Diary of an Amateur Vampirologist

End of an era

2011-09-21T00:53:00.004+10:00

After more than three years and 276 posts (including this one), I've decided to call it a day. This is the last entry for Diary of an amateur vampirologist.

Sudden, I know, but it's been on my mind for a while. It's been a good run, but I feel it's time to move on. I'm proud of what I've achieved with it. I'm proud of the readership and followers I've accrued since kicking it off. You guys honour me with your presence.

I've had the privledge of contributing guest blogs, elsewhere. One for Reading with bite; two for VampChix (this one and this one). Niels mentioned my blog in a paper he presented to the 2009 Vienna vampire conference. Considering the influence he's had on my online writings, not to mention the respect I hold his work, that was incredibly flattering.

Another incredible honour, was the blog's inclusion on Carrie Carolin's 'Best of the Dark Side: 13 great vampire blogs'. Even more so, as we had never been acquainted before!

While writing thing thing, I also joined a vampire 'club' for the first time: the Transylvanian Society of Dracula (I'm still a member). The first article I've ever had published (in print form), was for their newsletter, The Borgo Post.

How about a round for my 'Q & A' participants? Niels K. Petersen, Martin V. Riccardo, Bruce A. McClelland and Thomas J. Garza. They were all great. I didn't know what to expect from their answers, but each and everyone was insightful, open and interesting. Great work, guys!

I've also enjoyed the interaction with my commentators. Our 'discussions' often prompted elaboration and exploration via blog entries. Erwin tipped me off on the source of a so-called 'vampire' picture; I consoled Angela Cameron, after she felt the vampire thing was 'overdone'; I vindicated Elizabeth Miller; and Jonathan forced me to re-examine my conclusions on Peter Haining's source for the nosferatu.

Meanwhile, bshistorian triggered a search for the 'first' vampire and another one for the vampire of Croglin Grange. In doing so, I discovered a coupla pre-Hare sources. I also dealt with a commentator who was kinda pissed off in the way I 'dismissed' Theresa Bane's Actual factual, Dracula: a compendium of vampires (2007). Bane, herself, wasn't too pleased, either. Understandable, but I had my reasons. That said, I certainly respect her work. On a lighter note, Fra Moretta directed my attention to a modern manifestation of the vampire belief.

It's also been interesting seeing what draws readers to this blog. I had no idea my discussion on so-called antique vampire killing kits would be so popular. Honestly. I'd also like to think those who've found my writings on the FVZA, specifically their fake books, have now 'seen the light'. Rest assured, it's not a factual resource, guys.

A lot of others have been lured to the revelation that Johann Ludwig Tieck wasn't the author of 'Wake not the dead', despite popular attribution. I was surprised to find that out, too. Oh, and I'm still amused that others are drawn here by, well, searches for explicit entertainment relating to a certain, popular saga. You know the one.

Well, all good things, as they say, must come to an end. Here's the final stop. Once again, I'd like to thank everyone for reading, for commenting and participating on this blog. I've learned that having your own blog's a great networker, scores you free merch (thanks again, Justin!)—and a lotta spam and requests to review things—as well as great interaction via comments. Ok, not all comments (I'm looking at you, Melody!), but most.

For those worried about all this stuff 'disappearing': don't. I'm not shutting this blog down, but I am closing off comments. You can still wend your way through the goodies inside, but there'll be no more entries here.

I hope you've been enlightened, entertained and, most importantly, inspired in your quest to 'get' vampires. I've pointed you in some pretty good directions, and they've been pointed right back at me! I also hope you'll see that studying the undead doesn't need to be a stuffy pursuit. It can be fun! This is Anthony Hogg, amateur vampirologist, signing off.

******************************

But not for good...

Q & A with Thomas J. Garza

2011-09-19T14:48:00.006+10:00

After a discussion with one of Thomas J. Garza's students (he teaches 'The vampire in Slavic cultures' at the University of Texas at Astin), I decided to contact the man, himself, for an interview.

I've briefly covered some of his writings found on the 'net and one of them, in particular (see the question on xenophobia), stood out to me. I've also been impressed by his devotion to the Slavic vampire, following in the footsteps of Jan L. Perkowski and Bruce A. McClelland.

Thomas J. Garza in 'an appropriately bizarre photo from a newspaper article a couple of years ago'*

I sent a request for an interview† and after he agreed‡, sent a long a bunch of questions.§ To his credit, he didn't shy away from the hard stuff, as his responses reveal.‖ Without further ado, heeeeeeeere's Garza!

Anthony Hogg: You have an impressive proficiency with Slavic languages, so how'd you go from that to teaching a course on vampires? Is your vampire course 'bait' for students to delve deeper into Slavic language and culture?

Thomas J. Garza: My interest in vampires certainly goes back to watching -- and loving -- the old Tod Browning's "Dracula" back in the '60s. But it was my work in Slavic languages that took me to the Foreign Service Institute in the late '80s after finishing my doctorate at Harvard. While working with the FSI, I was working in Hungary in the summer of 1988, retraining Hungarian teachers of Russian to teach English (anticipating the political changes there). As my birthday fell on a national holiday, St. Stephen's Day, some colleagues suggested that we drive up to the Romanian border and into Dracula country. Back then, the roads in Sighisoara were terrible, and the final leg of the trip -- up the ravine to the castle remains -- had to be be donkey. But the trip was worth it, and the affect of standing in the ruins was incredible, a kind of transformative experience of being in such a place, as with Stonehenge or Machu Pichu. I distinctly remember thinking then that when I returned to teaching, I would use this "hook" of the vampire story to get students interested in this part of the world. So, in 1997, a year after getting tenured at the university of Texas, I offered the vampire course for the first time. I certainly use the the theme of the vampire as "bait," as you say, to get them into the course that covers the history, geography, religion, literature, and film of the Slavic world, but significantly, it is that same hook that keeps them interested, I think, throughout the semester! I always have a sizable quotient of students who go on to take a Slavic language or culture course after the vampire class, and that's very rewarding.

AH: Speaking of Slavic roots - from a mythic/folkloric perspective - what's your take on the 'universal' vampire? Do you believe vampires are found across the globe, or are they a local, Slavic revenant with unique attributes?

TJG: Vampires, in my experience, are absolutely a global phenomenon, from Asia to Europe, across Africa, and throughout the Americas. The story may vary in details, modes, and/or substance, but there is a "universal" core of the story -- at least in the West: the vampire is creature that has returned from the dead (a revenant), and who takes sustenance from a host, who in the process is weakened or killed by it. Slavic vampires have their own characteristics, which vary from Slavic region to another. In the Balkans, for example, vampires and werewolves began in the lore as rather similar entities, and evolved historically into enemies. In Russian, the werewolf stories were very rare, and the vampire has always taken center stage. S/He is characterized not only as a blood drinker, but also since the nineteenth century as a "contagion," capable of spreading the vampire "disease" to an entire village or community.

AH: You've said, 'As long as we can tap into our xenophobia, then we get into the kind of vampires that make us squeal and jump.' Why is xenophobia essential for this process? Does this process still have a 'place' in our postmodern age?

TJG: It may not be essential, but xenophobia certainly insures that human beings are predisposed to being afraid of anything that's different from us: The Other. In spite of globalization and a seemingly ever-shrinking world, we are nonetheless terribly complacent in our own lives and tend to be very suspicious of non-conforminty -- especially when it's in the form of another culture. Postmodernism has actually given use a better and more effective lexicon to talk about Othering, especially in the context of the post-colonial breakup of empires. So, while a blood drinking creature will, indeed, always be inherently frightening, s/he takes on a special horror when we think don't understand it. That's why the vampires in, say, 30 Days of Night are particularly horrific; they are tribal, pack creatures, who speak a very different language, whereas some the new "integrated" vampires in Twilight, for example, might make some of squeal for very different reasons. I find the vampires and story in "True Blood" particularly interesting in this regard because, although they are also "modern" vampires in a "modern" setting, they have a "back story" -- a history -- that places them in the larger vampire mythos; and in a place like Bon Temps, which is inherently "créolité," difference is more likely to be accepted, and "coming out of the coffin" is possible.

AH: What other elements make vampires scary? Why should we revert to the 'scary' type at all?

TJG: Besides being creature that we don't understand, I think the best vampires in literature and film fall squarely into the age old "thing-that-go-bump-in-the-night" category. Here I mean the element of the unexpected or the uncanny that makes our blood run cold and the hair on the back of our necks stand up. In the original Murnau Nosferatu, it's the anticipation of the arrival of the monster, epitomized by mere shadow of his hand creeping along wall and the accompaniment of live music intensifying our horror; or in Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, it might be the entrance of Dracula into Mina's room as mist, and then moving under her bedclothes while she sleeps, and waiting for her to notice that she is no longer alone; or the vampire Armand in Interview with the Vampire simply running his finger through the flame of a candle -- unaffected. Scary doesn't always (often?) involve blood and guts. I think the vampire in lit and film has historically presented us with a much more complex creature of horror than, say, Freddy, Pinhead, or Chucky, and thus can be much more subtle and effective in the delivery of horror.

AH: I've got your 2010 book, The vampire in Slavic culture on my to-get list, but could you tell us...why is it so expensive? Its publisher, Cognella, is selling it for $129.95 and Amazon, $169.95.

TJG: Aurgh! Yes, I would also like the book more accessible and I know the price is high. It is, though, a compilation and as such requires that the publishers acquire the rights and clearances to use all of the texts, the prints, and the lyrics that are included in the book. I had hoped that the price could be kept under $100, but after I added the Russian songs to the volume, it went over. I'm hoping that as more of the texts that I've included in the book become readily available digitally, the price will go down accordingly. Sorry.

AH: A student of yours and I have been discussion on The vampire in Slavic culture's edition statements and we're coming up with some contradictory results. There seems to be more than one. Are there other editions of the book?

TJG: There have been two: the original is through University Readers in 2009, and an updated, slightly expanded version by Cognella (a subsidiary of University) came out in 2010.

AH: Which works/authors have influenced your writings on the undead. Which would you recommend as essential reading?

TJG: Certainly my Slavic-centric focus on the vampire story has been greatly influenced by the works of Prof. Jan Perkowski, who teaches a vampire course at the University of Virginia, and originally taught that course here at the University of Texas back in the 1970s. From the nineteeth century, I'm particularly fond of the works of AK Tolstoy (a relative of Leo Tolstoy), including the stories "The Family of the Wurdalaks," and "The Vampire." Especially the latter embraces the specifics of the Slavic vampire wonderfully, and was made into a very slick, dark film in Russia in 1991 called Blood Drinkers. But my take on the contemporary vampire is very strongly influenced by the Russian/Ukrainian writer Sergei Lukyanenko, who authored the Watch series (Night Watch, Day Watch, Evening Watch, and Last Watch) in the late 1990s and 2000s. All of these are now available in English translations. I think this series is very good, indeed, in not only bringing vampires into the new millennium, but in giving them a role in the greater historical saga of the battle of Good and Evil on Earth.

AH: The vampire in Slavic cultures is, essentially, a university reader. Considering what I've read from you so far, you clearly have some interesting things to say on the subject, yourself. Do you plan on writing your own work on the subject?

TJG: If only there were more hours in the day! I have done a couple of articles that talk about the contemporary Russian vampire in terms of Othering of the Chechens, Caucasians (people of the Caucasus), and Central Asians in Russia, but I would love to do something longer and more substantial in the area of mapping the vampire in Russia. Stay tuned; I promise that there's more to come!

I'd like to thank Prof. Garza for his participation, and forthright, insightful responses. His book, The vampire in Slavic cultures (2010), is available through Cognella and Amazon.

* Garza's caption ('Re: A brief interview?‏', Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:51:44 PM).

† 'A brief interview?', Thursday, 1 September 2011 7:53:15 AM.

‡ 'Re: A brief interview?‏', Thursday, 1 September 2011 8:46:50 AM.

§ 'Re: A brief interview?‏', Wednesday, 7 September 2011 5:07:58 AM.

‖'Re: A brief interview?‏', Wednesday, 14 September 2011 8:34:59 AM.

Croglin vampire gets around

2011-09-15T13:50:00.004+10:00

In the previous entry, I said, 'As it stands, Hare's recount of Fisher's tale is the original version' of the Croglin vampire tale. That's a reference to the version printed in the fourth volume of Augustus Hare's autobiography, The story of my life (1900). But, as it turns out, the story was doing the rounds before then...

As mentioned, Hare's biography is composed of material taken from his journals, letters, et. al. The Croglin vampire story, as told to him by Edward Fisher-Rowe, features in a journal entry dated 24 June 1874. If we take Hare on his word (his autobiography isn't composed of facsimiles), then the earliest-known version of the story still stands at 1874.

However, thanks to Google Books, I can tell you that the story was doing the rounds before Hare included it in The story of my life. So who was spreading it? None-other than Hare, himself. And I'll tell ya, he loved creeping people out with it. Here's how Clifford Harrison described Hare, his penchant for ghost stories, and the vampire tale:

Everybody who knows Augustus Hare–and everybody does know Augustus Hare!–knows how wonderfully he tells a ghost-story. He has a fine collection of ghosts. They are all labelled and certified with names, dates and references–the most authenticated and documented ghosts I know. A ghost-story gains greatly by dramatic telling. Written down, it loses some of its 'creepiness.' Augusutus Hare tells a story of a vampire which, in his hands, owes a good deal to the 'points of circumstance' with which he tells it. I have heard the tale also from a descendent of the possessors of Crogley [sic] Grange, in which house the grisly incident occurred, and the tale is undoubtedly full of curious and somewhat unanswerable questions (1892, p. 190–1).

A very frustrating reference, as it doesn't relate the particulars of the story, nor does it say who the 'descendant of the possessors of Crogley Grange [Croglin Grange]' was. But it does show that Hare wasn't the only one who knew about it. Nonetheless, it's great seeing a reference to the story published before 1900.

But the fun doesn't stop there. I've actually turned up an earlier reference to the story. Here's Andrew Lang, discussing contemporary vampire literature:

That work [J. Sheridan LeFanu's 'Carmilla'] will give you the peculiar sentiment of vampirism, will produce a gelid perspiration, and reduce the patient to a condition in which he will be afraid to look round the room. If, while in this mood, some one tells him Mr. Augustus Hare’s story of Crooglin [sic] Grange, his education in the practice and theory of vampires will be complete, and he will be a very proper and well qualified inmate of Earlswood Asylum (1885, p. 20).

The article was probably written in 1884, as the volume I consulted (Nov 1884-Oct 1885), doesn't do the best job indicating which articles are from which issues. It's also unfortunate that Lang's reference to the story is vaguer than Harrison's. He doesn't even say how he heard it. But it's possible another reference might be found somewhere amidst his prolific output.

It's pretty obvious Hare was a popular bloke and keen on the story, as I've found another reference to him telling it. While this reference was published in 1957, the author recalls it from his childhood: he was born in 1881. The author in question? E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax:

And I remember, but I think he usually came in either summer or autumn, Augustus Hare making all our flesh creep with his story of the vampire at Croglin Grange, which he could only tell when he wore a very much ribbed shirt, so that picking his shirt with his nail, he could represent the vampire picking the mortar from the window pane to get in (The Earl of Halifax 1957, p. 34).

Hare certainly got around, didn't he? Incidentally, E.F.L. Wood's father was Charles Wood, 2nd Viscount Halifax, of Lord Halifax's ghost book (1936) fame. Unfortunately, that book doesn't feature the Croglin vampire.

In the meantime, I've been delving into the Fishers. The only clue we have to when the story took place, is when the Fisher family moved to 'the south, to reside at Thorncombe near Guildford'. It was then leased to an unnamed family of two brothers and a sister, who Valentine Dyall named Michael, Edward and Amelia Cranswell. Edward Fisher (1832-1909) was born at Thorncombe, as was his father, Thomas Fisher (1790-1870). For now, that's where the trail ends.

However, F. Clive-Ross' local consultant, a Mrs. Parkin, told him that the story 'dates definitely from between 1680 and 1690', and also noted 'that in the deeds of Croglin Low Hall the name Croglin Grange was used until about 1720' (1963 p. 108). People familiar with Croglin Low Hall–a Grade II heritage listed building–and its layout will note it's a two storey house, while the house of Fisher's tale is a one storey. Clive-Ross has an answer for that: 'the house was raised by one storey, circa 1720' (p. 109), around the same time the window the vampire was supposed to have crept through, was blocked. Hmm...

In the meantime, here's an article on Edward. Specifically, his death. Quite a tragic figure.

References

Clive-Ross, F 1963, 'The Croglin vampire', Tomorrow, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 103–9.

The Earl of Halifax (EFL Wood) 1957, Fulness of days, Collins, London.

Harrison, C 1892, Stray records; or, personal and professional notes, vol. 1, Richard Bentley and Son, London.

Lang, A 1885, 'Some Japanese bogies', The Magazine of Art, vol. 8, pp. 15–20.

Heeding Summers

2011-09-14T15:10:00.009+10:00

I've been discussing the strong possibility that Valentine Dyall 'invented' the Cranswells of Croglin Vampire fame. Seems he did a little pinching from one of his sources, too.

As previously noted, there's no indication Dyall did any field work for 'Vampire of Croglin Hall' (1954). He said, 'The strange tale must be pieced together from the works of independent writers–notably Augustus Hare, in "Story of My Life"; Charles G. Harper in "Haunted Houses," and the Rev. Montague Summers in "The Vampire in Europe." (p. 99). These are the only sources he listed and none of them as as rife with 'detail' as he provided.

Hare's The story of my life, vol. 4 (1900) is the earliest known source of the tale, as told to him by Edward Fisher (1832-1909). Dyall doesn't cite a specific edition of Harper's book, but the first edition, Haunted houses: tales of the supernatural, with some account of hereditary curses and family legends (1907) starts off with a reproduction of Fisher's account from Hare (pp. 67–73) before concluding with Harper's observations:

It is to be added, from personal observation, that there is no place styled Croglin Grange. There are Croglin High Hall and Low Hall. Both are farm-houses, very like one another, and not in any particulars resembling the description given. Croglin Law Hall is probably the house indicated, but it is at least a mile distant from the church, which has been rebuilt. The churchyard contains no tomb which by any stretch of the imagination could be identified with that described by Mr. Hare (pp. 73–4).

Harper's sketch of Croglin Low Hall is sandwiched between pp. 72–3. Summers reproduced the sketch in his 1929 book, The vampire in Europe, which also serves as Dyall's final source. Once again, Fisher's account via Hare is reproduced (pp. 111–15). No Cranswells there. Of the case itself, Summers had this to say:

That a large number of cases of vampirism must be accounted certain only the most prejudiced will deny.

Even in many other relations which cannot be pressed in detail it seems beyond a doubt that the main facts are true whilst the accessories have been embellished for the sake of the narrative. Such a history is that of the vampire of Croglin Grange. Mr Charles G. Harper, who investigated the exact locality, assures me that Mr Augustus Hare was undoubtedly lavish in his colouring. Actually there is no place styled Croglin Grange. There are Croglin High Hall and Low Hall, the latter of which is probably the house indicated. Mr Harper adds: "But it is at least a mile distant from the church, which has been rebuilt. The churchyard contains no tomb which by any stretch of the imagination could be identified with that described by Mr. Hare." (p. xviii)

Despite these reservations, Summers believed the events described by Fisher actually took place: 'These discrepancies do not, of course, militate against the essential truth of the tale' (ibid). Interestingly, Dyall implies his own belief in the tale, but did so by ripping off Summers' comments: 'There are discrepancies in these three versions, but they do not necessarily militate against the essential truth' (my emphasis, 1954, p. 99). Aping Summers' comments about 'discrepancies' in the story took Summers' mention out of context: the discrepancies he was referring to, were the name and location of the house.

Dyall further injured his case by adding 'dates and names are uncertain, and beyond doubt details have been embellished for the sake of shudder and thrill, but to the fair-minded researcher the main facts are clear' (ibid). Not only did Dyall provide dates, anyway (which are inaccurate*), of the four sources–Hare, Harper, Summers and himself–he was the only one to name the tenants.** One must ask exactly which 'main facts' are left after such 'embellishments'!

But who was responsible for them? Which ones was Dyall alluding to? Harper and Summers followed Fisher-via-Hare's account quite closely. Their versions contain no embellishments. If their source, Hare, was indeed, 'lavish in his colouring', we have no earlier source to defer to. At least, none that Harper, Summers or Dyall mentioned. As it stands, Hare's recount of Fisher's tale is the original version. Meanwhile, Dyall's account opens with this:

March winds were howling dismally through the Cumberland hills and the dawn light was a feeble glow behind heavy cloud as Edward Cranswell, master of Croglin Hall***, and his younger brother Michael led their small party of farmers and landworkers into the cemetery.

Silently, that morning in 1876, they filed past the rows of tombstones–vague, shadowy figures in the eerie greyness, muffled in heavy topcoats, carrying flickering lanterns (p. 96).

Compare that with Hare, Harper and Summers' versions. In stealing Summers' 'militate against the essential truth of the tale' bit, Dyall should've paid closer attention to what Summers followed it up with:

but it should be borne in mind that a narrator who thus mingles imagination for effect's sake with fact incurs a serious responsibility. He gives a fine opening to the sceptic and of this every advantage fair and unfair will be taken (p. xviii).

Damn straight. It also turns out that Dyall's 'shudder and thrill' line was also taken from Summers, who continued: 'If a yarn is to be told for the shudder and thrill, well and good; let the ruddle be thick and slab. But write the rubric without ambiguity that this is a high romance to follow' (ibid). Loosely translated: if you're gonna make shit up, say so. But save it for a novel: don't mix it in with details of an existing case, otherwise, how are readers supposed to know which details are right and which ones are wrong? It leaves the door wide open for sceptics (like me) to wade in and slash away at the case's credibility.

Dyall really should've taken Summers' advice. In the meantime, it's possible that after all this, Dyall's 'Cranswells' could be vindicated, thanks to F. Clive-Ross' discussions with locals (*shakes fist at him!*). It's just that Dyall didn't bother mentioning where he got the name from, nor explicitly saying 'Hey guiz! I made it up! Lol!'

I'm lookin' into it.

As a side note, it's interesting that Summers didn't draw obvious parallels between the attack on 'Amelia Cranswell' (as Dyall dubbed her) and Flora Bannerworth in the 1847 penny dreadful, Varney the vampire. After all, both narratives feature an attack on a young lady in a bedroom; the vampire creeping in by picking away at the mortar in a window pane; the vampire entwining its victim's hair in its gnarled hand to expose the victim's neck for a bite...a victim who is also saved by her screams rousing the gentlemen of the house...

Summers was certainly familiar with Varney: he quoted the bloody scene (pp. 105–11) right before launching into the Croglin account. Oh, Monty!

* Dyall said the vampire was hunted down in 1876 (p. 96), adding 'the Cumberland phenomenon can be definitely placed in the years 1875-76' (p. 99), even though Hare's recount of Fisher's tale was included in a journal entry dated 24 June 1874.

** In fairness to Dyall, F. Clive-Ross' investigation, which was detailed in 'The Croglin vampire', Tomorrow, vol. 11, no. 2, 1963 (pp. 103–9) found that the tenants' surname, Cranswell, was known locally (p. 108). However, there's the distinct possibility that the name was known due to Dyall's version of events. See: 'Good timing!'

*** What happened to 'Croglin Grange'?

On criticism

2011-09-13T14:52:00.009+10:00

I'm still waiting for my copy of the critical edition to Montague Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin to arrive. In the meantime, I noticed Niels has already had a chance to review it.

He's been waiting for critical overviews of Summers' work for some time, so I can only imagine his heart skipped a beat when I forwarded him a link to the book, which was published in May this year with little-to-no fanfare. Hell, not even I knew about it: I stumbled across it on Amazon.

Long-time readers of Niels' blog, Magia Posthuma, will know he's a man with (deservedly) high expectations. If those aren't met, he's not afraid to say it. Therefore, my heart started sinking when I began reading the opening paragraph of his review:

’A Critical Edition’ to me is an edition of a book that sets the work into its context, enabling the reader to better understand the work's genesis and sources, to get a grasp of how the book was received, and to assess its influence and importance then as well as now. At the same time, the word ‘critical’ in my opinion implies a re-evaluation of the work in terms of contemporary knowledge and understanding. In the case of a work of non-fiction this would include correcting errors.

The rest of the review is, well, brutal. But in light of Niels' expectations, and the examples he gives, this approach is understandable. Personally-speaking, I'm happy with the fact that the book's a facsimile and its supplementary material, alone, makes it a bargain at $22.95.

That said, I shouldn't downplay the critical element of the book's title. By emphasising that aspect, it's automatically endowed itself with certain 'responsibilities' and its value as a critical work, hinges on its ability to uphold them. Until my copy arrives, I can only defer to Niels' commentary...which has not gone 'unseen'.

