entirely different appeal as does Nosferatu. Edward Cullen and the handsome boy vampires as depicted in Twilight and Vampire Diaries are something else again, but these books (and film) although 'cross overs' in many ways do tend to be aimed at the Young Adult market.
I say why not, too? If teens enjoy reading about their own take on vampires, why shouldn't they? Reading is reading after all, and who knows where that interest in vampires will lead? There will be budding authors among them who will quite possibly redefine their own vampires in fiction they might go on to write.
Let all the undead flourish in their own way! 'Live' and let 'live,' I say! And why not?
Vampire lore is all around us. They are the part of legend from all over the world. Every culture has stories of these strange beings.
They exist because we do, because man has always dreamed of things impossible, things different from himself. I think it is our yearning to overcome death, to defeat it and live forever that vampires exist at all.
Oi! YOU! Death, hop it!