The book's editor, John Edgar Browning, has read Niels' book review. His response is a testament to his professionalism and integrity:

Thank you, Mr. Petersen, for your very thorough elucidation of the contents of this edition. Of course, the "argument" here--that is, the matter at hand--has less to do with the particular contents chosen for inclusion and more to do with how one arrives at the definition of a "critical edition," a subject which continues to spawn fairly lengthy debates among textual criticism scholars. The description you gave, while good, is but one of several approaches to producing a "critical edition," another being concerned primarily with cross-examining and cross-referencing all the major editions of a particular text (though this is generally typical of hand-written texts). The third and most prominent approach is the one we have chosen, similar in design to the quite popular "Norton Critical Editions" series--the major difference here being that we chose contextual documents which provided insight not only into the work itself but the author as well, since in this case the work in question, its writing, and the author himself are so closely intertwined, in our opinion.

The contributors and I made every attempt to give no false impression of what was contained in this critical edition, particularly since the contents were clearly stated on the back cover and in the description given for the book at various websites; if you didn’t have access to this information, then I am very sorry. I, for one, am reluctant to purchase any book whose front and back cover I have not studied thoroughly. In short, we did not promise anything which we did not deliver--nothing more, nothing less.

I appreciate your review. And, what is more, I encourage you to edit such an edition as the one you describe here.

Niels thanked him for his response, and said he intended to write more on the book. Now these are the kinds of 'reactions', I love: intelligence discourse born from criticism. Intellectual bickering, if you will. Heh heh. But, more importantly, it provides an insight into the respective writers' intent.

Criticism–good criticism, that is–is not purely born of malice, but genuine desire for quality in the respective field. If this is not met, then it's 'called out' to keep an author on their toes and to make clear that no substitutions for quality will be accepted. A good writer–aware of their flaws–will take it on the chin and 'fix it', next time 'round. Naturally, every writer and critic has an inherent criteria and intent for their respective writings, so it's important, for the sake of context, to make that clear in the subject they're dealing with or the work they're criticising.

The fact remains that as influential as Summers' works have been, they're not gospel. They're not the Unerring Final Say on Vampires. They deserve criticism. He made mistakes. He was a product of his beliefs and times; or, at least, a deliberate throwback to an earlier time. Summers certainly wasn't above having a go at his contemporaries, either. Here's what he had to say in The vampire: his kith and kin, about Dudley Wright's writings on the subject:

In English there is a little book entitled Vampires and Vampirism by Mr. Dudley Wright, which was first published in 1914; second edition (with additional matter), 1924. It may, of course, be said that this is not intended to be more than a popular and trifling collection and that one must not look for accuracy and research from the author of Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry. However that may be, it were not an easy task to find a more insipid olio than Vampires and Vampirism, of which the ingredients, so far as I am able to judge, are most palpably derived at second, and even at third hand.

But in deeming his own work 'the first serious study in English of the Vampire, and kindred traditions from a general, as well as from a theological and philosophical point of view', he set himself up with certain expectations, too. And by those, he should be held accountable.

Hugo Pecos, revealed!

2011-09-13T13:55:00.006+10:00

I stumbled across an interview in one of my recent purchases, which was conducted with the Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency Director, Hugo Pecos.

Bertena Varney's Lure of the vampire: a pop culture reference book of lists, websites, and "very telling" personal essays (2011) is very telling indeed, as it contains an 'Interview with Hugo Pecos creator of The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency' (pp. 116–18).

Varney provides an intro to the interview, stating, 'The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency is an alternative history site founded by Richard Dargon.' His connection to Pecos is made clear: 'Richard created the role of Hugo Pecos as a creative outlet for all the questions that he had in regards to what if vampires and zombies were real' (p. 116).

Varney describes his (actual) occupation as 'a paid writer with interests in dramatic writing, screenplays and, stage plays. He also has a background in biochemistry hence the love for science fiction' (p. 116). Which also perfectly explains his pseudo-scientific explanations for the undead, and why so many are duped by their 'plausibility'.

That's all from Varney's intro, but here's a word from the man himself: 'The best part of having an 85-year-old alter ego is that I don't have to make apologies for my poor web design skills!' (p. 117). I can't be mad at Dargon for the ruse. After all, he's ensured the FVZA site has enough 'tells' (including disclaimers) that the material featured there, is fictional.

What disappoints me, however, is the way his material is seeping into non-fictional narratives through writers who've made little-to-no-attempt to look beyond the site's warped version of history, fictional personages and books, and been dazzled by its 'scientific' explanations for vampirism. And most disturbingly, it's starting to appear in non-fiction vampire books by authors like Theresa Cheung and Charlotte Montague. And it's all so obviously fake. That's what I find most infuriating. Pecos/Dargon, somewhat diplomatically, says:

There has been an interesting set of reactions to the site. I've heard from would-be vampires and would-be hunters. I've heard some crackpot theories. One person even complained about his tax dollars going to waste funding such an agency (p. 117).

If you want to read more about the machinations behind the creation of Dr. Hugo Pecos and the FVZA, grab a copy of Varney's book.

In search of the Cranswells

2011-09-13T01:02:00.005+10:00

Despite Clive-Ross' vindication of the Cranswell family's existence, as covered in the previous entry, I'm still leaning towards the idea that they were 'created' by Valentine Dyall (1908-1985).

Clive-Ross cited Dyall's Unsolved mysteries (1954) as a source, conceding it 'offers much additional information [on the case], mostly without any stated authority, and unfortunately of such an unreliable nature as to be almost worthless.'

As of this writing, I don't have that book, but I do have the next best thing: Dyall's article, 'Vampire of Croglin Hall' for Fate (April 1954), pp. 96–104.*

So what makes me think Dyall conjured the Cranswells? For starters, he repeatedly gets the dates wrong. The earliest known source of the Croglin Vampire story is Augustus J.C. Hare's The story of my life, vol. 4 (London: George Allen, 1900). Hare recounted the story, as told by one Captain Fisher** in a journal entry for 24 June 1874. Yet in Dyall's version, the vampire is found one morning in March 1876 (pp. 96, 102). Impossible.

And this is no mere misprint. Dyall said that the 'Cumberland phenomenon can be definitely placed in the years 1875-76', noting that the attack occurred in 'the summer of 1875' (p. 99). In terms of leasing the house to the unfortunate Cranswells, Dyall claimed this occurred in 1873 (ibid). Yet, Fisher's version, as recounted by Hare, makes no such allusion.

Indeed, Dyall's version is rife with nuggets not found in any previous version of the story. For example, the names of the victims, i.e. the Cranswells, composed of brothers Michael and Edward, and their sister (the victim of the vampire's onslaughts) Amelia. But not only them, as we're also introduced to Jem Croswell, 'a young gamekeeper' (p. 97), one of the seekers of the vampire's tomb, who 'had fled' the scene 'half out of his mind!' (p. 98). Again, Fisher makes no mention of this. Neither does Dyall's sources.

And what of Dyall's sources? Thankfully he listed them: 'The strange tale must be pieced together from the works of independent writers–notably Augustus Hare, in "Story of My Life"; Charles G. Harper in "Haunted Houses," and the Rev. Montague Summers in "The Vampire in Europe." (p. 99). Unlike Clive-Ross, at no point did Dyall indicate he'd done any field research. This makes Clive-Ross' 'vindication', in that their names were 'known locally' as the Cranswells, all the more suspicious.

It gets better as Dyall slowly unravels the jumping point from his sources: 'There are discrepancies in these three versions, but they do not not necessarily militate against the essential truth: dates and names are uncertain, and beyond doubt details have been embellished for the sake of shudder and thrill, but to the fair-minded researcher the main facts are clear (my emphasis, p. 99).

It's hard to say–with absolute certainty–whether Dyall was being naive or taking the piss, especially as he was obviously one of the perpetrators of the embellishments. After all, if, indeed, 'names and dates' are uncertain, why did Dyall go out of his way to provide specific (incorrect) dates and where on earth did he gets those names from?

Without an honest-to-goodness lease document confirming that the family were the Cranswells (and, if you read Clive-Ross' article, you'll find that certain details in the story push the events back to the 17th century***), I think it's highly plausible that locals were relying on Dyall's version of the story (or recounts of it), and synthesised it with local legend. And, to me, that's how the Cranswells were 'known locally': names for the unnamed.

It seems few were familiar with Hare's version via Fisher. Even Dyall, who cites it, went completely off track with the dates–and the method of the vampire's demise. According to Fisher, the vampire was simply 'burnt' after its discovery. But in Dyall's version, the villagers 'drove a stake through its heart', too (p. 98). But not before a bullet is pried out from the vampire's leg, which Edward Cranswell recognises as 'one he had bought in Switzerland' (p. 104). Meanwhile, in the Fisher version, the participants of the hunt simply see 'the marks of a recent pistol-shot in the leg'. No one tries to pry it out.

* The article, in turn, was 'Reprinted from Everybody's Magazine' (p. 96). Unfortunately, the reprint provides no further publication details (issue, year).

** Captain Fisher can be positively identified as Edward Rowe Fisher-Rowe (1832–1909). Hare mentions that Fisher was 'engaged to be married to Victoria Liddell' (p. 201) in the 24 June 1874 entry and later mentions, 'Lady Victoria Liddell married Captain Edward Fisher, now Rowe' (p. 232). According to 'Final act of devotion', The Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld), 30 December 1909, p. 4, Fisher-Rowe met his death through poison.

*** However, as noted by Scott Rogo in 'Second thoughts on the vampire of Croglin Grange', Fate (June 1968), pp. 46–7, the vampire's attack on the sister bears an uncanny resemblance to the opening scene of Varney the vampyre (1847).

Good timing!

2011-09-12T13:18:00.005+10:00

I recently got into a discussion with one of my readers about the name of the family afflicted in the Croglin vampire case. There was a source I wanted to consult, to double-check my supposition that the 'Cranswell' name was an invention of Valentine Dyall.

That source arrived today. The source in question? F. Clive-Ross' 'The Croglin vampire', which was published in Tomorrow, vol. 11, no. 2 (1963), pp. 103–9. That article ain't easy to get, so I went ahead and ordered a copy of the journal.*

After discussing early sources for the tale, namely, Hare, Harper and Summers, Clive-Ross said the following about Dyall's contribution: 'A later writer, Valentine Dyall, in his book Unsolved Mysteries**, devotes a chapter to "The Croglin Hall Vampire," and offers much additional information, mostly without any stated authority, and unfortunately of such an unreliable nature as to be almost worthless' (p. 105).

However, Dyall's use of the Cranswell name is actually vindicated. According to Clive-Ross, who visited the area, 'It is interesting to note that the name of the brothers and their sister is still known locally, Cranswell, and it is also said that they were not local people' (p. 108). But Clive-Ross didn't disclose what their first names were, unlike Dyall.

The question is, why didn't Hare, Summers or Harper disclose their names? Were they ensuring the victim's anonymity? If so, why? Is it possible that the local tales were, at least in part, spurred on by the vampire's popularity? When Clive-Ross visited the local post office to find the way to Croglin Low Hall, the woman in charge asks him, "Are you looking for the vampire?" (p. 107). Is it possible Dyall's recount of the story actually tainted local legend? After all, he only says their names were 'known locally', not that there was any such record of their names. Indeed, Clive-Ross mentioned a variation on the legend:

Another tradition connected with the vampire involves Croglin Low Hall, and the two stories were generally repeated together. This story relates that at the time the tenants there had a three-year-old child. From being a happy, healthy child she became frightened, sickly and pale, and the parents noticed what they thought were rats teeth marks on her throat. After Miss Cranswell had been attacked new light was thrown on the child's plight, and the father was one of those who took part in the laying of the vampire (p. 108).

To confirm this thread, we need to go back to the original source, which was Augustus J.C. Hare's The story of my life, vol. 4 (London: George Allen, 1900), pp. 203–8. There is no mention of a child afflicted in this manner, the residents of the house are two brothers and their sister (the victim of the tale) and the vampire is despatched by 'all the tenants of Croglin Grange' by burning the vampire (p. 208).

Clive-Ross' article gives further background on the case, pushing it back further than the 1875 date it's commonly associated with ('Had the story really originated in 1875, as claimed by Mr. Dyall . . .' (p. 109). However, that's one myth I can bust. All you need to do is cast your eyes over to the top left-hand corner of the page:

See that date? 1874. Hare's book consists of reproduced journal entries, letters, etc. and Fisher's tale is recounted in the midst of his entry for 24 June 1874 entry (pp. 201–8). That doesn't mean the event took place that year, as Hare's source, Fisher, gives no clear date for which the events transpired. The main clue we have, is that the place was leased to the (unnamed) brothers and sister, after the Fisher family moved to 'the south, to reside at Thorncombe near Guildford' (p. 203).

Clive-Ross' article gives us a thirdhand source, 'Mrs Parkin tells me that she spoke with one of the Fisher family, who was born in the middle-eighteen-sixties, and that he told her he had known the vampire tale all his life, and originally heard it from his grandparents' (p. 108). But what was his version of the tale? Did it uphold Fisher's details? Was his version of the tale coloured by various recounts? Unfortunately, Clive-Ross doesn't say. We don't have that Fisher's name, and considering his birthdate, he'd be long-dead by now. As it stands, Hare's recount of Fisher's tale is the earliest known source of the legend, effectively serving as our default primary source.

That said, Clive-Ross' investigation has given us some fascinating details to work with, and says a lot about field research, including, 'Mrs. Parkin states that in the deeds of Croglin Low Hall the name Croglin Grange was used until about 1720' (p. 108). If you can get a hold of it, I highly recommend Clive-Ross' article to those interested in the Croglin Vampire case.

******************************

So, why 'Good timing!'? Well, a few hours ago, I went to check the mail - after already checking it this morning - to see if the mag had arrived. It was waiting for me in the letter box, so must've been delivered later in the day. Usually, I would take such items inside and carefully rip 'em open, but this time, I decided to open it in the front yard. While I was doing so, a post van drove up the driveway and a postie came out with an Amazon box. Yep, he handed me a box 'o books I'd been waiting on.

The funny thing about that is, I checked the tracking info for 'em, this morning, to see where they were. According to Amazon, they're 'in transit' and the 'latest event' gave an arrival scan for Carlstadt NJ, August 31, 2011 8:31:08 AM. To get my copy of Tomorrow and the Amazon box in that situation, was, to say the least, good timing.

In terms of what was in the box, let's take a look-see.

This particular Amazon spree was triggered after 'discovering' the critical edition of Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin. I don't see the point in ordering one book at a time from there, as separate shipping fees only add to the cost. One reason why I don't use eBay as much as I used to. That's one benefit Amazon has: I can order in bulk. You should see my wish lists.

Anyway, including Summers' book, I wound up ordering fourteen on August 29th. There was a bit of a religious undertone, this time 'round, inspired through reading of Susannah Clements' The vampire defanged (2011). I enjoy such takes, as they touch on my own spiritual background. On the flipside, there's also some skeptical and occultic works in the mix. Here's what arrived today:

Raven Kaldera, The ethical psychic vampire, 2nd edn, Ellhorn Press, Hubbardston, Mass., 2008. Price: $17.81. Dammit, I didn't realise this was a second edition. Gah. Gonna have to chase up the first one, too.

Bertena Varney, Lure of the vampire: a pop culture reference book of lists, websites, and "very telling" personal essays, The Author, Lexington, Ky., 2011. Price: $9.99.

Steve Wohlberg, The trouble with Twilight: why today's vampire craze is hazardous to your health, Destiny Image-3ABN Books, Shippensburg, Pa., 2010. Price: $10.19. Spiritual health, that is.

Joe Nickell, Real-life x-files: investigating the paranormal, The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., 2001. Price: $29.95. Bugger-all on vampires, but, going on Nickell's other stuff, should be an interesting insight into scientific paranormal investigation.

Joe Nickell, The mystery chronicles: more real-life x-files, The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., 2004. Price: $26.60. Same as above. Though I specifically got the Nickell books because he cites them in Tracking the man-beasts (2011).

Gary Hoppenstand & Ray B. Browne (eds), The Gothic world of Anne Rice, Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1996. Price: $21.95. An anthology cited in Clements' work. Should be an interesting insight into Ricean vampires.

Lady CG (Barbara Clarke), Practical Vampyrism for modern Vampyres: the first handbook for modern Vampyres, Lulu, 2005. Price: $29.74. Is it? I doubt it. I got this one for novelty value as much as an insight into the 'Scene'. Also, I don't think she says 'Vampyres' enough in the title. Vampyres, Vampyres, Vampyres.

Michelle Belanger, The vampire ritual book: the lost rites of the Sanguinarium, The Author, Lexington, Ky., 2003. Price: $19.95. A spell book, essentially. I don't intend on casting any, that's for sure, so mark this one up to novelty value and building on a collection of Belanger's other works. Oh, and isn't Lexington a popular place today! Wow. One main issue I'm finding with these self-published works (Varney, Lady CG, this one), is how hard it is to source their publication details. These books would be a nightmare for cataloguers and people wanting to cite them (like me). Traditionally, publication details go on the title page. Self-publishers take note.

Angela Grace, Dark angels revealed: from dark rogues to dark romantics, the secret lives of the most mysterious & mesmerizing vampires and fallen angels from Count Dracula to Edward Cullen, Fair Winds Press, Beverly, Mass., 2011. Price: $15.59. Dark, dark, dark, dark. That title, yikes. Obviously a populist book, but may provide some insights into the whole 'bad boy' appeal with vampires.

George Beahm, Bedazzled: a book about Stephenie Meyer and the Twilight phenomenon, Underwood Books, Calif., 2009. Price: $9.56. No, I haven't turned into a Twi-Hard, but I am fascinated as to why these books have caught on as much as they have. Beahm tends to ride the pop culture train. His other books of note relate to Stephen King and Harry Potter.

Beth Felker Jones, Touched by a vampire: discovering the hidden messages in the Twilight saga, Multnomah Books, Colorado Springs, Colo., 2009. Price: $11.07. For all the talk on teenage angst, there's an angle which shouldn't be forgotten: the stories are written by a devout Mormon housewife.

Kurt Bruner, The Twilight phenomenon: forbidden fruit or thirst-quenching fantasy?, Destiny Image, Shippensburg, Pa., 2009. Price: $6.00. It's interesting to see how many Christian writers have hopped on board the franchise, themselves, even if to warn against it - or uphold its supposed spiritual values. That's how mainstream Meyers has made vampires. It's almost unprecedented.

Still waiting on two more books, one of them, ironically, is the critical edition of Summers' work, which triggered off this spree in the first place.

* Ordered on August 26th, $9.99. Fortunately, a private seller had it for sale on Amazon.

** Another source I'm gonna have to chase up. Clive-Ross notes its publication details: 'Hutchinson, 1954' (p. 105, fn. 1).

Ludovico Fatinelli, exposed!

2011-09-08T13:08:00.011+10:00

I've noticed that I score a few hits to my blog, based on searches for this guy. Some readers might recognise him from the FVZA website, which should be setting off alarm bells.

According to the FVZA, Fatinelli was a Florentine scholar, who studied under Galileo Gallilei, and was tried by the Inquisition for refusing to retract the findings in his 1616 work, Treatise on vampires, in which he claimed that 'microscopic entities, not moral failures, that were the real source of vampirism.' That same year, he was burned at the stake on April 23rd in Florence's Piazza Signoria. Here's their picture of the unfortunate gentleman:

Or is it? Thanks to the assistance of TinEye, a 'reverse image search engine', I can tell that no, that ain't Ludovico. That's 'Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer', Giordano Bruno.* Here's his picture:

Bruno would've had great difficulty publishing his findings in 1616—and being burned, for that matter—considering he was dead at the time (d. 17 February 1600). Bruno was was burned at the stake for heretical views, however, it had nothing to do with examinations of vampire physiology.

Ok, so maybe the FVZA made a mistake. Maybe they got their pictures mixed up. Sure, that's obviously Bruno, but what about the other pictures they used? Like the painting of his trial, for instance?

Pretty hard to make out any faces in that pic, considering how small it is. But that's probably because if you did see a larger image, you'd find that it actually depicts the trial of Fatinelli's 'mentor', Galileo Galilei.

Maybe Fatinelli was in the docks, giving moral support? Nope. The trial took place in 1633, seventeen years after Fatinelli's 'death'. Unlike Bruno, Galilei was spared the stake. He died on 8 January 1642 of heart complications.

There's one more picture from Fatinelli's FVZA page. It depicts his execution, and true to Fatinelli's fate, the person is being burned at a stake. Hell, it's even taking place at Florence's Piazza Signoria! I'd recognise it anywhere! Surely, that's gotta be him!

'Fraid not. Sure that's Florence's Piazza della Signoria, but the dude barbecuing on the stake isn't Fatinelli. It's Girolamo Savonarola, 'an Italian Dominican friar, Scholastic'.

He wasn't even Fatinelli's contemporary: Savonarola was executed on 23 May 1498. In case you still believe Fatinelli's backstory, despite the FVZA's recourse to falsely captioning pictures of him, here's a note on the cultural significance of Fatinelli's name from Ezechiele Toti: 'indeed, ludovico fatinelli doesn't exist , the italian form is lodovico and not ludovico that's spanish, fatinelli is a surname from Lucca, but not Florence'.

Need more proof? How about this from the site's homepage: 'Please note: This site is for entertainment purposes only. Some material is not suitable for children or young teenagers. See the Disclaimer below for more information.' What does the disclaimer say? This:

This site is fictional and is for entertainment purposes only. We are not affiliated with the U.S. Government in any way. Under no circumstances are you to harm anyone based on information from this site.

private company categorized under Motion Picture Producers and Studios. Our records show it was established in 2001 and incorporated in New Mexico. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $99,000 and employs a staff of approximately 1.

What a coincidence! Founded in the same year the FVZA site went online! Dango's owner and president is Laurie Volkin, a freelance editor and writer, 'specializing in medical writing and communications.' Medical writing, like, say, the 'scientific' explanations for vampire physiology in the FVZA pages? The same person with a Bachelor's Degree in Communications/Liberal Arts? I'll let you do the math.

So, there's no need to try and find a copy of Fatinelli's treatise, as neither he, nor the book exists. If you're interested in tracking pre-20th century vampire works, I suggest using Melinda K. Haye's 'Vampiri Europeana: a chronological listing' as a springboard.

* To give credit where it's due, one of my readers, Ezechiele Toti, had previously noted that Fatinelli's portrait was actually Bruno's.

Let's get political

2011-09-08T10:43:00.007+10:00

The vampire-as-political metaphor is nothing new. But did you know mainstream interest in vampires might say something about which type of government is in power?

Well, American political party, anyway. S Peter Davis wrote this compelling piece on '6 mind-blowing ways zombies and vampires explain America.' The article is based on data collated from Mr. Science Show, in which a comparison table is drawn up between Republican and Democratic presidencies and the popularity of vampire and zombie films during those interims.

The table kicks off with the presidency of Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1953. Davis's caption reads, 'And apparently all our apocalypses started with Eisenhower', as the article notes two zombie flicks released that year.

That's an interesting comment, because the following year, a novel was released which would have a significant impact on fictional vampire and zombie portrayals. The novel in question? Richard Matheson's I am legend (1954), which deals with an apocalyptic vampire plague. How significant was it? Put it this way: if it wasn't for that book, the marauding, flesh-eating zombies you know and love, would not exist.

As I've mentioned before, the modern zombie genre stems from George Romero's 1968 film, Night of the living dead, which is funny, because his creatures weren't intended to be zombies in the first place. Indeed, in the movie, they're called 'ghouls', a name derived from Arabic foklore, for a demon that feasts on the flesh of the dead. The reason they weren't called zombies, is because zombies, traditionally-speaking, aren't undead, flesh-eating, infecting corpses. They're undead slave labourers, controlled by a bokor; a sorcerer. Rather than shooting them in the head, feeding them salt will send 'em back to the grave.

That's why (actual) zombie flicks released before 1968 stick to the zombie-as-slave trope. Take Victor Halperin's White zombie (1932), Jacques Tourneur's I walked with a zombie (1943) and John Gilling's The plague of the zombies (1966). Occasionally, modern representations of the sorcerer (read: mad scientist) were used, as in Jerry Warren's Teenage zombies (1959). Even the cannibalistic overtones in Del Tenney's I eat your skin (1964) are a misnomer: no skin is eaten during the movie.

Somewhere along the line, the 'ghouls' of Romero's flick were morphed into 'zombies', extant Voodoo lore to the contrary. Zombies didn't infect others with their 'curse', a major trope associated with modern zombie flicks. That's a vampire trope, i.e. one featured in Romero's 'inspiration', I am legend. I use quotation marks for 'inspiration', because Romero, himself, admits that he did a little more than simply be 'inspired' by Matheson's novel: 'Then I read I Am Legend and adapted - well, actually ripped off! - the first half. And made it into Night Of The Living dead.'

Anyway, back to the political stuff. I was surprised to see the following image appear in Davis's article:

I wasn't surprised with the startling imagery of Obama as a vampire (not the first time I've seen that), but because the picture has been shamelessly 'vampirised' (heh heh) from Alex Ross's famous cover for The Village Voice:

Ross's image was used to illustrate Rick Perlstein's article, 'The end of democracy: losing America's birthright, the George Bush way.' What we have here is a political tool called zoomorphism. Its purpose is highlighted by Joël Kotek: 'To abuse one's adversaries, one dehumanizes them by turning them into animals.'* Funnily enough, this practice has been deployed against me, during my investigations in the Highgate vampire case.

* Kotek includes vampires in this category: 'The two other predominant anti-Semitic zoomorphic motifs are the blood-thirsty vampire and the octopus.'

A bastard of a book to get

2011-09-07T14:15:00.009+10:00

Although I haven't mentioned, one book I've been trying to locate for my collection is Tony Faivre's Les vampires: essai historique, critique et littéraire (1962). Hasn't been easy, but my copy arrived today.

I'll tell ya, it's not an easy book to find. Try and find it on sale. Go on. See how many copies you stumble across. If you're lucky, one might fleetingly pop up on eBay. Even Niels mentions the difficulty in tracing a copy.

I found my copy in an obvious source, Amazon.fr*, but it's not like it's always there. Indeed, I'd already tried that site before. Many times. Fortunately, a private seller had since listed a copy for EUR 44,99 (shipping: EUR 10,99). Snap.

But before the copy arrived, I was stressing out. After all, I'd ordered it on August 3rd. By the 25th, the other books I'd ordered in the same 'hit'** had arrived. That same day, I received an e-mail notification to rate the sale. So...where was my damn book? Had it been lost in transit? Was the seller yanking my chain? A fake? Had they shipped it all? Were my efforts to secure a copy, cursed? All those thoughts raced through my head as I was daily greeted by a packageless letterbox. I was so close, so very close to contacting the seller today. No more delayed delivery blues.

At this point, you might be asking, what's the deal about this book? Why so keen to get it? And to that, I'll say it's a very important book in the field. Firstly, it was published at a time where vampire books were quite rare. The only other major works at the time were Roland Villeneuve's Loup-garou et vampires (1960), Ornella Volta and Valerio Riva's anthology I vampiri tra noi (1960), Emilio de' Rossignoli's Io credo nei vampiri (1961) and Volta's Le vampire (1962).

Volta's 1962 book, as well as Faivre's kicked off serious study of the subject. However, Faivre's contribution is given greater acknowledgement. How important was it? Massimo Introvigne, president of the Transylvanian Society of Dracula's Italian chapter, calls him the 'father of contemporary vampire studies.' High praise, indeed.

Antoine 'Tony' Faivre is still kickin', too. He has made other contributions to vampire scholarship, including an essay for Les vampires: Colloque de Cerisy (1993), but certainly nothing as significant as his 1962 book. He briefly discusses writing it in this interview.

If you're keen on scoring your own copy, I can tell you there's three copies available on PrinceMinister; as long as you know how to navigate yourself around a French website.

* Which I ordered during one of my patented Amazonian spending sprees. I also purchased Michaël [Michael] Ranft's De Masticatione mortuorum in tumulis: de la mastication des morts dans leurs tombeaux 1728 (EUR 7,54) and Alain Pozzuoli's La bible Dracula: dictionnaire du vampire (EUR 20,62). But the book that actually triggered the spree was Daniela Soloviova-Horville's Les vampires: du folklore slave à la littérature occidentale (EUR 30,17). Finding Faivre's book was sweet serendipity.

** See above.

Facsimile or web version?

2011-09-05T11:54:00.007+10:00

I've been wondering whether the critical edition of Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin used web material as its source or referred to the original text. So, I went straight to the source: the book's editor, John Edgar Browning.

I contacted John on September 1, asking 'Did you use Summers' original book or did you use the online version of kith?' He responded the same day, 'Which would be better: That I used the online version; or, a facsimile of the first ed.?'

That sounded ominous, until I read his comments on my Facebook status update about the book (August 29 at 9:20am). One of my Facebook friends, Kyle, complained about the book being expensive (September 1 at 1:44pm), to which John added:

The new edition offers a complete, identical facsimile of the 1928 ed., front and back mater by renown vampire and Summers scholars, every known pic of Summers and then some, dozens of other contextual images, Greek and Latin translations for all those pesky passages, facsimiles of important correspondence between Summers, Wheatley, Censors Board, etc., and MORE. You can find other, cheaper editions, but they're usually OCRs cum errors, or facsimiles that offer no additional materials $22.95 is a steal, I think (Friday at 1:07am).

What a relief! Also, dayum! Couldn't agree more. All that for US$22.95. Bargain. My copy of the book's yet to arrive, but John did send me a brief pdf preview of the book's contents on Friday. While only a few pages long, I was very impressed with what I saw. For starters, it contained an image of Summers which I'd never seen before:

It also features contemporary reviews of the book, as well as Summers' correspondence...with Dennis Wheatley, no less. We're also treated to a chronology of events in the mysterious Summers' life. As John noted (September 1 at 7:49am), I'm not the only person who's blogged about the book.

I had a feeling I knew who he was referring to, and it was confirmed when I saw his link to the FoBSM blog. I noticed they'd pilfered some content from my blog entry (the parts showing which contributor wrote what). On the plus side, it's good to see the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester take time out from their usual practice—cyber-bullying Manchester's critics—in order to plug the book.

It's also refreshing to see something not written by Manchester or Peter Underwood (Life Member of Manchester's Vampire Research Society) appear on their blog. Such is the esteem with which Summers is held by the Bishop and his friends. Of course, considering that Manchester views himself as something akin to a reincarnation of the late cleric, it's not all that surprising.

Anyway, I also took the opportunity to ask John whether there'd be a critical edition of Summers' follow-up vampire book, The vampire in Europe (1929). On Friday, he told me the book had 'been contracted and is expected out late this year/early next year'. Hell yeah.

Can't wait to get my copy. If you're interested in scoring your own, it's available through Amazon.

Discussion of dates and an interesting find

2011-08-29T05:07:00.010+10:00

Props to funkyjane, for tipping me off on lower prices for Thomas J. Garza's The vampire in Slavic cultures. After discussing her comment, I'll also reveal an interesting find I unearthed on Amazon.

Ms. Jane informed me of a 2010 edition of his book, which is for sale via the publisher's website. At the moment, the going rate for this book, on Amazon, is $162.95, which means it's actually increased in price since it was published in 2009. As it that wasn't exorbitant enough, check out the book's used prices.

The book available from the publisher's webiste, however, is not a new edition, but I can see why Ms. Jane thought it was.

As noted, the book was published on 20 July 2009, going by Amazon's 'Publisher' info. However, the book's copyright date, is 2010 (that is viewable in the pdf free preview I downloaded in 2009, as well as the [same] version available now). If you didn't know the book was published in 2009, you'd take the copyright date as the date of publication.

And here's where it gets murky.

The copyright date that appears in books is not necessarily the year the book was published. For example, the third edition of J. Gordon Melton's The vampire book: the encyclopedia of the undead is listed as being published on 1 September 2010 and it was certainly available for purchase last year. However, if you check its copyright date, it'll say '2011'.

Same principle applies to Brad Steiger's Real vampires, night stalkers, and other creatures from the darkside. Its publication date is listed as 1 September 2009, yet it features a 2010 copyright date. I wound up contacting the book's publisher about this 'discrepancy' and was told 'in publishing, the copyright year generally starts in September, which is when Real Vampire [sic] was published'. Note 'generally'. That also probably variates from country to country.

That, of course, leaves us with a frustrating riddle: which year is the 'right' one? The copyright year of the year of publication? That depends on the style guide you consult.

In terms of citation, this research guide, which breaks down the Modern Language Association style, mentions 'For a book, use the copyright year as the date of publication, e.g.: 2005, not ©2005 or Copyright 2005, i.e. do not draw the symbol © for copyright, or add the word Copyright in front of the year.' Other style guides may have a different take, or none at all. Always make sure you use the most current version.

It also depends on the context you're using the year. For example, a book could (I would think) have its publication date mentioned in-text, while a citation for it using the copyright date, would (hypothetically) be ok.

What matters is consistency, which, unfortunately, I haven't totally engaged in on here, as I occasionally alternate between a book's copyright date and publication date, when discussing it. Plus, the matter is further hindered by how much insight the researcher has into the book's publication date.

After all, if we're relying on the book, itself, how do we know what its exact publication date was, if the only info we have on hand is the copyright date? Should we start checking the publication dates of all the books we consult? Tricky stuff. I might delve into this issue at a later time.

******************************

In other news, how the hell did I miss this? While trawling through Amazon to write this entry, I stumbled across a critical edition of Montague Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin. 'Included in this critical edition are the authoritative text, rare contextual and source materials, correspondence, illustrations, as well as Greek and Latin translations. A biographical note and chronology are also included.'

Oh, hell yes! Into my shopping cart you go!

Check out the list of people involved in its creation: edited by John Edgar Browning (Draculas, vampires, and other undead forms: essays on gender, race, and culture, 2009), an introduction by Rosemary Ellen Guiley (Vampires among us, 1991; The complete vampire companion, 1994; The encyclopedia of vampires, werewolves, and other monsters, 2004/2011; Vampires, 2008), an afterword by Carol A. Senf (The vampire in nineteenth century English literature, 1988) and a foreword by J. Gordon Melton (The vampire book: the encyclopedia of the undead, 1994/1999/2011). What a line-up!

Fingers crossed they take on Summers' companion tome, The vampire in Europe (1929) next.

Also, I hope they haven't relied on the online version of The vampire: his kith and kin. There have been many reprints of that book, which stem from Bruno J. Hare's Internet Sacred Text Archive (ISTA) version.

The problem is, some of the text has been deliberately altered. You can tell which publishers have copy-n-pasted their reprints from ISTA (or other sites, which, in turn, have relied on the ISTA version), by seeing if they've included the following entry in Summers' bibliography: 'ERAH, J. Onurb. Key to Vampyrology, Witchcrafte & Dæmonologie for Guidance of ye Slayers. The Watchers' Society, Cambridge, 1751.'

The entry is not featured in the original Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. edition (1928), because Key to vampyrology doesn't exist. The entry was fabricated by transcriber, Bruno J. Hare (Erah, J. Onurb), to undermine copyists.

Slobbo cops a staking

2011-08-18T04:28:00.009+10:00

Props to Fra Moretta for sending along a news item concerning a modern-day manifestation of the vampire belief.

Many might of you might recall Serbia and Yugoslavia's former president, Slobodan Milošević (1941-2006) and his, uh, let's say, unsavory reputation. He died of a heart attack while on trial for war crimes. But in 2007, he received a heart attack of a different kind:

Serbian vampire hunters have acted to prevent the very remote possibility that former dictator Slobodan Milosevic might stage a come-back - by driving a three-foot stake through his heart.

A few interesting items of note. Firstly, the hunters used the same length of stake that Arthur Holmwood does on Lucy Westenra in Dracula (1897). Yeah, that was a three footer, too. Second, as I've pointed out before, Serbia is the vampire's heartland. Third, they tried to drive a stake through his heart. In 2007. Yikes.

Technically speaking, Miroslav Milosevic (no relation) drove the stake through Slobodan's grave. Not sure whether it 'hit the spot'. I'm sure he had good intentions. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the gesture was a bizarre political protest - by a member of the Resistance from Pozarevac, no less - or whether he genuinely believed in the stake's purpose in accordance with vampire tradition. But interestingly enough, impaling the a vampire's grave to prevent it rising is founded in tradition, as is the choice of hawthorn for the stake...

Update: ok, so I was right about the 'political protest' angle. Tanja, a contributor on a JREFF thread dedicated to the news story, exposed it with her translation of a Bosnian news source. Miroslav was indeed making a (ahem) point. I love the local constabulary's reaction to Miroslav's intent to stake the Slobmeister. It's a pisser.

A brush with FATE

2011-08-18T02:45:00.006+10:00

Yesterday, I received photocopies of a bunch of articles I'd ordered from popular paranormal mag, Fate. Let's take a look at my swag.

That didn't quite sound right. Anyway, I'm interested in various perspectives on vampirism. But one that particularly fascinates me (apart from folklore), is the paranormalist viewpoint.

I was able to track down several of the articles thanks to citations in Martin V. Riccardo's Vampires unearthed: the complete multi-media vampire and Dracula bibliography (1983). I can't emphasise the importance of such bibliographies to research. Without further ado, here's what I scored:

Shay, VB 1949, 'James Brown, vampire', November, p. 59.

Berger, S 1951, 'Do vampires exist?', November–December, pp. 79–82.

Dyall, V 1954, 'Vampire of Croglin Hall', April, pp. 96–104.

Hoeller, SA 1963, 'The lady was a vampire', June, pp. 57–63.

Heiman, L 1968, 'Meet the real Count Dracula', March, pp. 53–60.

Rogo, S 1968, 'Second thoughts on the vampire of Croglin Grange', June, pp. 44–8.

Rogo, S 1968, 'In-depth analysis of the vampire legend', September, pp. 70–77.

Santore, V 1977, 'The vengeful succubus', September, pp. 43–6.

Riccardo, MV 1978, 'The persistent vampire', July, pp. 74–81.

Thompson, PB 1985, 'The Highgate vampire', May, pp. 74–80.*

'Scientist says no to vampire theory' 1986, January, p. 73.

Guiley, RE 1993, 'Real vampires', February, pp. 48–60.

Riccardo, MV 1993, 'Vampires–an unearthly reality', February, pp. 61–70.

Bjorling, J, 1996, 'A walk on the dark side', February, pp. 44–7.

Karagiannis, K 1996, 'Psychic vampires', May, pp. 40–3.

Miller, C 1997, 'The vampire prioress at Robin Hood’s grave', July, pp. 42–5.

D’Agostino, T 2001, 'Rhode Island: the vampire capital of America', October, pp. 19–21.

Guiley, RE 2004, 'Vampires sorcerers and witches', November, pp. 40–7.

Belanger, M 2005, 'The lord of vampires', January, pp. 24–30.

Redfern, N 2005, 'In search of the chupacabras', January, pp. 31–7.

Wood, DJ 2007, 'Vampires and disease: the bloodsucking corpse of English tradition', December, pp. 28–34.

Wood, DJ 2008, 'The White Death of New England', January, pp. 27–33.

There's a couple which eluded me, namely, Ivor J. Brown's 'The unquiet grave of the vampire' (January 1967) and Guiley, Rosemary Ellen Guiley's 'Vampires from outer space' (2005 FATE UFO Special). The customer service rep suggested I might've cited them incorrectly**, so I'll be on the watch for those. Also, if any readers think I've missed any of Fate's vampire articles, drop me a line.

If you're interested in any of the articles, yourself, I'll warn you that they're US$5 a pop (plus postage). They gave me an exception on postage, though, on account of how many of the buggers I ordered. Very nice of 'em. Speaking of nice, their customer service was exemplary. Props goes to Christine for responding promptly and always in a cheerful and helpful manner. Brilliant. So, if you're interested in ordering any, pop over to their online store. You can buy entire issues. I was just after specific articles.

Now, some brief notes on the articles. I'm wondering if V.B. Shay's 'James Brown, vampire' (November 1949) was an inspiration for Robert Damon Schneck's The president's vampire: strange-but-true tales of the United States of America (2005). Can any readers confirm that? Haven't yet obtained a copy of the book, meself. Just curious. If I'm not mistaken, that book primarily deals with the James Brown case (no, not that one).

I've got a feeling that Valentine Dyall's 'Vampire of Croglin Hall' (April 1954) was the originator of the names of the family (Michael, Edward and Amelia Cranswell) afflicted by the Croglin vampire. After all, the family is unnamed in Augustus Hare's original recount (Story of my life, vol. 4, 1900), nor are their names mentioned in Dyall's other sources, Charles G. Harper (Haunted houses***) and Montague Summers (The vampire in Europe). The rest of Dyall's rendering seems kinda embellished, too.

The 'Scientist says no to vampire theory' (January 1986) news snippet is the earliest rebuttal I've seen of the deeply-flawed, yet popular porphyria theory. It quotes Dr. Karl Alexander, certainly a reliable source considering he served (and still serves) on the scientific advisory board of the American Porphyria Foundation.

'Psychic vampires' (May 1996) was written by the author of a popular little tome called Vampires: the occult truth (1996). It's good to see his his full name - Konstantinos Karagiannis - attached to the article, as his usual pen-name (Konstantinos) makes me think of him as the vampire world's answer to Cher.

Thomas D'Agostino's 'Rhode Island: the vampire capital of America' (October 2001) looks like it might've been a precursor to his 2010 book, A history of vampires in New England. I've got a copy, but haven't read it yet. Will it be as good as Michael E. Bell's Food for the dead: on the trail of New England's vampires (2001)? Let's say it's a mighty high benchmark.

Lastly, the two articles by (disclosure: a mate of mine) Daniel J. Wood - 'Vampires and disease: the bloodsucking corpse of English tradition' (December 2007) and 'The White Death of New England' (January 2008) - might be teasers for his book, Realm of the vampire: history and the undead (2011). It's great to see his book score wider distribution, as it was previously only available through Fate's online store. Make sure you score yourself a copy.

* Originally published in Pursuit, vol. 16, no. 3. This was the journal of the Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (SITU).

** 'Re: Enquiry from The Fatemag.com Online Store', Thursday, 4 August 2011 4:37:25 AM.

*** At least, not in the first edition (1907).

Vampires: a paranormal perspective

2011-08-16T17:41:00.005+10:00

The idea that the vampire is a product of myth and superstition is something we take for granted. However, the vampire wasn't just conjured up as a campfire tale, but something people genuinely believed in...because they 'experienced' it.

In my review Across the forest (2009), I noted the sincerity of belief which the documentary's subjects held for supernatural beings like the strigoi. Some even claimed they were 'haunted' by them.

We often forget that, while largely debunked, the vampire 'experience' is something attested throughout history. Like ghosts. Famed French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, would even remark 'There is not an historical fact in the world more fully attested, than that of the Vampires. It is confirmed by regular information, certificates of Notaries, Surgeons, Vicars, and Magistrates.'*

Rousseau was not simply referring to folktales, but various reports filtering out through Eastern Europe, in which suspected vampires were exhumed from their graves in the presence of local figures of authority. Witnesses. The most famous example was the Visum et repertum (a coroner's report) written by an Austrian army surgeon. What's particularly interesting about these cases, is that they occurred during the Age of Enlightenment, so subsequent writings made 'fast work' of these reports, conjuring various theories from premature burial to psychosomatics. More than just debunking 'peasant superstition', they were debunking paranormal phenomena.

And what is paranormal phenomena? According to Wikipedia, it 'designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"' and describes 'phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure'. I would suggest that one of the reasons vampires gained currency in the media - and provoked an explosion of writings on the subject** - was the implicit bewilderment expressed in the exhumation reports. In other words, if the attendant coroners couldn't actively dismiss what they were seeing (corpses in the 'vampire state'), then maybe something supernatural was take place.

Belief - and experience - with vampires hasn't completely disappeared, either. In 2004, Petre Toma was exhumed from his grave, on the pretext that he was feeding off his relatives. London, 1973, a Polish immigrant named Demetrious Myicura, choked to death on a bulb of garlic he rested on his mouth while sleeping, to keep vampires away. The 18th century cases, themselves, were characterised by the desecration of corpses through impalement, mutilations, beheadings and cremation - an indicator of how strongly the belief was (and sometimes, still is) held by the local populace. If that seems 'too distant' to our modern age, keep in mind a mass vampire hunt was held at Highgate Cemetery in 1970. Even today, some people still believe in the undead.

In our tendency to offhandedly dismiss this belief, we forget the human element. Not only did/do people believe in these things, but some claim to have personally experienced it. Alleged visitations from the dead still occur today, as attested by various ghost sightings and a 'science' dedicated to investigating them.

One could argue that viewing vampirism as a paranormal phenomena, first, allows us to have greater clarity on the subject - whether you believe it or not. After all, it makes us more receptive to 'eyewitness' accounts, more versed in the tropes, and allows us to treat them as we would any paranormal phenomena. If we are willing to 'accept' the 'reality' of vampirism - at least, one described as such - then we can investigate it from the bottom up, starting with the original 'claim'. Break it down, isolate its core components and seek explanations for the phenomena, consistent with what's being reported. That is, rule out all possible natural explanations before confirming a paranormal conclusion. You can apply these principles just as easily to cases of yore to the cases of today.

While it doesn't deal with vampires, I highly recommend Benjamin Radford's Scientific paranormal investigation: how to solve unexplained mysteries (2010). More about it on his website.

******************************

Incidentally, this blog underwent its third year of existence recently (July 30). Thanks again to all my followers, casual readers and commentators. Oh, and the folk who stumble across my blog searching for something else *cough* Twilight porn * cough*. Props to all of you.

* This isn't to say that Rousseau was a believer. Far from it. His comments have often been taken out of context by those who haven't read the passages following it: 'And yet, with all this, who believes in the Vampires? And shall we be all damned for not believing? However well attested, even in the opinion of the incredulous Cicero, are many of the prodigies related by Livy, I cannot help regard them as so many fables, and certainly am not the only person who doth so.' JJ Rousseau, An expostulatory letter from J. J. Rousseau, citizen of Geneva, to Christopher de Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, London, 1763, p. 56.

** See entry 54 onwards.

Following the tracts

2011-08-15T01:52:00.005+10:00

Stumbled across an interesting essay covering an aspect of vampire research you rarely see in English language works on the subject.

That is, eighteenth century dissertations on the undead. Before Summers, those guys kicked off vampire research as a serious field of study. Their contributions to the genre can not be underestimated.

Koen Vermeir's essay (opens as a pdf), 'Vampires as creatures of the imagination: theories of body, soul and imagination in early modern vampire tracts (1659-1755)' is essential reading. It also touches on the whole 'who was the first true vampire' thing I've been discussing here. I e-mailed him*, asking if it would appear in print form.

Vermeir let me know** that his final version of the paper will feature in Diseases of the imagination and imaginary disease in the early modern period (Brepols Publishers, forthcoming), edited by Y. Haskell.

* 'Vampires as Creatures of the Imagination', Thursday, 4 August 2011 4:53:39 AM.

** 'Re: Vampires as Creatures of the Imagination', Sunday, 7 August 2011 3:59:43 AM.

Bigfoot and the undead

2011-08-02T15:33:00.005+10:00

I've noticed some interesting parallels between Bigfoot research and vampire categorisation (a subject I've been discussing here and here). Time to wade back into that semantic quagmire.

It began with reading bshistorian's coverage on the way Bigfoot is represented, who, in turn reproduces a post by a JREF forum member, noting, 'It’s an interesting reminder of how history can be more easily co-opted to suit certain agendas by taking advantage of ignorance – ignorance of the past and of cultures and traditions alien to our own.'

I believe this principle applies to vampire categorisation, too. The 'vampire' is used as a term of convenience when discussing various mythical, legendary and folkloric beings. To get to the 'source', we have to revert back to the vampire's 'origin' point, that is, the earliest uses of the term in conjunction with the classic bloodsucking corpse type. After all, the word entered our language to refer to this specific being.

In terms of the Bigfoot issue, JREF forum member - kitakaze - is much more blunt: 'It is my assertion that Native American traditions do not support the existence of bigfoot and that what is put forth by bigfoot enthusiasts as evidence for the existence of bigfoot has been cherry-picked and misrepresented.'

I acknowledge the evolution of the word's usage since it was first published in the Western European press. It has lead to apt variations like 'vampirism' and makes sense when we apply it in an occultic context to refer to 'psychic vampires'. Sometimes, people use the word to describe themselves.

The word's metaphoric context was first mined in Caleb D'Anvers' journal, The Craftsman, which featured an article discussing 'Political Vampyres' (20 May 1732, pp. 120-9), which explicitly drew parallels with the Arnod Paole case and its associated characteristics.* However, the word's original usage has not been phased out.

And that's the inherent 'problem' I see with the broad application of the word. In terms of vampire categorisation, its usage is so expansive, you really have to start asking where to draw the line. Here is a definition for vampires in Jonathan Maberry's Vampire universe: the dark world of supernatural beings that haunt us, hunt us, and hunger for us (New York: Citadel Press, 2006):

Quite simply, vampires are supernatural beings that take what is not theirs to takes [sic]—blood, life, breath, or some other vital part of their human victims; and they take it by force. It is the taking without permission that characterizes the vampire. Even in cases of vampire seduction, the vampire is using supernatural powers to seduce its victim, which is no more a consensual act than spiking a woman's cocktail with a "date rape" drug (p. x).

Apart from raising questions on the nature of 'consent', many beings in myth, folklore and legend embody these characteristics from ghosts to witches to demons. However, even Maberry admits that his use of the term is 'for convenience' (ibid.).

Compare this with what Joe Nickell says about Bigfoot research in Tracking the man-beats: sasquatch, vampires, zombies, and more (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2011): 'There seems now to be a trend towards standardization, as the creature evolves into a mythical being—central to a belief shaped by planetary concerns' (p. 75). That was after noting 'What becomes apparent from all this data [of various 'Bigfoot' sightings] is the incredible variety of creatures reported (including many that are white, gray-blue, yellow, brown, reddish, black, etc.; that are horned and fanged, or not; that walk on all fours or upright; that have two to six toes and the like)' (ibid.).

How can such supernatural diversity be reconciled under a single heading? In the quest for convenience, doesn't the cultural emphasis of such beings, their local names, become lost in the process, in order to synthesise these beings under a single 'type'? In terms of 'reconciling' various traits, isn't a 'new' being created?

Occasionally, such 'reconciliation' is employed by paranormalists shoehorning various data to suit their own theories and 'experiences', not limited to presenting an 'alternate' history to 'validate' comparatively modern 'phenomena'. Montague Summers did it. So does the Vampire Research Society.**

To come full circle, 'Bigfoot' scores a mention in Shane MacDougall's (Jonathan Maberry) The vampire slayers' field guide to the undead (Doylestown, Pa.: Strider Nolan Publishing), p. 142, while Janet and Colin Bord, in discussing the hysteria and subsequent cash-ins on sightings near Sister Lakes, Michigan, mention a monster hunting kit for sale: 'For $7.95 the keen hunter could buy a light, a net, a baseball bat and, to clinch matters, a mallet and a stake' (my emphasis, cited in Nickel 2011, p. 73).

* The Arnod Paole case was so significant to vampire research, it introduced 'Vampyre' (vampire) into our language via the coverage given in The London J0urnal (13 March 1732) which The Craftsman article quotes from.

** see my dissection of their so-called 'Vampirological testimony' parts one, two, three, four.

Did you believe in vampires?

2011-08-01T12:30:00.004+10:00

Last year, I set up a poll asking readers whether or not they believed in vampires. Let's take a look at the results.

I adjusted the poll to reflect differing interpretations of vampires, which is a source of contention in itself. The informal tone I used for the various 'types' (and reader belief) can be boiled down to the following options:

Traditional, yes ('Bloodsucking corpses? Sure!')
No ('No such thing. At all')
Undecided ('Mmm maybe...')
Themselves, yes ('Believe in them? I am one!')
Traditional, yes; psychic vampires, yes ('Yes, there are undead ones and psychic energy drainers')
Psychic vampires, yes; traditional, no ('Not in the bloodsucking kind, but the ones that drain psychic energy, sure')
Living vampires, yes ('Yes, they're living people who need to drink blood')

Voters were allowed to select multiple answers, but I don't know who voted for what or how many options they chose. The poll received 99 votes before closing on 21 July 2011, 11.59pm.

With hindsight, I probably should have split the polls into two, namely, whether or not a reader believed in vampires (a) and, if so, in what type (b). Nonetheless, the results were interesting in itself.

I'll work in descending order here, so I can tell you that the majority of voters - twenty four (24%) - don't believe in vampires, at all, but 21 voters (21%) believe they're living people who 'need to drink blood'. Meanwhile, 18 of you (18%) were undecided, tying with another 18 (18%) who don't believe in the traditional variety, but do believe in psychic vampires. However, 16 (16%) believed in both types and another fourteen (14%) believe in the traditional type. Lastly, thirteen (13%) believed that they, themselves, were vampires. Let's make those figures more palatable:

Traditional, yes (14%)
No (24%)
Undecided (18%)
Themselves, yes (13%)
Traditional, yes; psychic vampires, yes (16%)
Psychic vampires, yes; traditional, no (18%)
Living vampires, yes (21%)

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all who voted in the poll. Greatly appreciated. It's interesting to see how neck-a-neck the results were, not to mention the credence given to the living vampire type - and the bloodsucking corpse variety too, for that matter.

Amazonian spending spree 2, pt. 2

2011-07-28T15:34:00.004+10:00

As mentioned, I went on an Amazonian book-buying spree recently. Time for a look at the next batch that arrived.

On July 22nd, I received five books in the mail, which were ordered at different times through Amazon or Amazon.co.uk. Not all were explicitly about vampires, though, but have some bearing on the topic.

Title: The uninvited, True tales of the unknown vol. 2 (New York: Bantam Books, 1989)
Author: Sharon Jarvis (ed.)
Date ordered: 14 July 2011
Price: AUD 0.73
Why'd I buy it? I was recently scrolling through Google News Archives for vampirologist articles. Found some stuff on vampirologist, Stephen Kaplan (1940-1995), which mentioned his contribution to this volume. For the record, his contribution - written by the editor (as all the other accounts were) concerned his attendance at a Dark shadows convention (pp. 20-36) at which a 'real' vampire was supposed to be present. I was nonplussed to read that Kaplan had also contributed to the previous volume (p. xii), so I'll have to seek that one out, too. Yeah, I'm a completist. Other than that, there's little scholarly value to be had by books like this.

Title: Chupacabras and other mysteries (Murfreesboro, Tenn. : Greenleaf Publications, 1997)
Author: Scott Corrales
Date ordered: 14 July 2011
Price: AUD 9.02
Why'd I buy it? The chupacabra (goat sucker) was big in the mid-90s. It was said to drain animals of their blood - hence its name - and is essentially a modern-day incarnation of the vampire myth. I also liked the the book's publication date was contemporary with reports and that its author examined both English and Spanish language sources. Also, it's not often you come across a book primarily devoted to the legendary beast.

Title: Vampireology: the true history of the Fallen Ones (Dorking, U.K.: The Templar Company, 2010)
Author: Archibald Brooks (Nicky Raven)
Date ordered: 8 July 2011
Price: £9.38
Why'd I buy it? Honestly? It's one of the few books out there with 'vampirology' in the title. More of a novelty than anything, because you won't find much of use in the book useful for serious research. It's practically a work of fiction, as its narrative recounts the studies and adventures of a vampire hunter and the mythology ('Fallen Ones') behind the vampires he encounters. Such 'handbooks' are almost a subgenre in themselves, even to the point of being 'written' by a fictional character - often a descendant or relative of Abraham Van Helsing, e.g. Vampyre: the terrifying lost journal of Dr. Cornelius Van Helsing (2007) and Raphael Van Helsing's The vampire hunter's handbook (2007). Or, in at least one case, Abraham Van Helsing, himself (Traité de vampirologie, 2009).

Title: A brief history of vampires (London: Robinson & Philadelphia: Running Press, 2010)
Author: M.J. Trow
Date ordered: 8 July 2011
Price: £8.09
Why'd I buy it? Had my eye on this one for a while. The title says it all, really. That said, an inordinate amount of the book's content (pp. 109-330) is devoted to (sigh) Vlad the Impaler. Authors! He was not a friggin' vampire. As Elizabeth Miller has exposed time and time again, his contribution to vampire literature is minimal, at best, namely, his name and a brief biographical sketch. That's it. Enough with the Vlad, already!

Title: From demons to Dracula: the creation of the modern vampire myth (London: Reaktion Books, 2009)
Author: Matthew Beresford
Date ordered: 8 July 2011
Price: £9.72
Why'd I buy it? I've borrowed a copy of this book before and I like the idea of tracing the vampire's evolution. However, this particular copy was a reprint, which I wasn't pleased about. The original was published in 2008. I wrote back to Amazon.co.uk about it and...I'll write about that experience in a future blog entry (don't worry, it was a good one).

There's two more entries in the 'Amazonian spending spree 2' series to go. Stay tuned!

Tracking the first 'true' vampire

2011-07-23T07:00:00.007+10:00

I recently received an interesting comment from bshistorian, which gave me some food for thought: who was the first 'true' vampire?

As I've mentioned many times in this blog, I'm a proponent of the 'modern' vampire theory, that is, vampires aren't as ancient or universal as many writers claim them to be. For starters, the word, 'vampire', is a relatively recent addition to our vocabulary. Superficial on the surface, sure, but I'll elaborate on its significance later. First, here's the relevant portions from bshistorian's comment:

More directly on topic for your latest post, I've been reading Masters' 'A Natural History of the Vampire', which suffers badly from the 'lumping in' syndrome you describe. Taking his lead from Summers, *everything* becomes somehow evidence of vampire belief - revenants, ghosts, cannibals, serial killers, you name it. But this is an 'old' book - it's when we see this still going on today that I really despair.

Though I said 'early 18th century), would I in fact be right in saying that the 'Jure Grando' incident of 1672 (reported by Valvasor in 1689) is the earliest instance of a 'true' (i.e. bloodsucking) vampire?

In case you're unfamiliar with our friend Jure, bshistorian is referring to a 'vampire' better known as Giure Grando. As bs alludes, [Johann Weichard von] Valvasor is believed to be the earliest source of this case, which he recorded in his 1689 book, Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain (The glory of the Duchy of Carniola).

Rob Brautigam reproduced the relevant portions on the case from Valvasor's book (untranslated), while Niels has noted that the town in which it originally took place, has recently begun capitalising Grando's vampire reputation. The question is, does Grando deserve his 'vampire tag? Was he truly - as his Wikipedia entry says - 'the first classical vampire to be mentioned in documented records'?

Let's boil down the core elements featured in Brautigam's extracts. He has an overview of the case (in English), so I'll be relying on that in tandem with Google Translate for the extracts.*

Firstly, Grando is supposed to have returned from death to torment the living. He visited their homes and members of the household would die shortly after. There is no mention of direct attacks, which draws parallels with the Greek vrykolakas, which, in some cases, was said to knock on a resident's door, and, if answered, would ensure death to the householder. I might examine that aspect at a later time.

Brautigam repeats Dudley Wright's version of events, in that Grando was said to throw his widow 'into a deep sleep with the object of sucking her blood', however this attribute is not found in the Valvasor extracts, suggesting a latter-day embellishment.

In terms of the extracts, it's clear Grando wasn't called a 'vampire', either. At least, not locally or contemporary with the time the incident was recorded. Instead, supernatural beings of his type were called 'Strigon', as the Valvasor mentions. While this term - on the surface - bears a marked resemblance to the Romanian strigoi, which, itself, is often described as Romania's version of the vampire, that does not necessarily mean the word is a synonym. For instance, 'vampire' is rendered as vampir in Romanian and is of comparatively modern use, indicating the word had to be introduced to the language, otherwise an extant Romanian word would have sufficed. Same principle at work, in this case.

There are, however, other recognisable vampire tropes in the Grando case, so it's obvious to see why the vampire tag's been applied. There is an attempt to drive a stake through his body - as well as mention of the practice being used against others of his type. However, the use of a hawthorn stake (as per Wright's rendering) is not explicit, so I can't help wondering if Wright was trying to draw upon its use in Serbian vampire tradition, even if it wasn't explicitly listed by Valvasor. Apart from the stake, a crucifix is wielded at the 'vampire' while in its grave, however, this does not seem to have been used as a ward, per se, but as part of an exorcism or absolution rite.

The key ingredient missing from the Grando case is the vampire's tendency to suck the blood of its victims. This is a vital component to the vampire tag and this gets us back to my point about the significance behind the word's introduction to our language.

When the Arnold Paole case broke press, journalists and other writers used the local term for revenants of his 'type': 'vampyre' [vampire] and minor variants thereof. And by 'local', I mean the term used in Serbia, where Paole lived. These renderings can be traced to recounts of Flückinger's exhumation report, 'Visum et Repertum' (26 January 1732). In describing beings of Paole's type, Flückinger, himself, wrote 'die sogenannte Vampyrs'.

At the time, this area was occupied by the Austro-Hungarian empire, which is why Paole and/or the region he lived was occasionally - but mistakenly - referred to as Hungarian. Paole, himself, was said to have been attacked by a vampire while stationed in 'Turkish Serbia', i.e. the region of Serbia under Ottoman rule. Therefore, it can be surmised that Serbia is the 'source' of this term. That, in turn, means that components discussed in the Paole case should match up with other local applications of the term. Paole was explicitly said to have sucked his victim's blood after returning from the dead.

However, did Paole have an antecedent? Was there another Serbian revenant, also referred to as a vampire? Was it also described as sucking its victim's blood? Yep.

Enter Peter Plogojovitz. Another Serbian vampire. Another blood-drinker. Also referred to, locally, by the vampire tag ('so nennen Vampyri'). While not as well-known as Paole, his case also garnered press coverage, primarily from the Wienerisches Diarium (25 July 1725). However, despite what we're trying to establish with bshistorian's query about who the 'first' vampire was, Plogojovitz clearly wasn't. The report the Wienerisches Diarium reproduced, mentioned that other villages had been decimated by other such beings, which is why the villagers of Kisolova were so keen to 'dispose' of Plogojovitz in the 'traditional and approved manner': by staking him and cremating his remains. Such events were also said to occur during 'Turkish times', i.e. the period in which that region was under Ottoman rule.

So, is there an earlier version of a being - or person - explicitly referred to as a vampire along with these traits? To my knowledge, no. And Niels seems to agree. Neither us, however, are saying that Plogojovitz was the first vampire, per se, but that he is probably the first named vampire. The first case in which the terms and traits are explicitly fused. At least, that's my interpretation. Therefore, Serbia's vampire 'contribution', essentially, to the world, can not be underestimated. Romania usually takes the credit - thanks to Dracula - but it certainly wasn't the bedrock of the legend.

However, this is where things get murky.

In my original reply to bshistorian, I did allude to sources covering vampires elsewhere. Namely, Poland. When Calmet said, 'In this age, a new scene presents itself to our eyes, and has done for about sixty years in Hungary, Moravia, Silesia, and Poland', he was incorporating references to the 'oupire'.

The public memorials of the years 1693 and 1694 speak of oupires, vampires or ghosts, which are seen in Poland, and above all in Russia. They make their appearance from noon to midnight, and come and suck the blood of living men or animals in such abundance that sometimes it flows from them at the nose, and principally at the ears, and sometimes the corpse swims in its own blood oozed out in its coffin. It is said that the vampire has a sort of hunger, which makes him eat the linen which envelops him. This reviving being, or oupire, comes out of his grave, or a demon in his likeness, goes by night to embrace and hug violently his near relations or his friends, and sucks their blood so much as to weaken and attenuate them, and at least cause their death (p. 52).

The main traits - as well as a marked similarity in name - are present. Plogovitz and Paole were both supposed to strangle their victims ('hug violently'?). However, the method of the 'oupire''s destruction (decapitation and/or 'opening the heart') vary slightly. The term, 'oupire', is clearly derived from the Slavic upir and it's interesting to see that term is occasionally used in lieu of 'vampire' or an obvious derivative.

Naturally, this open the door to a version of the 'universal' vampire theory: if oupire or upir was an antecedent/variant of 'vampire', what other cultural variants are there of the Slavic type? Were they considered to synonymous? To justify that, I would suggest that a direct correlation needs to be established. But I think it's reasonable to conclude that the direct origins of vampire we today can be traced to the localised Serbian variant at least by its name and basic characteristics.

To employ the term, 'vampire' in a broad, generic sense, at least, without showing due respect - and citation of original, localised terms and characteristics - is to obscure and/or obliterate the cultural and local 'variants' (for want of a better description). If a case is to be made that the variants in question were 'the same thing', then a linguistic and cultural genealogy to the Serbian vampire should be established. After all, without the Serbian vampire precedent, there are no other 'vampires', either.**

* I know this isn't the best scholarly aid, but those able to read German are free to correct me if I've made any errors by consulting Brautigam's extract. I will happily cite corrections on this blog.

** This isn't to say that, generally speaking, the vampire label should only be used if it caters to this specific paradigm. After all, that'd make the vampire film and literary genres obsolete. What I'm saying is, yes, I know that the term can be used in a generic sense, especially in respect to its evolution even in our own language, but where folklore studies are concerned, a vampire 'family tree' should be taken into consideration before using the term in a 'universal' context.

Trailer trash talk

2011-07-22T05:46:00.009+10:00

I've been so apathetic about the Fright night 'reboot' (groooannn) that I hadn't noticed its trailer's been out for a while. Anyway, here it is:

Conspicuously absent from the trailer? Peter Vincent. Considering what they've done with the character, that's probably a good thing.

Now kids, I love the original. My interest in vampires was kicked off by its sequel, so, naturally, the originals hold a special place in my heart. I can buy that many of you younguns haven't seen either of 'em, or know they exist. YouTube comments like one from matthewsaidso, attest to that: 'This is like a vampire version of Disturbia. Thumbs up if you agree.'

Really? That's your point of comparison? I guess he didn't realise Disturbia (2007) is an obvious 'riff' (or rip, if you prefer) on Alfred Hitchcock's Rear window (1954) or the short story it's based on. Sure, a copyright claim was thrown out of court, but seriously, watch 'em back-to-back. You'll see.

But I digress. The original Fright night (1985), i.e. the proper one, was also obviously based on the same 'formula'. It was set in some sleepy Idaho town. This one's set in Vegas. Yes, that Vegas. Sigh. So much for subtlety. Goodbye small town terror.

Did I mention that 'Evil Ed' is played this-time-'round by Christopher Mintz-Plasse? You, know, McLovin from Superbad? Red Mist from Kick-ass? That guy? Yes. Yes I did. Oh man. Did you know it's also gonna be released in 3D? Why? Oh, right: inflated ticket prices. Ca-ching!

Anyway, another 'disturbing' thing I've noticed about the flick is this still:

Yep, that's Colin Farrell (Jerry Dandridge) ripping away Charley's cross, with it bursting into flame in his hand. I have a bias with this kinda stuff. I like my vampire lore and I like it when vampires fear the cross. If this is supposed to be an edgy rejection of the 'rules', well, it's a cliche in itself.

The original featured a neat twist on the idea: 'You have to have faith for that to work on me, Mr. Vincent.' I'm not sure if they're gonna use the same rule in this one. If not, deliberately inverting that 'rule' is nothing new. Anne Rice's Interview with the vampire (1976) popularised the modern vampire's disdain for religious items. Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot (1975) had already established the requirement of the cross-bearer's 'faith', ten years before Fright night was released.

It seems that most vamps these days have no problem with crosses, as mentioned in Bunson (1993) and Melton's (1994) respective vampire encyclopedias. Sometimes, filmmakers have resorted to monologues or dialogue that subvert most of the rules altogether. Here's a classic exchange between Jack Crow and Father Adam Guiteau in John Carpenter's Vampires (1998). A word of warning, though: some of this dialogue ain't PC or kid-friendly:

Jack Crow: You ever seen a vampire?
Father Adam Guiteau: No I haven't.
Jack Crow: No... Well first of all, they're not romatic. Its not like they're a bunch of fuckin' fags hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents, all right? Forget whatever you've seen in the movies: they don't turn into bats, crosses don't work. Garlic? You wanna try garlic? You could stand there with garlic around your neck and one of these buggers will bend you fucking over and take a walk up your strada-chocolata WHILE he's suckin' the blood outta your neck, all right? And they don't sleep in coffins lined in taffata. You wanna kill one, you drive a wooden stake right through his fuckin' heart. Sunlight turns 'em into crispy critters.

Funny thing is, the novel the film was based on (John Steakley's Vampire$, 1990) isn't this extreme in removing the classic elements. The crosses do work, to an extent. Nor does its plot feature the vampires' pursuit of a cross (the Cross of Berseires), as it does in the flick.

Point is, the trope is nothing new. Neither is inverting it. It seems crosses are introduced into plots specifically so they can then be demonstrated as ineffectual by the vamps wearing, laughing at or crushing the things. Hell, even John Badham's Dracula (1979) features the Count yanking the cross out of someone's hand and setting it alight in his, so even that's a cliche. Therefore, the 'edginess' has been sucked right out of it.

Enough rambling for now. If you still wanna catch the flick, it'll be released on - hey, whaddya know. It's premiering here, in Oz, August 18. Also, Hungary.

It'll be released in the US, Canda and Poland the following day. For release dates in other countries, follow the link.

Amazonian spending spree 2, pt. 1

2011-07-21T17:14:00.009+10:00

I think it's pretty obvious that I love collecting non-fiction vampire books for my library. If I go without for a while, impulse kicks in and I go on a spree.

This time 'round, I beat my previous record and hit Amazon and Amazon.co.uk. Hard. Time for a peek at what I've been ordering and why. For this entry, I'll only be covering the ones that've arrived in the post. There's more on the way. I'm leaving out the shipping costs involved, as even a pedantic like me has limits.

Title: Reproductions of reproduction: imaging symbolic change (Routledge, 1996)
Author: Judith Roof
Date ordered: 11 July 2011
Date arrived: 19 July 2011
Price: GBP 8.94
Why'd I buy it? Superficial reasons, really. I read through a few interesting extracts on Google Books a while ago, and seeing as it was fairly cheap, I snapped up a copy. As it turns out, it has a whole chapter on vampires called, 'Unauthorized reproduction: vampires' uncanny metonymy', pp. 139-69. Sweet.

Title: Dracula (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
Author: Bram Stoker; edited with an introduction and notes by Roger Luckhurst
Date ordered: 8 July 2011
Date arrived: 20 July 2011
Price: £3.13
Why'd I buy it? Bought it for the introduction, baby. It was featured in an article Niels linked to on his blog, which instilled the temptation to buy the thing, wholesale. The discussion of the vampire's modernity got me hooked, because, as mentioned, I'm a big fan of that theory. Unfortunately, this niche interest is only given minor coverage (p. xv). D'oh! Still, at three quid: bargain. The rest of the intro looks pretty spiffy, too.

Title: The real Twilight: true stories of modern day vampires (London: John Blake, 2010)
Author: Arlene Russo
Date ordered: 8 July 2011
Date arrived: 20 July 2011
Price: £5.99
Why'd I buy it? Russo's previous book, Vampire nation (2005) was a breezy read, so I figured this would be more of the same. Little did I realise how much 'same' that would be. I turned the book's title page over, and what did I see in the publication info? 'First published in hardback as Vampire Nation in 2005'. Noooooooo! Redeeming virtue? 'This updated paperback edition published 2010'. Ooh... But then: 'Text copyright Arlene Russo 2005'. Noooooooo! It looks like the book was republished solely to cash in on the 'Twilight' name, especially as Vampire nation was already reprinted (under its original title) in 2008. It's got an awesome cover, at least.

Title: They bite: endless cravings of supernatural predators (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Citadel Press, 2009)
Author: Jonathan Maberry & David F. Kramer
Date ordered: 14 July 2011
Date arrived: 20 July 2011
Price: AUD 2.19
Why'd I buy it? Pretty sure I've glanced through this thing in Borders (R.I.P.) or Reader's Feast (soon to be R.I.P.). Wasn't expecting anything spectacular, but I did like the sidebars. I might've been a bit naive though, because the cover and title lead me to think the whole thing dealt with vampires. It doesn't (pp. 1-126) and a sizeable portion of that is made up of a 'species' dictionary of sorts (pp. 49-126). The rest of the book's concerned with 'hell hounds and monster dogs', 'werewolves and wolf-men', 'cryptids and the science of cryptozoology', 'the unquiet dead', 'hellfire and demons', 'tricksters and seducers' and 'a miscellany of monsters'.

Title: Vampire: Von damals bis(s) heute (Diedorf, Germany: Ubooks-Verlag, 2010)
Author: Nicolaus Equiamicus
Date ordered: 11 July 2011
Date arrived: 20 July 2011
Price: GBP 10.13
Why'd I buy it? This is a bit of a 'blame' Niels one. In a good way. I trust his judgement when it comes to vampire books and he's said some pretty good things about its author. It's in German (which I, of course, already knew), so I can't read the bloody thing, but presume it's instilled with its own inherent value. Who knows. Maybe someday I'll unlock its 'secrets'.

Stay tuned for the next thrilling instalment of 'Amazonian spending spree 2'! In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on the mailbox.

Bugbears and Others

2011-07-14T05:50:00.007+10:00

I added The BS historian to the 'Reading list' a coupla days ago, as the blog touches on a few issues pertinent to the field. Which ones? These...

If there's anything I've learned from years of vampire research, it's that writings on the subject are rife with embellishment, misrepresentation, misinterpretation and flat-out lies. Now, you might be asking (depending on your poll choice), 'Hang on, vampires don't exist. It's not like it matters. They're imaginary.' To which I say, 'Maybe so. But you didn't make them up.'

When Rousseau wrote, 'There is not an historical fact in the world more fully attested, than that of the Vampires' (1763, p. 56), he wasn't kidding. Just to be clear, he wasn't upholding their reality, he was commenting on their status as a well-documented species. Regardless of one's personal beliefs on their 'existence', the vampire is as much a historical being - as portrayed by exhumation reports, folk beliefs and oral tales, etc. - as an 'imaginary' one. Proper respect needs to be given to their historical and cultural origins, ensuring they're represented accurately, without recourse to, well, making stuff up.

That's why I appreciate - and practice - the sceptical approach to texts in this field. It's a purgative (the reason why I called one of Elizabeth Miller's books an 'enema') approach in a field waist-deep in mud and dirt. Now, that doesn't mean I go around pooh-poohing the very idea of vampires themselves. That'd be almost redundant. No, I'm more interested in seeing whether what has been said about them is accurately relayed. You'd be surprised at how much speculation is presented as fact.

For instance, do you recall the Venetian 'vampire' unearthed in 2006? One major problem with that name: Venice has no extant vampire tradition. The whole case pretty much hinged on the skeleton of a woman in a plague pit found with a hunk o' brick in her mouth. This lead many to conclude that the item had originally been placed there as a method to prevent her feeding on the living. However, other explanations were possible, as the bshistorian recounts:

Yet another possibility, very relevant in this case, is some sort of prophylactic against the disease itself – sure, this woman was the only one in her mass plague pit grave to be so dealt with – yet lots of individuals in this Anglo-Saxon cemetery had stones in their mouths. A whole pit of vampires? Unlikely. Disease victims? More plausible. Or once again, were they punished criminals, or morally deficient in some way? We can’t really know. Nor can we with this Venice “Vampire”.

And that's the point. No need to automatically jump to that conclusion. I would also add that closer scrutiny should be given to the extant traditions in these locals. While debate continues over 'vampire's' etymology (see Kreuter 2006), we can at least agree that the tradition was centred in Slavic territories, as attested by its very name. However, it's generally accepted that the vampire is a universal tradition. To do so, however, a lotta wrangling's gotta be done over the definition of 'vampire'. The term, itself, however, applied to a specific type of revenant. This is also acknowledged by bshistorian:

One of the vampirologist’s (and indeed BS Historian’s) bugbears is the phenomenon of myth-creep. The more paranormal ideas are milked for their intellectual and commercial appeal, the more we see them distorted and modified to incorporate unrelated bits of history and folklore. In the case of the vampire it’s often an attempt to give it greater antiquity, presumably because the early 18th century isn’t far back enough for the first sightings of beings who we now think of as immortal. In fact that idea is itself a retrofit of a fictional, rather than folkloric attribute of the vampire.

A word on 'the early 18th century' mention. Clearly, the era in which the vampire entered popular consciousness, is being alluded to here. However, there's precious little evidence that the tradition stretched much further back than that. Augustin Calmet, famous for his dissertations on vampires, made reference to the vampire's historicity:

In this age, a new scene presents itself to our eyes, and has done for about sixty years in Hungary, Moravia, Silesia, and Poland; men, it is said, who have been dead for several months, come back to earth, talk, walk, infest villages, ill use both men and beasts, suck the blood of their near relations, destroy their health, and finally cause their death; so that people can only save themselves from their dangerous visits and their hauntings, by exhuming them, impaling them, cutting off their heads, tearing out their hearts, or burning them. These are called by the name of oupires or vampires, that is to say, leeches; and such particulars are related of them, so singular, so detailed, and attended by such probable circumstances, and such judicial information, that one can hardly refuse to credit the belief which is held in those countries, that they come out of their tombs, and produce those effects which are proclaimed of them.

Antiquity certainly neither saw nor knew anything like it. Let us read through the histories of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Latins; nothing approaching to it will be met with (1850 [1751], p. 2).

In this century, G. David Keyworth (2006) upheld Calmet's comments in his examination of vampire traits, by comparing them with other folkloric and legendary beings. He'd later expand his findings into a book (2007).

The attempts to give vampires a 'greater antiquity' for 'intellectual and commercial appeal' has been exploited in a variety of different ways. One of the obvious ones concern the popularity of vampire killing kits (VKK). That is, high-priced antiques sold off as genuine 19th century novelties. There are three things majorly wrong with this practice. Firstly, they're fake. Second, auctioneers present them as legit (which, in turn, can only cast a dim light on the profession, itself). Third, actual historical items are misrepresented - some, defaced - in the process of creating these kits.

The bshistorian has given brilliant coverage to the VKK 'industry' here, here, here, here, here and here. We need more blogs like that, not just in paranormal research, but in vampirology, too. It's one thing to enjoy vampires as entertainment, it's another to purposefully misrepresent their history and deceive others, to score a quick buck. So, my hat's off to BS!

References

Calmet, A, 1850 (1751), The phantom world: or, the philosophy of spirits, apparitions, & c., vol. 2, trans. H Christmas, Richard Bentley, London.

Keyworth, GD, 2006, ‘Was the vampire of the eighteenth century a unique type of undead-corpse?’, Folklore, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 241–60.

Keyworth, [G]D, 2007, Troublesome corpses: vampires & revenants from antiquity to the present, Desert Island Books, Southend-on-Sea.

Kreuter, PM 2006, 'The name of the vampire: some reflections on current linguistic theories on the etymology of the word vampire', in P Day (ed.), Vampires: myths and metaphors of enduring evil, At the interface/probing the boundaries 28, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 57–63.

Rousseau, JJ, 1763 (1762), An expostulatory letter from J.J. Rousseau, citizen of Geneva, to Christopher de Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, London.

What's Been Going On and Upcoming Books on Vampire 3

2011-07-12T00:52:00.009+10:00

Haven't been writing here much, as I've been busy with other things, namely research and going on a book-buying bender. Time for a catch-up and a peek at some forthcoming books I've stumbled across.

Firstly, it's great to hear that the guys behind the 2009 Vienna conference, 'Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert' are finally publishing their book. Got the scoop from Niels. It's currently available on pre-order. I've placed mine.

******************************

Speaking of Niels, his blog continues to blow my mind. Seriously, the guy just reels off his findings on obscure areas of vampiriana like they're nothing. If he's happy sharing that stuff publicly, I can't help wondering what secrets he isn't sharing. Sometimes, it makes me wanna throw in the towel. Some recent stand-outs include an overview of Zopf's famous vampire dissertation; uncovering sources for an obscure 'vampire' case; a source discussing magia posthuma in Poland, Hungary and Moravia; and debunking Stephen Hubner's 'vampire' status. Get your asses over there.

******************************

I rarely read vampire novles - or novels in general - but I have been reading Don Ecker's Past sins (Dark Realm Press, 2004). Let's say it ain't Twilight. If you're into your monstrous vamp (as I am), check it out. If you're one of them Kindle folk, click on the cover to buy a copy.

******************************

Speaking of buying things, I've found a few more books to add to the 'Upcoming books on vampires' collection. Stumbled across 'em while on the aforementioned book-buying bender.

Title: The theology of Dracula: reading the book of Stoker as sacred text
Author: Noël Montague-Étienne Rarignac
Release date: 19 July 2011 (Amazon); Spring/Summer 2011 (McFarland)
Worth the wait? Firstly, how fuckin' awesome is that cover? Seriously, look at it. Beautiful. As to the book itself, it's clearly one for the Dracula scholars. Another work focusing on literary interpretation, in this case, it 'represents a rereading of the horror classic as a Christian text, one that alchemizes Platonism, Gnosticism, Mariology and Christian resurrection in a tale that explores the grotesque' (McFarland's spiel). If that tickles your fancy, then it'll be the book for you. That said, I am interested in the religious overtones behind vampire texts, so it's definitely on my to-get list.

Title: Theorizing Twilight: essays on what’s at stake in a post-vampire world
Author: Maggie Parke & Natalie Wilson (eds)
Release date: 14 August 2011 (Amazon); Fall/Winter 2011 (McFarland)
Worth the wait? While I can barely repress a groan at another release dedicated to Twilight (I still have to give props to the saga for kickstarting the vampire boom, though), its publisher is a good indicator of quality. McFarland have an impressive track record when it comes to vampire stuff. Check out their vampire and Dracula titles.

Title: Vampires through the ages: lore & legends of the world's most notorious blood drinkers
Author: Brian Righi
Release date: 8 Janaury 2012
Worth the wait? While its title hits the mark in my preferred vampire niche ('lore & legends'), the 'notorious blood drinkers' angle makes me think the book's gonna give the same-old, same-old coverage to Elizabeth Bathory, John Haigh, Fritz Haarmann, et. al. Or, worse: Vlad Țepeș. Its comic book style cover doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence, either. I had a brief peek through Righi's Amazon oeuvre. Looks like he's into ghosts. Perhaps he'll view the subject through a paranormalist lens, which might be interesting. We'll see.

******************************

So, what have I been researching? Noneother than the Highgate vampire case. One element I've been pursuing is Highgate Cemetery's pre-1970 reputation for hauntings - vampiric or otherwise. There are certain texts which allude to to it, but don't seem to have been published before 1970 or the 1960s, which, of course, is highly suspicious. One stand-out's David Farrant's 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, pp. 32–8:

Some interesting facts came to light. Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections. One of the common tales of that time told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall (p. 34).

In the same article, he also concluded, 'That Bram Stoker was influenced by the Highgate Vampire when he wrote "Dracula" . . . is almost certain' (ibid.). I've been asking Farrant how he obtained this information, i.e. 'oral tales, books, articles, whatever', over at The supernatural world forum. So far, I've been met with sidetracking, personal attacks, obscure allusions and the possibility that he might discuss them, if I explain my spiritual beliefs first - which I'd already done. Several times. Let's say I find it to be a highly unusual way to react to a simple request. Could we be dealing with a manufactured 'legend'? Quite possibly.

******************************

On a lighter note, I've been thinking of creating a new segment for this blog concerning beaut non-fiction vampire book covers. I occasionally express awe for them, so why not share a few which I think are particularly great? It's not set in stone, though. Just something I've been thinking of doing. See how it goes.

******************************

Last, but not least, don't forget to vote on the poll. There's only 10 days left, folks. Do you believe in vampires? Have your say today!

Getting Glut's book

2011-07-01T14:09:00.006+10:00

I've finally got a first edition copy of Donald F. Glut's True vampires of history (1971), thanks to the magic of eBay.

I'd previously bought reprints of it by Castle Books (Secaucus, N.J.). However, I'm a stickler for first editions, so I had to find a copy of the HC Publishers, Inc. (New York) original.

How far did I go in my quest? I resorted to contacting its author. It was never that easy growing up, I'll tell ya. I sent him a cheque last year (Don doesn't 'do' PayPal), but it never arrived.

I got the urge to go trawling through eBay recently and lo, I serendipitously found a copy for US$9. This time, I doublechecked its publication info with the seller. After confirming a positive ident, I made an offer of five bucks. Not for the hell of it, mind you, but based on the book's condition:

Up for auction is a 1971 True Vampires of History Donald Glut Book. The paperback book is complete and nicely held together. The book has been in storage and it has rolling and warping from age. The pages and cover are yellowing. There is creasing at the corners of the cover and along the bottom of the back. The pages have rounded corners and a few have creases at the corners. The book also has creasing along the spine, and light wear and peeling around the edges. The book has 191 pages.

The seller accepted my offer. I purchased it on 16 June; it arrived on the 27th. Not bad. Incidentally, if you're interested in buying a copy of the book, feel free to contact Don. He'll probably even sign it for you, if you ask nicely. I would've gotten my copy from him, if there wasn't that hassle with the cheque. However, if you're a US resident, you probably won't encounter the same problem I did.

Lindsay Lohan, Vampire

2011-05-12T11:57:00.000+10:00

I don't know why I'm even bothering to share the following image. Maybe it's because I've been reading about her in the last coupla days. Nonetheless, it's certainly an indication of how mainstream vamps have become.

Yep, that's Lindsay Lohan straddling The vampire diaries' Michael Trevino. Even though she's wielding a stake, she's actually the vampire in the piece. But it does get weirder.

According to Radar Online, A. J. McLean of Backstreet Boys fame, 'paid between $30,000 and $40,000 for the large print'. For the picture's context and 'meaning', we turn to photographer Tyler Shields' blog. Here's the scoop: 'Lindsay and I had been wanting to do this vampire shoot for a while and it came together in perfect time for my gallery, Trevino just happened to be in town it was all meant to be!' Ok then.

Upcoming Books on Vampires 2: The New Batch

2011-05-12T00:49:00.006+10:00

Been a while since I've done this segment. Time to share some forthcoming vampire books I've stumbled across via the the American, British, German and French versions of Amazon.

I've also translated the non-English titles with this baby. So, forgive me if they're a lil wonky. Without further ado and in chronological and alphabetical order by release date...

Title: Bringing light to Twilight: perspectives on a pop culture phenomenon
Author: Giselle Liza Anatol (ed.)
Release date: 24 May 2011
Worth the wait? The Twilight bandwagon keeps on a-rollin', as shown by this latest collection of essays devoted to Meyer's astoundingly successful saga. If you're not a fan, I'm sure something on vamps, in general, could be gleaned from its pages. I do like the idea of examining the works from the perspective of a pop culture phenomenon, though.

Title: V is for vampire: an illustrated alphabet of the undead
Author: Adam-Troy Castro; illustrated by Johnny Atomic
Release date: 7 June 2011
Worth the wait? When I first came across this book, I thought it'd be another entry in my beloved vampire reference book genre, like J. Gordon Melton's The vampire book: encyclopedia of the undead (1994; 1999; 2011). Its title even echoes David J. Skal's V is for vampire: the a-z guide to everything undead (1996). Alas, it appears to be little more than a portfolio, going by its product description. I know I'm cheating by including an under-100-pages book in this segment, but damn, it's got a pretty sweet cover.

Title: Der sympathische Vampir: Visualisierungen von Männlichkeiten in der TV-Serie Buffy (The sympathetic vampire: visualizations of masculinity in the TV series Buffy)
Author: Marcus Recht
Release date: 11 July 2011
Worth the wait? The title pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it? Talk about specific, too! Recht's set himself up with quite a challenge by devoting 340 pages to that oblique topic, so kudos for effort!

Title: Vampires: the twilight world
Author: Simon Marsden
Release date: 6 October 2011
Worth the wait? I was pleasantly surprised to see Marsden's gonna be contributing a volume on vamps, even if his title's an obvious riff on Stephenie Meyer's well-known saga. He's my favourite photographer and I grew up on his other works like Phantom of the Isles: further tales from the Haunted Realm (1990) and The journal of a ghosthunter: in search of the undead from Ireland to Transylvania (1994). That said, don't expect too much scholarship from his work. You buy (or borrow) the books for the stories and awesome pics. Have a browse through his stuff. You'll see what I mean. Hopefully this book's packed with new stuff and not just a 'compilation' of sorts.

Title: Blut ist ein besonderer Saft: Eine Kulturgeschichte der Vampire (Blood is a special liquid: a cultural history of vampires)
Author: Leah Levine
Release date: 15 November 2011
Worth the wait? Yes, blood certainly is a 'special liquid'. I like the 'cultural history of vampires' angle, but I wonder how much justice it'd be given over the course of 180 pages. I'm not familiar with any of Ms. Levine's other works, so I've got no context to give ya. However, Niels does, not only noting that the book will actually be published in May (the November copy's the only one I saw on Amazon.de), but that 'Amazon describes the author as a well-known German witch and a founder of a school for witches in Hannover!' I'm guessing he's worried about an occultic angle potentially 'ruining' the scholarly potential of the subject matter.

Title: True blood: vampires and Southern Gothic
Author: Brigid Cherry
Release date: May 2012
Worth the wait? A contribution to the 'Investigating cult TV series' series, which I know nothing about, this looks like it might be one of those philosophy books dedicated to mainstream pop culture franchises. Two, off the top of my head, which focus on HBO's True blood are True blood and philosophy: we wanna think bad things with you and A taste of true blood: the fangbanger's guide (both 2010).

Title: Screening the undead: vampires and zombies in film and television
Author: Leon Hunt, Sharon Lockyer & Milly Williamson
Release date: December 2012
Worth the Wait? It's amazing how 'advanced' Amazon.co.uk's publishing schedule is, isn't it? As to the book itself, I don't immediately recognise Leon and Sharon from anywhere, but I am familiar with Milly's The lure of the vampire: gender, fiction and fandom from Bram Stoker to Buffy (2005). Whether it'll focus on these relatively narrow facets, I can't say. Going by the title - which is about all I can do right now - it sounds like a fairly generic (albeit academic) run-through of the undead genre. However, due to Milly's participation, it could have some merit.

And that concludes this segment. Now, I know I've limited my scope just by focusing on the stuff featured on Amazon, especially when works like Daniel J. Wood's Realm of the vampire (2011) aren't featured in its contents. So, if any of you other publishers out there want to 'broadcast' your books, feel free to e-mail me. But remember, they've gotta be non-fiction works on vampires.

Catch-Up Time

2011-05-10T11:18:00.005+10:00

It's been a bit quiet since my previous rant, so time to fill the void with a few random updates on what's been happening since.

Finished reading Daniel J. Wood's Realm of the vampire: history and the undead (2011), which I'll be reviewing soon enough. The extent of the sources used for his book certainly made my rant worthwhile. Strangely, it appears to be available from only one source. Hopefully, it'll receive wider distribution, as it covers a largely neglected aspect of vampire folklore.

******************************

Speaking of vampire folklore, it's great to see Niels went ahead and purchased Daniela Soloviova-Horvilla's Les vampires : Du folklore slave à la littérature occidentale after I drew his attention to it. Better yet, he described it as looking 'very, very promising'. From him, that's high praise indeed. Hopefully, it pays off.

He also notes 'Soloviova-Horvilla herself has a background in Bulgaria which provides her with a working knowledge of the languages pertinent to the Slavic vampire' and 'her work obviously draws on a number of sources otherwise not easily available to Western scholars', which touches on the basis of my rant: we're seriously deprived in terms of non-English resources on the undead. This is especially pertinent considering that the vampire myth essentially has its basis in Slavic regions. Notably few English language authors tap into these resources, barring, of course, guys like Jan L. Perkowski and Bruce A. McClelland.

******************************

Came across an interview with Theresa Cheung, author of The Element encyclopedia of vampires (2009) which I've discussed before. She expresses a remarkably open-minded view on the existence of vampires which, if I might be snarky for a moment, could explain her susceptibility to the FVZA's claims.

******************************

I dunno if it's apparent in my blog, but I'm a fan of the vampire's 'modernity' in terms of its depiction in folklore and don't really buy into the 'universality' of the vampire mythos. So, it's great to see Niels giving this angle some coverage, also including Toby Lichtig well-researched review. Indeed, the discussion of Roger Luckhurst's notes to the Oxford World's Classics' edition of Dracula is seriously tempting me to buy a copy.

******************************

Yesterday, my eBay-purchased copy of Vampiri: miti, leggende, letteratura, cinema, fumetti, multimedialità (1998) arrived in the mail (bought on the 22nd). Can't say much about its contents, as my Italian is piss-weak, but I was surprised to discover it's actually a non-fiction vampire anthology. That makes it a bit of a rarity in its own right. Lots of pretty pictures, too.

******************************

I like the formatting and layout of my WordPress blog so much, that I'm thinking of creating an offshoot to this one. But never fear: I won't be shutting down this one. Either way, it's just a thought. Nothing set in stone. Yet. We'll see how it goes.

Prospective Publishers, Take Note!

2011-04-27T05:04:00.006+10:00

I've noticed my tendency to go on little rants about the lack of 'access' we English as Only Language (EOL) folk have to foreign language material on vampires. Time for another one!

I loves my vampire folklore. Can't get enough of it. Unfortunately, it's often overlooked - or briefly covered - in favour of cinematic and literary treatments of the vampire genre. As I've mentioned before, the Library of Congress features 110 listings in its vampires in literature subject category, alone. Major works on vampire folklore in English are largely covered by Montague Summers, Paul Barber, Jan L. Perkowski, Bruce A. McClelland and Theresa Bane. Even then, their works provide a tantalising insight into what we EOLers are missing out on (not to detract from the brilliance of their writings).

Fer instance, flip your way through the 'Théses & Livres Culturels' tag in Lady Nini's blog, Livres de Vampires. Look at that stuff! I doubt it's all gold, but there's gotta be a lotta great, untapped info there. I even stumbled upon a recently published work dedicated to vampire folklore: Daniela Soloviova-Horville's Les vampires : du folklore slave à la littérature occidentale (2011).

And of all the stuff written in French on the subject, I can only think of books that've been translated into English: Ornella Volta's Le vampire : la mort, le sang, la peur (1962; The vampire, 1965), Jean Marigny's Sang pour sang : le réveil des vampires (1993; Vampires: the world of the undead, 1994) and Claude Lecouteux's Histoire des vampires : autopsie d'un mythe (1999; The secret history of vampires: their multiple forms and hidden purposes, 2010).

Five, if we're including the 1749 and 1850 translations of Calmet's work. That's it.

'Hang on a second!' some of you particularly well-read readers might interject. 'Wasn't Pëtr Bogatyrëv's Vampires in the Carpathians originally written in French?' Well, yeah. But keeping with the tradition of compulsively retitling the other French works, looks can be deceiving: that particular book had almost bugger-all to do with vampires.

With German works, we're even worse off: I can't think of any English translations. The tragedy of that situations becomes readily apparent when you realise that the early writings on the subject were primarily written in German (and Latin, to be fair). As was the first full-length literary study: Stefan Hock's Die Vampyrsagen und ihre Verwertung in der deutschen Litteratur (1900).

That's why I was exhilarated to hear about an upcoming English work by one of Germay's foremost vampire scholars, Peter Mario Kreuter. They're so ahead of us, that some of 'em are even starting to delve into obscure facets of the non-fiction vampire genre. Like, for example, vampirology's relation to librarianship.

I was so excited to hear about it, that I went ahead and ordered a copy of the book on eBay, even though I won't be able to read the bloody thing. Niels' gave it a pretty positive review, at least. Phew.

So, publishers, if you're reading, instead of palming off the usual guff, how about focusing on translating instead? The genre would be enriched by an influx of 'new' information and the doorway would open to readers who probably aren't familiar with the foreign language stuff, encumbered, as we are, by our linguistic limitations.

Andy Responds!

2011-04-06T00:35:00.004+10:00

I'm so glad I cautiously-worded my coverage of certain obscure vampire lore in one of Andy's movie reviews.

We're talking about the nailing-the-vampire-through-the-head thing as a means of 'destroying' an undead. I said that he 'may or may not know' that it had a 'European precedent'. Turns out, he did know (I shoulda known he would). Here's his reply:

Hi Anthony, good article.

I was aware of the European lore - especially via Calmet. I also take the point that the filmmakers were likely looking to European lore rather than anything further flung.

The fault is mine for not explaining what I meant. I was more alluding to an accidental connectivity, perhaps alluding to a subconscious undercurrent.

Why was a stake or a nail used? To pin the undead to the floor primarily (or in Indonesia to strip them of their powers, essentially the same thing).

This would allow for a generally common theme (and possibly sources back to post-mortem sitting of corpses, which I understand is more common than we'd think)

I like such connections and perhaps should have mentioned the, clearly, more obvious European connection.

Re your quote concerning the location of the nail (ie back of the neck), this is a more common entry point (from my researches), but at least one Indonesian films switches things to the crown of the skull. The forehead makes for a more visually immediate scene, when the corpse is coffin bound ;)

All good points and I like that Andy's openly discussing his interest in comparative folklore; a common theme in vampire studies.

Head Like a Hole

2011-04-01T16:59:00.003+11:00

An obscure method of destryoing vampires caught my attention in Andrew's review of The night of the walking dead (1977).

Andrew has a great passion for the lore featured in vampire flicks, which always receives coverage in his reviews. I love vampire lore, meself, especially when it's particularly inventive or suggests the filmmakers might've done some actual research for their movie. So, the following paragraph from his review couldn't help but catch my attention:

The other lore we get is the fact that a stake through the heart won’t work permanently. Clearly we saw that and, as Catherine's father is the one who communicates the effective method, we can only guess that he didn’t relay that to the villagers as it was his daughter they were staking. Rather an iron nail should be hammered through the skull – this not only makes for a nicely unusual scene but forms (unintentionally) a bridge between East and West as the Indonesian Kuntilanak is sometimes said to lose its powers through just such an intervention.

An interesting parallel, but I'm somewhat skeptical that the 'bridge between East and West' was a deliberate move. After all, what Andrew may or may not know, is that there's actually a European precedent for this method of destruction. Let's turn to Augustine [sic] Calmet's The phantom world; or, the philosophy of spirits, vol. 2 (London: Richard Bentley, 1850)¹. Calmet relates an account from someone byway of the 'Count de Cabreras, captain of the regiment of Alandetti infantry' who dealt with a vampire infestation 'on the frontiers of Hungary' (p. 33). Three alleged vampires were exhumed, each dealt with in a different way. It's the second sucker we're concerned with here:

Upon this deposition the commissary had this man taken out of his grave, and finding that, like the first, his blood was in a fluid state, like that of a living person, he ordered them to run a large nail into his temple, and then to lay him again in the grave (p. 34).

For the record, the first vampire was beheaded, the third was cremated. Calmet gives no explanation as to why these various methods were employed against these unfortunate undead. The nail-in-the-head routine is later invoked in his coverage of Greek practices against the excommunicated dead:

They know of no means more certain to deliver themselves from being infested by these dangerous apparitions, than to burn and hack to pieces these bodies, which served as instruments of malice, or to tear out their hearts, or to let them putrefy before they are buried, or to cut off their heads, or to pierce their temples with a large nail (p. 109).

For a literary parallel, we turn to an anonymous German story called 'The mysterious stranger', which was first published in English in Odds and ends in 1860:

"You see there that open vault!" replied the knight Woislaw, pointing to the door and flight of steps: "You must descend. You must go alone; I may not accompany you. When you have reached the vault you will find, close to the entrance, a coffin, on which is placed a small packet. Open this packet, and you will find three long iron nails and a hammer. Then pause for a moment; but when I begin to repeat the Credo in a loud voice, knock with all your might, first one nail, then a second, and then a third, into the lid of the coffin, right up to their heads."

Franziska stood thunderstruck; her whole body trembled, and she could not utter a word. Woislaw perceived it.

"Take courage, dear lady!" said he. "Think that you are in the hands of Heaven, and that without the will of your Creator, not a hair can fall from your head. Besides, I repeat, there is no danger."

"Well, then, I will do it," cried Franziska, in some measure regaining courage.

"Whatever you may hear, whatever takes place inside the coffin," continued Woislaw, "must have no effect upon you. Drive the nails well in, without flinching: your work must be finished before my prayer comes to an end."

So, to sum up, I find it much more likely that the filmmakers drew upon extant European use sof nails against the undead. However, I couldn't end this without giving some coverage to the kuntilanak Andrew mentions. Let's turn to our good friend, Wikipedia:

Some believe that having a sharp object like a nail helps them fend off potential attacks by Pontianaks, the nail being used to plunge a hole at the back of the Pontianak's neck. It is believed that this will turn the Pontianak into a beautiful woman, until the nail is pulled off again. The Indonesian twist on this is to plunge the nail into the apex of the head of the kuntilanak.

¹ Rev. Henry Christmas' English translation of Augustin Calmet's Traité sur les apparitions des Esprits, et sur les vampires ou les revenans de Hongrie, de Moravie &c. (1751).

Evaluating Bane's Book List

2011-03-24T16:59:00.006+11:00

I told a commenter that I was planning a write-up on Theresa Bane's 'Vampire research book list', so without further ado, here 'tis.

It's actually quite an interesting list, notable for the non-vampire books amidst the standard (albeit, useful) fare. Thus, we have Clifton D. Bryant's Handbook of death and dying (2 vols., 2003), Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal (first published in 1818), Moncure Daniel Conway's Demonology and devil-lore (2 vols., 1879, not '1897'), [R.E.L.] Masters' Eros and evil (1962; Bane lists a 1974 edition), Lewis Spence's Encyclopedia of occultism (first published in 1920), William Arens' The man-eating myth (1980) and Véronique Campion-Vincent's Organ theft legends (2005; translated from Légende des vols d'organes, 1997).

Bane also singles out a Hartl[e]y Burr Alexander's contribution (1917) to The mythology of all races (13 vols., 1916-32), but I'm not 100% on her citation. Might ask her to elaborate on it.

The vampire books she recommends are all sound. However, despite its title, Pëtr Bogatyrëv's Vampires in the Carpathians (1998) has practically nothing to do with vampires, except for a coupla minor mentions. Still, it'd probably be useful in providing a context for the region's folkloric beliefs.

There are a few errors on the list, apart from misspelling Bunson's 1993 book as '[The] Vampire Encycloopedia'. Claude Lecouteux's 1999 work, for instance, was not called 'History of the Vampire', but Histoire des Vampires, autopsie d’un mythe. She probably confused it with its English translation, The secret history of vampires (2010), otherwise it's a bit odd that she didn't provide an English title for Adriene Cremene's 'Mythology du Vampire en Romanine' [sic] (Mythologie du vampire en Roumanie, 1981). Incidentally, I wasn't aware that the later book was published in any language other than French ('hard to find in a language not German'), so she might have the drop on me there.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Maberry's Vampire universe was actually published in 2006, not '1996' . There also seems to be some confusion over the publication date of Ornella Volta's The vampire, which Bane lists as '1963'. Volta's book - originally titled Le vampire : la mort, le sang, la peur - was first published in 1962. To my knowledge, the earliest English translations were published by Tandem Books (London) and Award Books (New York). The latter is undated, but the former was released in 1965.

Bane includes three vampire books by Montague Summers on her list, giving all of them a valued four pound (#) sign and vaunting them as 'MUST READ[s]', even though two of them are the same book. 'The Vampire in Lore and Ledgend [sic]' aka The vampire in lore and legend, is actually Dover Publications' 2001 retitled reprint of Summers' The vampire in Europe (1929).

I don't overly mind that Bane alternately abbreviates the titles of certain books in her list, but referring to Radu Florescu and Raymond T. McNally's Dracula: a biography of Vlad the Impaler, 1431-1476 (1973) as 'Florescu, Radu. “Dracula: A Biography,” 1972' seems a bit too curt.

Other than the issues I've outlined here, Bane's certainly given us an interesting set of resources to work with. It's a nice 'sampler' of diverse contexts, subjects, disciplines and fields we vampire scholars can draw upon, perfectly illustrated in works like Lavery's essay for Slayage.

Are You a Vampiroid?

2011-03-22T03:06:00.003+11:00

I had a brief discussion about the term 'vampiroid' on The Supernatural World forum, in which I said that 'vampiroids' wouldn't be overly thrilled with the term. But it got me thinking, how would they actually handle it?

The context I specifically mention is the definition provided by Sean Manchester, i.e. 'Britain's only full-time vampire hunter':

Vampiroids are not vampires. Some actually believe themselves to be vampires. They are not. How could they be when the definition of a vampire, upon examination, is revealed to be a dead body that issues forth from its tomb in the night to quaff the warm blood of the living, whereby it is nourished and preserved? Vampiroids, therefore, cannot be re-animated corpses with an awful supernatural existence beyond the grave. People who either believe themselves to be vampires, or want to become vampires and affect what they construe to be vampiristic lifestyles, even when this is taken to extremes, are invariably vampiroids.

You might not agree with (or believe) Manchester's 'profession', but what do you think of the definition, itself? Is it 'politically incorrect' or accurate terminology? I'd love to hear from people who identify themselves as vampires, perhaps some who've (obviously) been contributing to the poll.

Terrorised by Vampires

2011-03-22T03:01:00.002+11:00

This about as close to a real-life encounter with vampires (maybe sans motorbikes) as you're gonna get and it's brought to us courtesy of YouTube.

So You Wanna Publish a Vampire Novel?

2011-03-21T23:05:00.006+11:00

Let's say you've written your vampire novel, where do you go from there? Send it off to a bunch of publishers and hope for the best? Well, there is another option.

Have you considered self-publishing? Joe Konrath's 'Live undead - marketing Draculas' and its associated links gives a brilliant insight into what it's like to publish and promote your book, along with the costs involved.

Its focus is on getting a lot of the work done online and encouraging a greater control over one's creative output. I'm sure budding authors will appreciate this process, in light of the dark age bookshops are presently experiencing.

Amazonian Spending Spree Continued and Other Updates

2011-03-21T17:04:00.005+11:00

The day after I wrote the previous entry, the rest of my books arrived in the post. Time for more first impressions!

Despite what I've said about the vampire subculture, its place in vampire studies is now cemented by their coverage in mainstream media and books like...

6. Joseph Laycock's Vampires today: the truth about modern vampirism (2009)

If I could recommend any work on the vampire 'Scene', it'd be this one. I was quite impressed with his treatment of the subject, which he presents free from the sensationalism or 'look at these oddballs!' approach you usually find in such coverage. He treats it with impartiality and respect. Good on him. Certainly one of the great vampire books out there.

7. George A. Dunn and Rebecca Housel's (eds.) True blood and philosophy: we wanna think bad things with you (2010)

I haven't watched the show, nor have I read the books by Charlaine Harris (shock! horror!), so why'd I buy it? I knew it featured a contribution by Bruce A. McClelland, an author whose work in vampire studies I greatly respect. His contribution's called 'Un-true blood: the politics of artificiality' (pp. 79-90). You can read my interview with Bruce here, here, here and here.

However, his contribution wasn't the only reason I bought it. I get a kick out of the philosophical treatments on the subject, especially as it gives the Vampire Myth a scope beyond the show.

And the last book on the list? Drumroll, please.

8. Michelle Belanger's The psychic vampire codex: a manual of magick and energy work (2004)

It's a title that tends to crop up a lot in my book searches, so I thought I'd give it a crack. It also gives an interesting behind-the-scenes look into the vampire subculture.

And there you have it. There's a whole stack of other books on my 'wishlist', but those'll have to wait for now.

*****************************

Last Wednesday, I received an interesting package. Turned out to be a t-shirt, poster and temp fangmark tatts. They were prizes for a competition I'd entered on Templar Publishing's website, in their promotion of the vampire entry in the Ology World series. The question? Who wrote Dracula. Piss-easy.

I completely forgot that I'd even entered the competition (the accompanying letter's dated 15/01/11), so it was a pleasant surprise. Sure, the shirt don't fit and appears to be a girl's cut, but hey, a nice souvenir all the same.

*****************************

On the 14th, I decided to join hundreds and millions of other folk by opening a Facebook account. So, casual readers, followers and such, feel free to add me. Just don't bombard me with Farmville apps, eh?

Amazonian Spending Spree

2011-03-14T05:19:00.006+11:00

Firstly, happy Labour Day, whether you're a fellow countrymen or not. Second, it's time for a run-down of my latest vampire-related purchases.

I've deprived myself of buying non-fiction vampire books for so long that I went a little crazy when I logged into Amazon a few weeks ago. On February 20, I thought I'd treat myself and order a coupla books. But hey, why not add a couple more. Yeah, might as well round it off...

Ladies and gentlemen, I bought eight. Not cheap, either, lemme tell ya. Grand total (including shipping)? AUD 395.46. Fu...dge. Thankfully, our dollar's been on parity with the US's. Might as well take advantage of it while I still can, eh?

Anyhoo, onto the books. A few of 'em have come in. I'll give each one my brief impressions as I obviously haven't had time to read them all. Let's start with the batch that arrived on the 7th:

1. ST Joshi's Encyclopedia of the vampire: the living dead in myth, legend, and popular culture (2010 [2011 copyright date])

I've been waiting to get my hands on this one for a while. I was expecting it to be a serious rival to Melton's vampire encyclopedia, especially in light of its editor's pedigree. However, despite its subtitle, its primary focus is on vampire fiction. I couldn't help but feel somewhat disappointed that the mythological/folkloric aspect of vampirism wasn't given more coverage. It seems to have more in common with Erwin Jänsch's Vampir-Lexikon (1995) than Melton's broad analysis.

Don't get me wrong, though, this isn't a bad book. It's well-written and has a lotta interesting sources to mine. It's just not what I was expecting.

2. Deborah Wilson Overstreet's Not your mother's vampire: vampires in young adult fiction (2006)

As I've said before, I love it when vampire books focus on a specific aspect of the vampire myth. Young Adult vampire fiction, to my knowledge, has never been given an overview of this depth. We tend to overlook just how huge that field is. Despite extensive fandom for one saga in particular, we tend to forget exactly what audience those books were written for. I'm sure Overstreet would've had no idea just how huge the phenomena would become when she wrote the book.

That said, it's kinda ironic that she obviously didn't write it for a teen market. It's quite a scholarly work. This'd be the kinda thing you'd use for researching a major assignment or a thesis. That also means it has much more academic value than your standard cover-all-the-bases pop culture trash.

3. Michelle Belanger's Sacred hunger: the vampire in myth and reality (2005)

In contrast with what I said about Overstreet's book, this one's squarely rooted in the vampire subculture. In fact, its author is a founder of the House Kheperu and practices psychic vampirism. Not exactly my bag.

So, why did I buy it?

Well, like I said, I'm interested in works that cover specific aspects of the vampire myth and from the extracts I've seen of this thing, it seems Michelle's still objective enough to give the field some interesting coverage. But we'll see, eh?

The next 'instalment' arrived on the 11th. Two books, this time, but both are invaluable contributions to vampire scholarship.

4. Theresa Bane's Encyclopedia of vampire mythology (2010)

A critic questioned my 'career path' after I had the sheer audacity to offhandedly label Bane's Actual factual: Dracula (2007) as a 'mere catalogue'. In my response to the charge, however, I praised this book. No, I wasn't suckin' up to her, I genuinely hold this book in higher regard than her previous effort. As I said, when used in tandem, they're great.

The problem is, there's a lot of those vampire 'field guides' out there that don't efficiently chronicle their sources. As a result, we're left with a giant cauldron into which everything is thrown in, rather than developing a cohesive representation of the vampire, at least, in keeping with its standing as an 'historical' entity. Admittedly, the more you try and define exactly what a vampire is, the more you unravel the very fabric of the vampire itself. So, while I might not (personally) agree with the 'universality' of the vampire, Bane's given us a great paper trail to follow with each of her entries. Thank you!

5. Erik Butler's Metamorphoses of the vampire in literature and film: cultural transformations in Europe, 1732–1933 (2010)

I've barely read this book, but I know it's brilliant. Whether you question my integrity for the following statement or not, I don't care, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is probably one of the best books on vampires ever written. From what I've seen, it's absolutely jam-packed with info, interesting observations and well-sourced. My view might be tempered by the time I actually get 'round to finishing it (heh heh), but in the meantime, I stand by my call.

Well, that's all I got for now. I'm still waiting on three more books. I'll let you know what they are when they arrive. If you're interested, have a gander at the other books I've got in my collection. However, I should mention that I haven't gotten 'round to chronicling all the vampire books I own, but that's a sizable portion.

Am I missing anything decent? Got any recommendations? Are you a fellow LibraryThing member and you wanna 'add' me? Feel free!

Vienna conference papers to be published

2011-02-28T23:43:00.005+11:00

I briefly dealt with Niels' coverage of the 2009 Vienna conference, Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, in the previous entry. Here's a bit more info.

Niels mentioned in a recent blog entry that he'd 'read a proof of [his] paper for the proceedings of the 2009 conference on vampirism and magia posthuma in Vienna, so the book should be on its way within a not too distant future'. He attended the conference and discussed the papers read there.

Here's a (pdf) list of abstracts for the papers presented at the conference. Karin Barton's 'The Habsburg flea: notes on the cultural and literary history of an insect vampire' provided me with the lead for chasing the elusive, early mentions of nosferatu, even if its reference was rather offhand, as attested by her abstract:

By the time the Der Floh (The Flea, 1869-1919) started publishing its political and anticlerical satires in Vienna, the miniature vampire of the insect world that gave its name to this publication had already established a significant role in satirical and pornographic writings. This paper provides a brief survey of flea-literature in the Holy Roman Empire, starting with the late medieval and pseudo-Ovidian Carmen de pulice which combines the motifs of sex and death with vampiric overtones, to the prominent Renaissance trope of the war between fleas and their allegedly preferred hosts, women. The mock epic of the Strassburg satirist and Rabelais-translator Johann Fischart, Flöh Hatz, Weiber Tratz (Flea Hunt, Womens’ Defiance 1573/77) marks the apex of the trope in German literature. Fischart’s work contains a remarkable comparison of three blood meals from the perspective of a flea narrator: the flea’s natural and legitimate theft of blood, the Christian Eucharist, and the quasi-cannibalistic ingestion of a flea filled with fresh human blood by a coarse butcher-maid turned flea-slayer, with the latter being unfavorably linked to the infamous 15th century Walachian ruler »Traculam«. Fischart’s Flea Hunt will be discussed as the locus classicus of the polysemic presentation of the flea – as insect, man, devil – one encounters from the early modern period to the 19th century in a variety of writings and genres in which the realistic and ubiquitous bloodsucker appears as a literary forerunner and comical side-kick of the vampire.

Will her paper make the cut in the upcoming published proceedings? We'll wait and see.

I'm certainly looking forward to the book's publication (even if I won't be able to read it), because it's not often conferences focus on the folkloric/historical angle of the vampire. At least, in English language proceedings. Instead, they tend to concentrate on the vampire's appearance in fictional literature and film.

This is echoed in publications derived from such conferences, the primary examples being James Craig Holte's The fantastic vampire (2002) and Peter Day's Vampires: myths and metaphors of enduring evil (2006). I suspect this is because of the relative paucity of non-English sources consulted in vampire history research. I might come under fire for this, but most of the good stuff seems to be in German.

I mean, seriously, have a read through Niels' coverage of the subjects discussed there and see if you can find anything comparable in English with that level of depth (not including Barber, Perkowski, McClelland or Keysworth). Sigh. It's very frustrating. German publishers, if you can read this, start publishing translations in English, please!

Unearthing Nosferatu

2011-02-28T21:28:00.006+11:00

Emily Gerard (1849-1905) is generally considered to be the first author to use the term nosferatu. I examined a source allgedly pre-dating her own, but found it wanting. However, what I didn't tell you, is that I actually knew of an earlier source, pre-dating Gerard's usage by 20 years.

I was saving the info for a special purpose. Maybe a book, maybe a journal article. But with my recent membership into the Canadian branch of the Transylvanian Society of Dracula, I found the perfect outlet for my finding: their newsletter. Here's my article for your reading pleasure. Click on the image to read it in higher resolution.

Source: Anthony Hogg, 'Vindicating Gerard', The Borgo Post, Winter 2011, p. 3.

Incidentally, my article's inclusion in The Borgo Post marks a significant milestone in my 'career' as a vampirologist: this is the first vampire-related article I've submitted for a print publication. Ever. It even scored an addendum by the Society's president, Elizabeth Miller, who, as you guys would probably be aware by now, is an author I hold in high regard. Quite an honour.

I've gotta admit though, it was a bit nerve-wracking waiting for the article to be published. You see, The Borgo Post is a quarterly newsletter. That's a long time between publication. I had to keep my fingers crossed that no-one else would make the 'discovery' in the meantime, as I wanted it to be an 'exclusive'. I would occasionally check Google to see if it'd appear elsewhere. It was a long wait between my original submission to the newsletter's editor ('Submission for The Borgo Post', Tuesday, 2 November 2010 8:18:32 AM)‏ till the newsletter's arrival on February 2nd. Thankfully, it went off without a hitch.

At this point, you might be wondering why exactly I chose to chase this pre-Gerard lead in the first place. What was the inspiration behind it. Well, I'm gonna lay a couple more exclusives on you, dear readers. Stuff you won't find in that article. As it happens, I chased the lead after I read Niels' coverage of the Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert conference. A certain passage stood out to me:

Karin Barton, associate professor at Laurier University in Canada, is particularly interested in insects and their role in cultural history and literature, currently with emphasis on the flea. She presented a paper on The Habsburg Flea: Notes on the Cultural and Literary History of an Insect Vampire with numerous examples of how the flea has been presented in various media, including some that related it to vampires. Remarkably, she presented a source from 1866 that mentions the word 'nosferatu', a term otherwise usually perceived as constructed by Emily Gerard in her Transsylvanian [sic] Superstitions from 1885!

My eyes lit up when I saw that, too. Like many people in the field, I was also under the impression that the word's original appearance was in Gerard's article. Niels didn't list Barton's 1866 source, so I decided to find it myself. It really was as simple as typing "nosferatu" into Google Books. Not much legwork involved there. But I certainly hit paydirt, because the source I found pre-dates Barton's by a year.

Now, this is where I share my other exclusive with you. Being mindful that Barton's article hasn't yet seen publication, with no mention (to my knowledge) if it's gonna be included in the conference's upcoming anthology, I bet I could tell you what her source was. Something else I didn't mention in 'Vindicating Gerard': Wilehem Schmidt's 1865 article, 'Das Jahr und seine Tage in Meinung und Brauch der Rumänen Siebenbürgens' was expanded into a book of the same name...in 1866.

Here's something I just discovered while writing this blog entry: at the time I wrote the newsletter article, the journal Schmidt had written for was no longer available on Google Books. (apart from the Danish version Neils kindly drew my attention to). But now, it's back up.

And there you have it, folks. The earliest known appearance of nosferatu in written form. I'm more than happy to be corrected on that, of course, but that's the earliest mention I've been able to come across thus far. If you know of an older source, feel free to send me along your source.

One for the Dracula Scholars

2011-02-01T15:58:00.006+11:00

I've heard rumblings about plans for an 'event' to commemorate the centennial passing of Bram Stoker at 'Hull University', so I decided to do some sleuthing to find out what was going on.

And by 'sleuthing', I of course mean 'Google searching'. Turns out the University of Hull is gonna be holding 'a three-day international conference'. The event's called Bram Stoker and Gothic Transformations. It'll be hosted at the Hull Campus of the University and in Whitby in April 2012. Has that whet your whistle? Then let's delve a little further. Here's its theme:

The conference is interested in the iconic significance of Stoker’s vampire novel and seeks to reappraise Stoker’s work within its fin-de-siècle cultural climate. It is also interested in exploring the broader context of the changing nature of Gothic productions from the late eighteenth century to the present. Using Dracula as a key point in the evolution of the genre, it seeks to explore the novel’s Gothic predecessors and influences, and the manner in which Stoker’s work renewed the Gothic for future generations.

They're accepting papers, if you wanna take part. Send an abstract of 250-300 words for a 20 minute paper to Dr Catherine Wynne (her e-mail addy's on the site). You've got till 1 May 2011 to submit. There are 20 topics on the site to choose from, but they appear to be flexible on this, so long as it caters to the conference's theme. Have fun!

Things That Make You Go 'Whaaa?'

2011-02-01T15:09:00.006+11:00

I've come across one of the most bizarre vampire stories I've ever read. It concerns a 13th century Scottish castle, animal carcasses and...the late King of Pop. Best of all, it's recounted as a true story.

The story concerns 'ghosthunter' Tom Robertson's investigation into strange phenomena around Lochmaben, Dumfriesshire. Here's an extract:

Ghosthunter: Adventures In The Afterlife recounts his most challenging cases but perhaps the most intriguing involves the story he tells today of a Borders vampire with a bizarre connection to the Prince of Pop, Michael Jackson.

He says: "Little surprises me, and even less scares me. But an investigation late on in my career did, on both counts.

"The twists and turns left me speechless and the conclusion came straight out of Hollywood.

And it only gets stranger from there. You can find his book here. Speaking of strange, while Googling about for this article, I came across several sites keen on depicting Michael, himself, as a vampire. There's a Facebook group, a blogger who wonders whether Jackson was a psychic vampire, and, of course, various pictorial representations. Like this one:

Before Jackson's passing, Auto Loan Daily covered the sale of Jackson's custom Bentley limo, noting, 'Apparently Michael Jackson went through a vampire period, because the limo looks like a modern interpretation of Count Dracula’s carriage.' To be honest, it's the fans who worry me more than this prospect.

Aww, My First Criticism!

2011-01-31T17:25:00.005+11:00

Well, second, if you count the chap I've dealt with here. A commentator on my blog has taken great umbrage with something I said about a certain author's work. Can I defend myself against the 'slings and arrows'?

In dealing with a piece of falsified info in Christopher Rondina's book, Vampire legends of Rhode Island (1997), I said 'If we can dish it, we gotta take it, too, but it's always important to start off with a strong case.' So, in this spirit, I present commentator Melody's response to something I said about Theresa Bane's Actual factual: Dracula (2007):

Obviously any book containing over 600 different species of vampires is not a 'mere' catalogue of vampire species. I'm sure detailed reseach and investigation went into this book, and with 600 examples of vamipires, time and effort that went into this project must have been immense. If you have read this book and another that you say is supposedly even more detailed, and dont agree with either of them, perhaps being a vampirologist isn't for you, just an observation.

Ouch! Apparently my 'mere catalogue' statement about one of Bane's books completely undermines my chosen 'profession'. Everything else I've written is null and void, as a result! Yeah, ok...

Yes, I did call Bane's book a 'mere catalogue' (Bane wasn't too happy with that description, either). Perhaps I should've been more clearer on why I thought that, but then again, it was my opinion, too. An off-hand remark. I wasn't writing a review. But, thanks to your criticism, Melody, I'll make my case now.

Firstly, I'll say Bane's a fantastic vampirologist. She's a real credit to the field. No sarcasm here, I'm serious. Hell, we even have similar tastes, namely the mythological/folkloric aspect of vampires. Nowhere did I say a lotta work hadn't gone into the book. I wasn't undermining the effort she put into it, I was critiquing its format. It is a catalogue. That is, a listing of various species of vampire, along with brief descriptions of their attributes, etc.

My main issue with it, however, is that in providing so many diverse entries, we're left with a helluva paper trail to unravel (to her credit, she at least includes a bibliography [pp. 345-50]). Putting so many beasties into a single stew, I believe, also fragments the essence of what a vampire is. Admittedly, this is a notoriously difficult aspect of vampire study. Exactly what is a vampire? Funnily enough, Bane's asked that question, herself.

But for the sake of her book, Bane provides the following definition, 'Vampires are creatures who must consume "life essence" on a semiregular basis to sustain their own existence' (p. xiii). The problem is, when you apply such a broad definition, you could be talking about practically any evil monster, spirit or demon from mythology and folklore.

You find this approach in various vampire 'field guides'. Did you know that the Jersey Devil makes an appearance in Shane MacDougall's The vampire slayers' field guide to the undead (2003), even though the author admits, 'Though not a vampire per se, the Jersey Devil has been associated with the mass slaughter of animals and stealing of children, ostensibly to feast on both' (p. 43). Like I said, where do you draw the line?

As a work of comparative mythology, Bane's indices (2007, pp. 355-445) are invaluable. But what if you want to individually trace the source of each entry? You're stuck. Why? Because sources don't appear with each entry. You'd have to sift through the books in the bibliography. Fives pages worth. I admit, this is a somewhat growing bias of mine, due to the frustrations I encounter when dealing with dead ends. But that situation is remedied in Bane's follow-up book, Encyclopedia of vampire mythology (2010). It is brilliant. Her approach to vampirology is much more clearly defined (pp. 1-5). And off the top of my head, every single entry is sourced. I love it. I'd even go so far as to say it's one of the best vampire books ever written. Did I mention its totally sweet cover?

If the indices of Actual had been incorporated into her Encyclopedia, you'd have a book on vampire 'species' almost impossible to topple. So, used in tandem, they're great. But Actual, as a standalone, is practically another vampire 'field guide'. A 'mere catalogue'.

Funny that you mentioned Bane so recently, Melody, as I've been planning on doing a write-up on her 'Vampire research book list'. So, stay tuned for that!

References

Bane, T 2007, Actual factual: Dracula, a compendium of vampires, NeDeo Press, Randleman, NJ.

Bane, T 2010, Encyclopedia of vampire mythology, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, NC.

MacDougall, S (Jonathan Maberry) 2003, The vampire slayers' field guide to the undead, Strider Nolan Publishing, Doylestown, PA.

The FVZA Is Not a Factual Resource

2011-01-29T15:08:00.006+11:00

The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency (FVZA) was set up by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 to combat a vampire epidemic sweeping across the United States.

Did you believe that statement? I hope not. For starters, Grant's presidency began in 1869. If that's not enough to convince you that there's something a tad dodgy about the existence of a government agency established to eliminate vampires and zombies, then how about the following disclaimer from the FVZA's homepage?

This site is is fictional and is for entertainment purposes only. We are not affiliated with the U.S. Government in any way. Under no cirumstances [sic] are you to harm anyone based on information from this site.

Anyone with half a brain can tell that site's bogus. If they can't, then the disclaimer caps it off. That's why it disturbs me to see material from the site being reproduced as part of actual vampire lore or history. It's bad enough to see the propagation of imaginary works from the site, but to see material from the FVZA seep into non-fiction vampire books, too. Ugh.

Theresa Cheung's The Element encyclopedia of vampires (2009) is one guilty party. The FVZA and/or its fictional director, Dr. Hugo Pecos, are covered multiple times in her book. Worse than that, they are treated as authoritative sources. Here's their first appearance in the encyclopedia:

One vampirologist who has studied at length the aging experience of vampires is Hugo Pecos, overseer of an organization called the Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency (FVZA). According to Pecos . . . vampires are only ageless in that they do not age in the same way humans do. Their longevity is not the result of some virus or pact with the Devil, but rather their unique ability to ward off the DNA damage that occurs during cell division in normal humans (p. 11).

Here's another instance, in which Pecos is cited as an authority:

In vampire communities, an alpha vampire is a vampire who asserts dominance over others vampires with his or her superior skills, strength and intellect. According to vampirologist Hugo Pecos, who oversees scientific research into the undead, an alpha vampire is the strongest and oldest vampire (p. 19).

Pecos resurfaces in the book several more times (pp. 232, 307, 410-11, 449, 498, 547-8, 631) , as does the FVZA (pp. 184, 231-2, 307, 410, 449, 498, 547, 621). To be fair, Cheung does retain some sense of skepticism over the organisation. Or, at least, mentions skepticism: 'The lack of historical accuracy in the FVZA website and the unsubstantiated nature of the claims it makes has led few vampire experts to take it seriously' (p. 232). But then you gotta ask yourself, why did Cheung take it seriously enough to incorporate their material into her book?

I have discovered another non-fiction book which incorporates FVZA material, but in a much more subtle way. What makes this one more disturbing, is that it was written by someone with a MA degree for History.

The book in question is Charlotte Montague's Vampires: from Dracula to Twilight: the complete guide to vampire mythology (2010). Her book contains no bibliography, already a warning sign in itself. In his review of her book, Andrew M. Boylan displays his frustration with a certain section of the text that deals with the vampire's reaction to sunlight:

When it comes to sources I would have loved to have seen one for the assertion that (having first neglected to mention Nosferatu when exploring the sunlight myth) in “later stories, vampires might collapse or explode when hit by sunlight, the ‘scientific’ explanation for this being that their neural pathways would fire randomly in their brains, causing them to experience extreme epileptic reactions, blinding them, and possibly setting them on fire”! I have seen many an explanation as to why sunlight might affect a vampire, and countless more films and books when it isn’t even explained but simply taken as read. I do not recall a theorem such as that… pray tell me your source… the book remains silent.

To be fair on Montague, there's a context for her statement, which directly precedes Boylan's quotation:

The idea that sunlight was harmful to vampires was an addition to the mythology that took place in the twentieth century, and went on to appear in comics, books, films, and on television (p. 55).

But it doesn't get her off the hook that easily. After all, her recollection of the vampire's reaction to sunlight is pretty damn specific. So where did she get this info? Thanks to Google, I can tell you. The giveaway term was 'neural pathways':

Sunlight renders vampires, with their hyperdilated irises, blind. It also causes neural pathways to fire randomly in the vampire brain, creating an extreme epileptic reaction. As dramatic as this reaction may appear, it will not be enough to start a fire.

That extract's from 'The top ten vampire myths', which is found on (you guessed it) the FVZA website. The bottom of the page contains a 2001-2009 copyright notice. Remember, Montague's book was published in 2010. The page has been used been cited by other authors like this guy and that one, clearly establishing the page's existence before the publication of Montague's book.

So, remember folks: the FVZA is a fictional organisation established for entertainment purposes. Sure, the theories they discuss might sound scientific, but they're made up. So is its history, as if that wasn't obvious enough. I've got no problem with authors who want to present the FVZA's theories in association with vampire lore, as long as it's make clear that they're dealing with a fictional resource. Also, unlike Montague, provide a bloody paper trail via citation. Don't wanna stumble upon FVZA-derived material through Googling. Be honest and admit your source.

References

Cheung, T 2009, The Element encyclopedia of vampires, HarperCollins Publishers, London.

Montague, C 2010, Vampires: from Dracula to Twilight: the complete guide to vampire mythology, Chartwell Books, New York.

Rondina Responds

2011-01-26T03:58:00.005+11:00

After writing the previous entry, I contacted Christopher Rondina to see if he'd take up my challenge. The resulting correspondence may surprise you.

When it comes to writing my exposés, I'm not one to hit-and-run. I allow for benefit of the doubt, as I'm somewhat hesitant to call "fraud!" without some pretty damn solid proof. I deal with that kinda stuff on my other blog, on a regular basis. In this case, I engaged Rondina through correspondence. I sent him an e-mail subjected 'A Challenge' (January 26 at 1:47am):

Good morning Mr. Rondina,

I wanted to discuss a critique I have written on a certain section of your 1997 book, "Vampire Legends of Rhode Island". Here 'tis:

http://doaav.blogspot.com/2011/01/bats-where-they-dont-belong.html

Are you willing to undertake the challenge I have offered you towards the end of the blog entry?

He replied shortly afterwards (January 26 at 3:05am) with admirable candour and courteously allowed me to reproduce his response:

Anthony,

Good morning, and thank you for your query!

You've clevery stumbled upon a faux pas from my earliest days as a writer - A glitch in my cereer that I had forgotten in the nearly fifteen years since I first wrote about New England's vampire folklore. I would love to be able to dismiss the "bat scandal" by claiming it was a typo or editing error, but the truth is much simpler.

"Vampire Legends of Rhode Island" was not only my first book, but my first serious attempt at writing, and I was, at best, an immature "journalist" when I began the project. As an avid vampire fan, I was also disappointed to see the absence of bats in the original folklore, and I inserted the reference into the 1892 article as a vanity "enhancement" for my own satisfaction. Regrettably, my grasp of ethical journalism was less well-developed at that time than it is today. I like to think I have grown since then, but I hope there will always be people like yourself around to help keep me honest.

Regards,
Christopher Rondina

Wow. Didn't see that coming! It's rare to see such a frank admittance. Quite refreshing, actually. Reminds me of something J. Gordon Melton wrote in his review of Elizabeth Miller's Dracula: Sense & Nonsense (2000):

She even has the audacity to criticize my books in several places, the pain of which was only slightly alleviated by her own confessions of falling short of the high standard she is setting. But I hope that you were as lucky as I was early on in having a teacher who drilled into me the virtue of being grateful to colleagues who assist us in checking our errors.

Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of that first sentence, Melton makes a valid point on the importance of criticism. Rondina recognises it, too. To ensure the 'health' of any field of study, it needs to be regulated. Monitored. Watch for bullshit slipping through the cracks. Miller's practically made a career out of it.

If we can dish it, we gotta take it, too, but it's always important to start off with a strong case. When one of my readers, Jonathan, questioned certain possibilities I raised as to why Peter Haining saw fit to conjure a book out of thin air, I was able justify my claims with evidence. He acceded.

Same principle with this 'bat scandal'. All I had to do was chase up the original source. Pretty damn hard to refute that. I didn't title my e-mail to Rondina 'A Challenge' for nothing! Heh heh. He just graciously handed me the smoking gun. Doesn't mean everyone's gonna do that (again, something I encounter on my other blog), so it's a testament to the character of those that do.

Bats Where They Don't Belong

2011-01-25T23:56:00.009+11:00

I've discussed the importance of paper trails, now here's a lesson on why we should consult original sources wherever possible.

Everyone knows vampires change into bats. It's common knowledge, just like their fear of sunlight and extra-long canine teeth. Problem is, there's no historical basis for their ability to change into flying mammals prior to the publication of Dracula (1897). As Elizabeth Miller notes, 'Stoker's major contribution to the link between vampires and bats was to have a vampire shape-shift into a bat' (2006, p. 16).

I've never been able to establish a pre-Stoker connection, meself. That is, until I read a reproduced newspaper article in Christopher Rondina's Vampire legends of Rhode Island (1997).

The article's called 'The vampire theory' and originally appeared in the Providence Journal (21 March 1892). Rondina prints it in its entirety (pp. 31–7). Here's the relevant portion:

In all forms of the tradition, the vampire left its abode, and wrought its object, at night. When the full moon shone and the sky was cloudless, its opportunity was supposed to be most favorable. It left the body of the dead at the back of the neck, and appeared as a frog, toad, spider, bat or venomous fly from that moment until it returned to its corpse home (p. 34).

Appeared as a bat! This was an exciting find. I knew Stoker had heard of New England 'vampire' cases. After all, his working notes for the novel contained an article discussing them. Was it possible that he read other newspaper articles on New England vampirism? Had he somehow come across the Providence Journal article? Had it inspired the vampire lore in his book?

Before I explored this theory any further, I had to double-check Rondina's source. I had to find a copy of the original article. After all, I was potentially dealing with a major discovery: pre-Stoker evidence of the vampire's ability to transform into a bat. Thanks to Rondina, I had a periodical title, an article name and a date. All I needed to do was track down a faculty that actually kept copies of the paper.

After some Googlin' and a coupla e-mails, I managed to track down a place: the Providence Public Library. Their librarian kindly sent me a copy of the article, which arrived on the 24th. The relevant citation was written on the photocopy, so I even had a page number, which Rondina neglected to cite.

There was only one portion of the article I was really interested in, so I hurriedly scanned through the page to see if Rondina's quotation was accurate. I found the relevant section Rondina quoted, along with a notable omission:

'It left the body of the dead at the back of the neck, and appeared as a frog, toad, spider, venomous fly, from that moment until it returned to its corpse home.' Despite the murkiness of the photocopy, it was readily apparent that the vampire's ability to appear in the form of a bat is not mentioned in the article. Here's a closer view:

I don't see 'appeared as a frog, toad, spider, bat or venomous fly' (my emphasis). Can you? There's no significant gaps between the text indicating missing words that might've been left out when the paper was first printed. There's no smudginess, indicating obscured words. Simply put, 'bat' isn't there. Let's say I was incredibly disappointed.

Despite this setback, I still retain a sense of optimism. I mean maybe, just maybe there's a pre-Stoker source out there that tells us vampires could change into bats. But Rondina's source isn't it. In the meantime, it's a shame we have to wade through erroneously transcribed (at best) or deliberately falsified (at worst) material to chronicle vampire lore.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to give Rondina the benefit of the doubt: if he can produce a copy of the article that actually includes the bat 'omission', as well as cite the faculty he obtained the article from, I am more than willing to retract my critique and offer a sincere apology. Ball's in his court.

References

Miller, E 2006, ‘Getting to know the un-dead: Bram Stoker, vampires, and Dracula’, in P Day (ed.), Vampires: myths and metaphors of enduring evil, At the interface/Probing the boundaries no. 28, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 3–19.

Rondina, C 1997, Vampire legends of Rhode Island, Covered Bridge Press, North Attleborough, Mass.

'The vampire theory', 1892, Providence Journal, 21 March, p. 8.

More Twilight Tatts

2011-01-25T15:58:00.006+11:00

Inking your body with Twilight motifs is a pretty hardcore sign of devotion to the franchise. Obviously. Here's one example that comes with an inspirational story behind its origins.

This is Cathy Ward, 49, of Reading, England. A friend gave her a DVD of the first film during an ebb in her life. She became obsessed with the series, and spent her downtime following the series rather than snacking. She managed to drop 14 dress sizes. She got the tatts done (with more to follow) in commemoration of the series' role in saving her from morbid obesity.

So, despite what some might say, turns out Twilight's good for something.

Just When I Thought It Couldn't Get Any Worse...

2011-01-25T14:49:00.006+11:00

The Fright Night remake is scheduled for an August 14 release date in the US. There's no escaping it. It's happening. Let's say my apprehensions about this film have only been heightened by one of its posters.

Arguably the most endearing character of the original 1985 movie, was Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) a washed-up horror actor, best known for playing vampire hunters. His character was a tribute to the horror flicks of the 1960s and '70s; his name an amalgamation of Peter Cushing (1913-1994) and Vincent Price (1911-1993).

He represents horror cinema's old guard, reduced to hosting a late night horror show. Even that remnant from the past's tenuous, after he's fired from his own show: "Apparently your generation doesn't want to see vampire killers anymore, nor vampires either. All they want to see slashers running around in ski masks, hacking up young virgins." Later, the role he played in movies so often, is transferred to real life.

As revealed in a previous entry, David Tennant will be playing Peter Vincent in the remake. However, in this "reimagining", the horror host angle's been ditched and so has the connection old school horror flicks. It's been replaced with this:

Yeah, that's right: a Criss Angel-like Las Vegas magician. That's not just a visual summation, it's the actual character description. Ugh. Dunno why they've made him look like Jared Leto, though. Anyhoo, just to scrub that image from your mind, here's an awesome poster for the 1985 original:

The Year That Was, Pt. 1

2010-12-31T01:51:00.004+11:00

The year's drawing to a close. What better opportunity for a retrospective! Time to review what went down on this in 2010. Cue excess linkage!

I began the year complaining about a slow delivery from the Canadian postal service. As it happens, I'm currently awaiting the arrival of a package from there. It was sent in mid-October, so I guess we've come full circle there.

I've given some decent coverage to the Twilight phenomena this year, but no post specifically on the subject drew as much attention as this. In fact, it was my 10th post popular post overall.

I began Q & A this year. My first interviewee was Niels K. Petersen. He was followed by Martin V. Riccardo and Bruce A. McClelland.

A Brian Solomon post served as a wake-up call and inspired my own rant on blogging ethics.

My third most popular post dealt with fake vampire books, namely Henry Gray's Anatomy of the Vampire or Vesalius' Five Books on the Structure of the Vampire Body. They're inventions of the FVZA. Yet, just like the Necronomicon, some people think they're real. I caught reference to one in Vlad III's Wikipedia entry, and allusions to 'em occur in a non-fictional work: Theresa Cheung's The Element Encyclopedia of Vampires (2009). Who knows where else they'll turn up.

The most popular post, however, concerned the mistaken authorship of a famous vampire story, "Wake Not the Dead". You probably thought it was written by Johann Ludwig Tieck. No surprises there, as that's who it's usually attributed to.

My coverage of the Ojai Vampire scored a few hits. I first read about that case in Rosemary Ellen Guiley's The Complete Vampire Companion (1994). I did a li'l more digging by contacting the Ventura County Parks Department. Here's what they said.

In the midst of that, I gave tips on how to be a vampirologist in my contribution to Michele Hauf's VampChix.

Justin Blair, one of the directors of Across the Forest (2009), kindly sent me a copy of his documentary for review. I was suitably impressed. It wasn't perfect, but a pretty damn good job overall.

I shined a light on a few relatively obscure vampire cases, namely the Gorbals Vampire, Sarah Ellen Roberts and the Birmingham Vampire. Incidentally, the latter post was this blog's 6th most popular.

After reading Andrew's review of Mystery and Imagination: Dracula (1968), I spotted a familiar rendering amidst the screencaps. Speaking of Dracula, I also reviewed a biography written by Stoker's great-nephew.

As the remake (oh, sorry, "reboot") train rolled on this year, I glanced through the casting choices for the upcoming reboot of one of my favourite vampire movies.

Then, after some prompting by one of Theresa Bane's posts, I imagined a world without Dracula.

Stay tuned for part 2 of this blog entry. In the meantime, I wish everyone a safe and happy new year! Thanks for joining me and I look forward to your company in 2011.

I'll leave you with a couple of treats. Firstly, I came across coverage of an interesting beauty pageant from 1970. Second, while it's a bit late to even think of attempting it, here's Jack Baker's "Steal the Show at the Vampire New Year Party". Just goes to show there's vampire-related everything.

Did Stoker Plan on Bringing Drac Back?

2010-12-24T05:39:00.006+11:00

Speaking of sequels, have you heard rumours that Bram Stoker originally intended on writing a sequel to Dracula (1897)? Let's take a look.

Sure, there's been heaps of movie sequels to adaptations of his work, like Dracula's Daughter (1936) and The Brides of Dracula (1960). A few authors have even cranked out their own: Freda Warrington's Dracula, the Undead (1997), Seán Manchester's Carmel: A Vampire Tale (2000) and Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt's Stoker estate-approved sequel spring to mind.

But what about Bram, himself? Did he ever write one? Did he plan to? Elizabeth Miller has the scoop, yet fails to mention a crucial scene in the novel (at least, in the entry itself).¹ As she points out, Dracula isn't destroyed in the proscribed manner recommended by Van Helsing during the course of the novel, i.e. stake through the heart, decapitation. Instead, he is "killed" when (spoiler alert!) Jonathan Harker shears his kukri knife through the Count's throat, while mortally-wounded Quincey Morris plunges his Bowie knife into the vampire's heart. Here's what happens next, as described by Mina:

It was like a miracle, but before our very eyes, and almost in the drawing of a breath, the whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight.

I shall be glad as long as I live that even in that moment of final dissolution, there was in the face a look of peace, such as I never could have imagined might have rested there.

The Castle of Dracula now stood out against the red sky, and every stone of its broken battlements was articulated against the light of the setting sun.

Wait, maybe the Count tricked them! He turned to dust at just the right moment! It's one of his powers, after all. Except for one thing: up to that point, Mina's forehead had been marked by the imprint of a Eucharistic Wafer, after being bitten by the Count. Here's how it went down:

"Then it is well. Now, Madam Mina, you are in any case quite safe here until the sunset. And before then we shall return . . . if . . . We shall return! But before we go let me see you armed against personal attack.I have myself,since you came down,prepared your chamber by the placing of things of which we know, so that He may not enter. Now let me guard yourself.On your forehead I touch this piece of Sacred Wafer in the name of the Father, the Son, and . . .

There was a fearful scream which almost froze our hearts to hear. As he had placed the Wafer on Mina's forehead, it had seared it . . . had burned into the flesh as though it had been a piece of whitehot metal. My poor darling's brain had told her the significance of the fact as quickly as her nerves received the pain of it,and the two so overwhelmed her that her overwrought nature had its voice in that dreadful scream.

The mark signifies her vampiric infection and "connection" to Dracula, as it's established that the the vampires in Stoker's universe cannot tolerate holy objects. Dracula is warded off with crucifixes. His "brides" are kept at bay with a "Holy Circle" (made from crumbled Eucharistic Wafers). It also imprisons the infected Mina, or, as Van Helsing says: "For I knew that we were safe within the ring, which she could not leave no more than they could enter." Yet, here's what happens after Dracula's disintegration:

I flew to him [Morris -ed.], for the Holy circle did not now keep me back, so did the two doctors. Jonathan knelt behind him and the wounded man laid back his head on his shoulder. With a sigh he took, with a feeble effort, my hand in that of his own which was unstained.

He must have seen the anguish of my heart in my face, for he smiled at me and said, "I am only too happy to have been of service! Oh, God!" he cried suddenly, struggling to a sitting posture and pointing to me. "It was worth for this to die! Look! Look!"

The sun was now right down upon the mountain top, and the red gleams fell upon my face, so that it was bathed in rosy light. With one impulse the men sank on their knees and a deep and earnest "Amen" broke from all as their eyes followed the pointing of his finger.

The dying man spoke, "Now God be thanked that all has not been in vain! See! The snow is not more stainless than her forehead! The curse has passed away!"

If Dracula didn't "die", then how on earth did that happen? The disappearance of the mark clearly indicates she's free from the vampiric taint. Also, what many seem to forget, is that Stoker's novel concludes with an epilogue set seven years afterwards. No further signs of vampirism and Dracula's castle is nothing more than an uninhabited wreck. In other words, he's dead.

But Dracula's a vampire. Undead. Gotta be a way around that, right? Maybe bring him back to life or something. Sure, that's possible. It's fiction, after all. But where's the signs that Stoker intended on doing so? That's the whole point. He makes it pretty clear that Dracula's karked it. Holmwood and Seward are happily married (not to each other). The Harkers have a son. Van Helsing seems jovial. That doesn't scream "set up" so much as "happy ending".

If Stoker did intend on writing a sequel, we have no proof of it (textual or otherwise), apart from hearsay and speculation. A shame, really, as it would've been great to see how the story continues. I guess that's left to our own imagination.

¹ To be fair, she dealt with this scene in the comments section.

Where's the Salem's Lot Sequel?

2010-12-24T04:18:00.009+11:00

Stephen King's Salem's Lot (1975) is one of my favourite vampire novels and one of his most successful. Many years ago, he spoke of writing a sequel, even outlining a basic plot. It's been thirty fives years, so what's the go with it?

If you haven't read the novel, then maybe you've seen its adaptations. It's been made into a miniseries, twice, in 1979 and 2004. In fact, the first miniseries even inspired a direct-to-video sequel. Of sorts. Of sorts. It's hard to accept it as "canon" when it tinkered with the continuity of King's novel and the 1979 series it alluded to. Nonetheless, it's an entertaining film in its own right.

Back to the novel. As early as 1982, King was trumpeting his desire to write a follow-up. Douglas E. Winter featured King's say on it in The Art of Darkness: The Life and Fiction of the Master of the Master of the Macabre: Stephen King (London: New English Library, 1989)¹. I've inserted spacing in the paragraphs for legibility's sake:

. . . I know what the sequel will be. It's just a question of when I find the time . . .

Should I give you a preview? Ben Mears and [Mark Petrie] are now living in England, where Ben is doing the screenplay to one of his books . . . [Mark's] in school. While Ben is in his studio, [Mark] comes home, makes dinner and begins to get calls via transatlantic cable - from his mother.

'I'm still alive . . .' she says. 'You must come back to the Lot . . . They're hurting me.' And eventually he does go back. Ben follows him.

Father Callahan will come back, too. He's working in a Detroit soup kitchen, and this dying bum comes in: 'Father, you've got to bless me.' 'I'm not a priest anymore,' he says. The bum is gugling out his last words, 'It's not over in Salem's Lot yet.' And believe me, it isn't! (52)²

The 2004 miniseries features a soup kitchen scene with Father Callahan, but it's certainly not a sequel. The closest contemporary thing we have to an official sequel is "One for the Road", which first appeared in Maine (March/April 1977), and later included in his short story collection, Night Shift (1978). It's a sequel by virtue of the fact that part of it occurs in 'Salem's Lot after the events in the 1975 novel. Not much in the way of an actual plot, though.

However, there's certainly an arc in place. A prequel was also published in Night Shift, and the town's "subsequently mentioned in passing in The Shining, The Dead Zone, The Body, Pet Sematary, Dolores Claiborne, Dreamcatcher, and the last three books of the The Dark Tower series (Wolves of the Calla, Song of Susannah, and The Dark Tower)."

The last grouping's the most relevant to our question: will there ever be a novel-length sequel? There's certainly still demand for it. For the answer, though, we turn to Stephen King's FAQ page:

Actually, I'm hoping to write a sequel to almost all of my novels and you will find those in Wolves of the Calla, Song of Susannah, and The Dark Tower--really in the whole Dark Tower sequence. You'll find out a lot of what happened in 'Salem's Lot for one thing and one character in particular - I'm not going to tell you which one. This is in no way an advertisement for The Dark Tower books, but it is my way of saying that The Dark Tower books finishes up a lot of business from the other books.

Spoiler alert: "one character in particular" is Father Callahan. The Dark Tower books are far-removed from the "real world" setting of the novel, its prequel and mini-sequel, though. Still canon, sure (it's King's story, after all), but it's just not the same.

On the plus side, he's at least expressing interest in writing a sequel, even if it's the daunting task of writing one "for almost all" of his novels. He's a prolific guy. So, will a "proper" sequel ever emerge? I guess we can paraphrase the same answer quoted by Winter: when he finds the time.

¹ My paperback copy. The original was published in 1984 by New American Library.

² Winter's source: "Quoted in David McDonnell, 'The Once and Future King,' Mediascene Prevue, April/May 1982, p. 59" (269 n24).

They're Remaking Buffy

2010-11-29T01:44:00.005+11:00

I'll start this off by saying that I'm not exactly a huge fan of the TV series or the original movie. But I am sick and tired of the glut of so-called "reboots", so this news really takes the cake.

How soon should one wait before remaking a "dead" property? Twenty years? Ten? Well, the critically-acclaimed TV series wrapped up in 2003, but if you wanna talk canon, it's still going (in comic book form).

"Oh, cool," you might've thought. "They're gonna do a movie version of the TV series!" Bzzt. Wrong. Not only won't it feature Sarah Michelle Gellar or anyone else from the Scooby Gang, but the franchise's creator, Joss Whedon, has no involvement in the project. Here's what he had to say:

I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, AFTER. I don't love the idea of my creation in other hands, but I'm also well aware that many more hands than mine went into making that show what it was. And there is no legal grounds for doing anything other than sighing audibly. I can't wish people who are passionate about my little myth ill. I can, however, take this time to announce that I'm making a Batman movie. Because there's a franchise that truly needs updating. So look for The Dark Knight Rises Way Earlier Than That Other One And Also More Cheaply And In Toronto, rebooting into a theater near you.

No legal grounds indeed. You see, Whedon doesn't own the rights to his own Buffyverse. They're in the hands of Fran Rubel Kuzui (the original movie's director) and her husband, Kaz Kuzui. Which is wonderful when you learn of Whedon's plight during the first movie's creative direction: "The original script Whedon wrote was completely rewritten to make the film more 'light.' Whedon reportedly stormed off the set during production and never returned because of how what he had planned was being put together". To add insult to injury, one of Whedon's proposed Buffy spin-offs was also nixed.

Ok, so who's writing the script for this one? Heard of Whit Anderson? I IMDBed the name, to check their "credentials". What experience does she have to tackle a franchise like Buffy? Anything of note?

For starters, she hasn't written a film before. At least, one that's been released. However, she did star as Liz Meyers in Through Walls (2004), Jill in Saw Rebirth (2005), "Yes Patron" in Yes Man (2008) and...that's it. Now, contrast her résumé with Whedon's. Notice the difference?

However, it'd be remiss of me not to mention another one of her glorious contributions to cinema. Did you know the remake was her idea?

Apparently a huge Buffy fan who pitched Roven the idea, and the deal was made: Warner Bros. Pictures optioned the rights from directors Fran and Kaz Kuzui, and from Sandollar Productions (Sandy Gallin and Dolly Parton), who did the original movie version (pre-TV's Buffy).

Way to go, Whit.

The Queen Is Dead! Long Live the Queen!

2010-11-29T01:39:00.003+11:00

I received word from Marty¹ of a terrible loss to the horror industry: Ingrid Pitt, who rose to fame through Hammer Films, has passed away.

He sent the following obituary, confirming the news. She's best-known in vampire circles for starring in The Vampire Lovers (1970), Hammer's adaptation of J. Sheridan LeFanu's "Carmilla" (1871-1872). She wrote about her experiences filming the movie here. Here's a snippet:

When it came to killing Kate O'Mara, who refused to recognise my Vampiric tendencies, I slung her on the floor, sprouted the teeth and moved in. The teeth promptly dived into Kate's cleavage.

She didn't appear in the film's sequels, but did take on other vampire (or vampire-related roles) by starring in Countess Dracula, "The Cloak" segment in The House That Dripped Blood (both 1971) and Beyond the Rave (2008). She also wrote a non-fiction work called The Ingrid Pitt Bedside Companion For Vampire Lovers (1998).

My condolences to her loved ones.

¹ "'Queen of horror' Ingrid Pitt dies‏", Saturday, 27 November 2010 6:06:27 PM.

Bite-Size Halloween Bits

2010-10-31T05:54:00.013+11:00

Happy Halloween, everyone! What perfect timing for a neglected round-up edition! What've I bought? What've I joined? What's coming up on the blog? Read on.

Ok, first up: a few eBay purchases came in the mail recently. Rosemary Ellen Guiley's Mysteries, Legends, and Unexplained Phenomena: Vampires (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2008) arrived on the 8th. I scored it for US $5.45 (not including shipping, of course).

It's tailored for a Young Adult readership, but still fairly informative. And better still, it's got sweet, sweet endnotes (115) and a bibliography (116-117). What's the big deal about that? Read this and you'll see. It's not often you see 'em in books for that audience, so bonus points for that. In my view, kids should be encouraged to develop this academic habit so they'll appreciate the importance of paper trails for themselves and for others.

Also, as you might know, I'm big into first editions. So, if you relish 'em as much as I do, avoid the the Checkmark Books 2009 copy. That is a paperback reprint. Or paperback edition, if you will. Stick with the Chelsea House Publishers version.

On the 13th, Charlotte Montague's From Dracula to Twilight: Vampires: The Complete Guide to Vampire Mythology (New York: Chartwell Books, Inc., 2010) arrived. Apart from its cumbersome title, it served as a marked contrast to Guiley's book on several counts. Firstly, it wasn't a first edition, as I found out the hard way. However, it wasn't falsely listed as a first edition, at least, so I really should have double-checked before I placed my bid. That said, I won it for the princely sum of US $1.77, so let's say my vision was somewhat obscured in this regard.

For the record, the original was published by Omnipress, a London-based publishing company. Or, so you'd think going on the book's copyright info. So, I'm wondering what's the go with this Sphere version. Might look into that.

Apart from a few rare photographs, there's nothing overly remarkable about the book. Its simplistic text and voluminous illustrations indicate it's for the young'uns, too. However, it not only lacks endnotes but has no bibliography, either. That's especially troubling when we're fed practically unverifiable info. See Andrew's review for Montague's coverage of the vampire's reaction to sunlight. I expected a lot more from an author with an MA degree in history.

The last eBay book to arrive was Timothy d'Arch Smith's Montague Summers: A Bibliography (Wellingborough: The Aquarian Press, 1983). Bought it for a fairly reasonable GBP 11.66. It's actually a 2nd rev. ed. of Smith's A Bibliography of the Works of Montague Summers (Nicholas Vane, 1964).

Incidentally, I like collecting further editions, too (as opposed to reprints), but I saw little in the way of revision from my recollections of the 1964 edition. Hell, Sewell's foreward and Smith's introduction from the first edition have been retained. Of course, at that time, Summers' autobiography, The Gallanty Show (1980), had yet to see published, so I can see why the book was revised (ever so slightly). But, come on! Give us a little more material, please. Something a bit more substantial than a coupla pages here and there.

That's not to say the book isn't handy, of course. Summers was a wildly prolific writer and Smith thoroughly and meticulously documents his writings wherever they've appeared. It must've been a nightmarish task. That said, in light of Summers contributions to modern vampire studies, it's a shame to find out that his writings on the subject were seemingly confined to two books and a letter to Time and Tide (January 18, 1929), pp. 60-61, correcting a reviewer's comments on his book, The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928). That's not Smith's fault, of course, but still...

*****************************

Speaking of Guiley and further editions, The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves and Other Monsters (2004) has a second edition on the way. It's scheduled publication date is June 30, 2011.

It's title's been shortened to The Encyclopedia of Vampires & Werewolves, which is probably for the best, as the "other monsters" bit was largely drowned out by the vampire and werewolf entries in the first edition. It's also got a beaut new cover.

*****************************

On Tuesday (26th), I received an important letter from Elizabeth Miller, along with the Spring and Summer issues of The Borgo Post. What was so important about this letter, praytell? It confirmed my registration with the Transylvanian Society of Dracula. Yep, I'm now a member of the TSD!

It's the first time I've ever been part of a vampire "fan club", if you will. Concurrent to signing with them, I was thinking of joining The Vampire Empire, only to find out that it "now serves as a Research facility only." D'oh!

*****************************

I get a kick out of seeing what brings you guys to my blog. And what tops the list? Of all things, looks like you can't get enough of my posts on "antique" vampire killing kits (see here, here and here). They've scored mentions on the Daily Kos and The BS Historian. The latter was even inspired to continue their coverage of the kits, emphasising the silver bullet angle. Be sure to check it out.

Oh, and I can't help but be amused by those "Twilight porn" searches. Hahaha! Naughty, naughty! I'll say this, though: the infamous Rule 34 works in your favour.

Incidentally, I do see a few research ones, like "what kind of degree does a vampirologist need" from Albuquerque, New Mexico. So, if any of you have any queries, I'm happy to help. My e-mail's on my profile.

*****************************

Dr. Peter Mario Kreuter's kindly agreed to participate in an instalment of the "Q & A" sessions. So, in the next few days, I've gotta drum up some q's. I've previously interviewed Niels K. Petersen, Martin V. Riccardo and Bruce A. McClelland. Check 'em out here.

*****************************

It's taken a while for Halloween to catch on here in Australia, but it's getting there. Seamus O'Tooles Irish Pub in Wantirna South is even transforming into "Club Fangtastica" tonight.

It invites punters to "Take a trip into the depths of Louisiana’s historic vampire culture", which, in this case, also serves as a testament True Blood's popularity, even on this far-flung corner of the globe.

This is sure to be the hottest spot in town for both mortals and vamps this Halloween. If you’re the the baddest vamp around, come down and order an ice cold bottle of Tru Blood to quench your thirst; but watch out for werewolves or there could be trouble!

Sip on some tantalising Tru Blood cocktails served by “Fangtasia” waitresses, and dance until the sun comes up to the sounds of our DJ and band. The Tru Blood cocktail list includes such classics as the Tequila Moonrise, The Blood Maker-ita, The Fangbanger, and Death on the Beach.

Even though V.I.P tix went for $36.00 and General Admission $26.00, they're now sold out. And on that chilling note, I wish everyone of you a safe and happy Halloween.

The Dragon of Tamaranis

2010-10-29T04:52:00.005+11:00

I previously mentioned that I wasn't "big" on the vampire subculture. I've come across a forum post that articulates one of my reasons for this.

Sure, some people in "The Scene" can hide behind archaic spelling variations, or even paradoxically refer to themselves as "real vampires". They can even rally against Twilight for "tarnishing" their image. But, oh, how easily the rationale behind their own "existence" crumbles when it's given the most cursory examination.

So, now we turn to the forum post in question. Tamaranis' post appeared on The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency boards discussing a certain vampire religious group. You'll see how his, let's call it, dragon logic, applies to "The Scene" on a broader scale:

Let's pretend for a moment the some of you out there are very interested in legends of dragons. Where do these stories come from, do they have an actual supernatural basis?

Now let's pretend that I've decided that a "real" dragon is actually just a person who siphons off excess psychic energy from the people around them, even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with any stories about dragons. (Kinda like it has nothing to do with vampires, werewolves, the lock ness monster, bigfoot, etc.) Let's also say I've "explained" that being a dragon has nothing to do with spewing deadly flames from my maw, flying, kidnapping damzels, or being a giant reptillian monster.

Let's further pretend I've got a few thousand like-minded dumbasses who agree with all my crazy dragon talk. There are enough of us, in fact, that we actually manage to change the definition of the word "dragon" (through our excessive new use for the word. Y'know, language changes)

...still wouldn't make me no [ahem -ed.] dragon.

And that's my beef, too. Essentially, we take a pre-conceived concept (the bloodsucking corpse of Slavic folklore), edit its unsavoury characteristics (the undead angle), mould it into something more applicable (being alive) to one's own fantasy-tinged superiority complex, then hijack the original term, revise its original use, discard its historical application, add a pinch of blood and voila! The modern vampire subculture.

Rare Vampire Book Cover

2010-10-18T16:25:00.007+11:00

I've been engaged in trying to solve "The Fischer Mystery" (to be covered in an upcoming entry). One of my discarded leads caused me to stumble upon a rare image.

That's the cover of Wilhem Fischer's Dämonische Mittelwesen, Vampir und Werwolf (Stuttgart: Strecker and Schröder, 1906).

Early 20th century non-fiction vampire books are quite sparse. Off the top of my head, I can only add Stefan Hock's Die Vampyrsagen und ihre Verwertung in der deutschen Litteratur (1900) and A. Osborne Eaves' Modern Vampirism: Its Dangers, and How to Avoid Them (1904) to the list. Dudley Wright helped get the ball rolling in 1914, and even then, it was still slim pickings till Montague Summers hit the scene.

Croglin Vampire Picture Source Revealed!

2010-10-18T15:40:00.009+11:00

You've probably seen the following picture floating about the 'net and maybe in a few books. You might've wondered who illustrated it and why. I'm here to tell you.

I was googlin' info on the Croglin Vampire today, when I came across Darren Turpin's blog entry (click on the picture). I'd seen the image several times before, not giving much thought to its source. It actually appears on the front cover of Manuela Dunn-Mascetti's Chronicles of the Vampire (London: Bloomsbury, 1991).

Thanks to Turpin's lead, I can tell you that it was illustrated by Les Edwards in 1984. It's titled (and depicts) "The Croglin Vampire". You've probably heard of that case before, as it's a frequently-reproduced "true" vampire tale. If you're unfamiliar with it, this article gives a pretty good summation. As to the why of this superb illustration, here's the scoop from Edwards' website:

Originally commissioned by Wiedenfeld & Nicholson but not used. Later used as a bookcover for Best New Horror 1990, edited by Stephen Jones and Ramsey Campbell and published by Robinson, and on Super-Monsters by Daniel Cohen, published by Archway. Also used on the CD cover Alive & Screaming by Krokus and a German Magazine.

Kreuter Goss

2010-10-15T15:31:00.006+11:00

I've been in contact with Dr. Peter Mario Kreuter of the Südost-Institut, concerning his writings on vampires. He relayed some very interesting information to me, which I'll be sharing with you, today.

He's best known for his University of Bonn dissertation, Der Vampirglaube in Südosteuropa. Studien zur Genese, Bedeutung und Funktion. Rumänien und der Balkanraum (2001). If you'd like to know more about his writings, check out Niels' coverage. Suffice it to say, Kreuter's focus is on folkloric and 18th century representations of the vampire. My favourite field!

However, if you're hampered by an inability to speak or read German (like myself), then you might be wondering whether there'll be an English translation of this work. So, I e-mailed him to find out.¹ Unfortunately, I was somewhat disheartened by his reply: "No – there is no translation. And there will be none."² However, my dismay was countered by something I wasn't expecting: "I’m writing a new book about the popular vampire belief. It will be in English, and the publishing house shall be Palgrave Macmillan."³

So, you heard it first here, kids! He's got a new book on the way, and it's gonna be in English! Hell yes! But, as to its title or when it'll be ready, well, I can't say. Not because I've been "shushed", but that's all the info I could get. It's obviously too early to call if it's still in "writing" stage. Nonetheless, keep your eyes peeled for it. I'm sure it'll be great!

At some point, you also probably wondered, "Hang on...if Anthony says he can't read or write German, then how can he vouch for Kreuter's work?" That's a fair point. But, what I've neglected to mention, is that I have read a couple of his essays—both in English.

Namely, "The Name of the Vampire: Some Reflections on Current Linguistic Theories on the Etymology of the Word Vampire" in Vampires: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006), pp. 57-63 and "The Role of Women in Southeast European Vampire Belief" in Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and History (London: I. B. Taurus, 2007), pp. 231-241.

Then, check out his daunting list of publications. What can I say? The guy clearly knows his stuff. His English writings provide an insight into what we're sorely deprived of in English-language books on the genre: authors consulting non-English sources. There are a few notable exceptions, of course (hats off to Barber, McClelland and Perkowski), but they're far and few between. I'm telling ya, there's a goldmine out there. I've rambled on about it before.

Hopefully, Kreuter's book isn't gonna be too overshadowed by the commercial "taint" that affect other works in the genre. You know, the same-old Vlad Dracula/Bathory/Bram Stoker blah-di-blah-blah stuff. His expertise and access to outside sources would be terribly wasted, otherwise. No pressure, Peter!

¹ "Der Vampirglaube in Südosteuropa", Thursday, 7 October 2010 2:47:08 AM.
² "AW: Der Vampirglaube in Südosteuropa", ‏Tuesday, 12 October 2010 3:36:55 AM.
³ Ibid.

Vampires & Werewolves vs. The Vampire Library

2010-10-08T01:23:00.006+11:00

Forgot to include another item in the previous post. Looks like Mason Crest's got a little competition. Another publisher has their own series of vampire books for the Young Adult (YA) market. Time for a comparison.

In my coverage of Mason Crest's (MC) "The Making of a Monster: Vampires & Werewolves" series, I raised several issues with the books featured. Again, ones I haven't read yet, so I was only going on what their website had to offer. The same applies in my "examination" of ReferencePoint Press' (RPP) "The Vampire Library".

RPP bills itself as "an independent, nonfiction series publisher committed to bringing you relevant, convenient, and accessible research and learning tools for sixth to twelfth grade students." So, we're already dealing with a similar demographic. But the differences in promoting their series are marked.

Firstly, there are five books in the series, against MC's nine. All also published this year. They are David Robson's Encounters with Vampires, Gail B. Stewart's Vampires: Do They Exist?, Stuart A. Kallen's Vampire History and Lore, Kris Hirschmann's Vampires in Literature and Vampires in the Movies. Incidentally, I was only able to find those authors' names through Amazon, as RPP's page for the series omits this info.

The relative paucity of books in the series is offset by a higher page count: RPP's books have 80 each versus MC's 64. That gives us a total of 400 pages in the series, against MC's 576. RPP's topics appear to be much more generic. But then again, MC's series focuses on vampires and werewolves, so I'll give RPP leeway for that.

Each title in RPP's series costs US $26.95, which is slightly more expensive that the US $22.95 asking price for MC's titles. Then again, MC's titles are also 16 pages shorter. You can also buy RPP's "Vampire Library" in one hit, setting you back US $134.75, which is a lot cheaper than US $206.55 for MC's "The Making of a Monster: Vampires & Werewolves".

RPP has other plus points in its favour, going by their webpage. For starters, their titles actually come with little blurbs.

There's also a series description and series specifications, both more detailed than MC's version. The sidebar also gives a general view of the series' layout. There's even a "preview" of Kris Hirschmann's Vampires in the Movies (pdf), in which I noticed that scholar's beloved staple: footnotes! Hell yes! Whether they lead to anything substantial's hard to say at this point. All I know is, they're there.

So, going by the general content of the page, the previews, descriptions and whatnot, I'd say RPP's in the lead over MC. With due consideration of its intended audience, it looks like a pretty good "starter" for the YA crowd.

Round-Up Time

2010-10-06T16:38:00.006+11:00

Just a few items concerning vampire-related things in my life at the moment. We start off with my pursuit of Montague Summers, an eBay purchase, a rambling (brief) film review and giving props to Amazon.

I've gotten onto a bit of a Montague Summers (1880-1948) kick. A very prolific writer, best known in vampire studies for writing The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928) and its companion tome, The Vampire in Europe (1929). Even though he only wrote these two books in the genre, their impact was massive. Indeed, you'll still find them in print today. He's even spawned a blatant imitator.

Anyhoo, I've been looking for biographical info on the guy, so I ordered two books about him through interlibrary loan. Borrowed both of 'em, yesterday. They are Timothy D'Arch Smith's The Books of the Beast: Essays on Aleister Crowley, Montague Summers, Francis Barrett and Others (Crucible, 1987) and Frederick S. Frank's Montague Summers: A Bibliographic Portrait (Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1988).

I was, quite frankly, disappointed with both. Not with their content, though. You see, I was expecting primarily original material from both, but, alas, they're essentially anthologies of previously published material. D'Arch Smith's book has two essays on Summers: "Montague Summers" (51-57) and "R. A. Caton, Montague Summers, and The Fortune Press" (58-74).

The first essay (presumably published with the second), is reproduced from his 1984 booklet, Montague Summers: A Talk (Edinburgh: Trargara Press). The preface mispells this as "Trargars".

One section of the book did startle me, though: the confirmation that Summers participated in a Black Mass on 26 December, 1918 (56-57). As to one of the other rumours swirling about Summers, the pederasty coverage is relatively hazy, but plausible enough to feel quite disconcerting.

Frank's book is indeed a "bibliographic portrait", consisting of a stack of content mainly reproduced from Summers' own works. The essays that comprise the first part of the book (3-34) have all been published elsewhere. However, the bibliographic chronology and annotated bibliography (156-246) seem to be unique to the book. So, props for that.

I know these might sound like harsh assessements, but just to clarify, these books certainly possess high value for those digging up info on Summers. The harshness is merely one of personal taste. I am keen on original material, you see. First editions. Items as close to a primary source as possible. The books are valuable in that they collate some pretty rare stuff into a solid whole. So, yes, I still recommend them. Personally, though, it means I gotta track down the original sources. At least I've got leads to work with!

*****************************

Speaking of original prints, Christopher Frayling's Vampyres: Lord Byron to Count Dracula (London: Faber and Faber, 1991) arrived in the mail today. I purchased the item from eBay on the 26th of September for GBP 4.99 (after requesting a markdown from 7.99). Quite a bargain.

I already own the paperback edition, which was published the following year. But, I just had to add this '91 hardback to my collection. Incidentally, it's a revised edition of Frayling's The Vampyre: Lord Ruthven to Count Dracula (1978). That one's on my of to-gets, too.

*****************************

Watched Suck (2009) on DVD today. Although the title's probably ironic, it's not far from the truth. It features a swathe of cameos, namely Henry Rollins, Alice Cooper, Moby, Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins, hell, even Alex Lifeson from Rush. As you might've gathered, it's a vampire rock 'n' roll flick. But the music was pretty average and none of those aforementioned musos actually sing in the movie.

It's a bit of an odd flick, incorporating stop motion and dramatic lighting during various scenes. And, I gotta admit, Dimitri Coats made a pretty damn effective vampire...despite his dodgy clothes. I just felt that the flick ran out of steam once the band (The Winners) hit the US border. Just kind've ambled along at that point. It certainly has some clever moments, like the flashback scenes for Malcolm McDowell's vampire hunter. Rather than make him look young or hire a younger actor to play him, the director deftly integrated footage from an actual young McDowell. Nice touch.

I'm also savvy enough to know that the director reproduced a few classic album covers in his shots, namely The Beatles' Abbey Road, Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A., The Who's The Kids are Alright and T. Rex's Electric Warrior. While quietly amusing at first, it got a bit repetitive, real quick. Didn't really fit the narrative, either. And speaking of "quietly amusing", I don't think I even laughed once during the film. It's a horror comedy. Seemed too limp for that. That said, it was vaguely entertaining. Probably needed a faster pace.

*****************************

The problems I had with Day's book (mentioned here), were fixed up shortly after I wrote that blog entry. I requested a partial refund (half of the total price), as I was still gonna keep the book, which they granted. Kudos, Amazon, for swiftly stitching that up.

Musical Interlude

2010-09-29T03:22:00.010+10:00

Presenting the famous club scene from Fright Night (1985), in which Jerry Dandridge seduces Amy right from under Charley's nose.

Never underestimate the power of cheesy 1980s choreography! And yes, that's Marcy D'Arcy pre-Married... with Children. Still, I get a kick out of those tunes in the background. They're Ian Hunter's "Good Man in a Bad Time" and Evelyn ''Champagne'' King's "Give It Up", respectively. I wonder if they'll be incorporated into the pointless remake. Meh.

Anyway, both those songs are available on the film's soundtrack. To see which others made the cut, click here. Some pretty good tunes there.

*****************************

Oh, and William Patrick Day's Vampire Legends in Contemporary American Culture: What Becomes a Legend Most (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2002) finally arrived on Monday. Unfortunately, many of its pages were accompanied by underlines in red pen. Grrrr. I've contacted Amazon about that. Outcome pending.