Evaluating Bane's Book List

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.

Amazonian Spending Spree

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!

Aww, My First Criticism!

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.

A World Without Dracula?

Theresa answers a reader's compelling question on her blog: "Without Bram Stoker’s 'Dracula' do you think the vampire would be as popular today?"

Let's put this in perspective. At the time Stoker wrote his book, vampires made sporadic appearances in fictional literature. The vampiremania and theatrical adaptations that followed in the wake of John Polidori's "The Vampyre" (1819) were long-gone.

Sure, Varney the Vampire (1845-1847) was a reasonably successful penny dreadful. But, to my knowledge, it didn't exactly have global distribution. It was reprinted in 1853 and wouldn't see republication again till 1970 and 1972.

How about J. Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla" (1872)? Even though it's been reproduced in numerous anthologies, it didn't exactly have a huge impact at the time. That'd come much later.

Between then and 1897, I dare you to name any other vampire novels or stories, off the top of your head. And, if you can think of any more, then ask yourself this: did they have as much of an impact on vampire literature as Dracula did?

How about we skip right ahead into the twentieth century?

Between 1897 and let's say, maybe, Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot (1975) or, better yet, Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire (1976), try and come up with some vampire titles that have been in continuous reprint since Stoker's book. Try and think of a name that is more synonymous with vampires than Dracula.

Can't think of any? That's how important Dracula's been to vampire literature. For better, or worse.

Now, just to get technical for a second, Dracula wouldn't nearly be so well-known today if it wasn't for its subsequent stage adaptations and a certain Bela Lugosi flick, but the fact remains, that Stoker's book spurred on a hell of an interest in the undead. So much so, that even "folklore" he invented managed to slip into studies on the vampire proper.

Sure, Stoker was drawing on a rich Gothic tradition, but few vampires have succeeded in crystallising an archetype and given birth to an industry.

But, to get back to the initial question, would vampires be as popular as they are today, if it wasn't for Dracula?

Bane argues in the affirmative. However, despite the material she cites, that is, the vampire writings leading up to Dracula's publication, I'm not really convinced vampires would be the pop culture figures they are today.

After all, as I pointed out, fictional writings on vampires were quite sparse by Stoker's time. Hell, a lot of the non-fiction stuff was derived from three primary sources: republications of Augustin's Calmet's works on vampires, Herbert Mayo's "Vampyrism" article and Theosophical/occult writings on psychic and astral vampires.

In fact, vampire literature of the latter nineteenth century was geared more to this last category, e.g. Florence Marryat's Blood of the Vampire (1897). This motif was already well-worn by the early twentieth century, too.

Thus, the publication of Dracula helped turn the tide against the metaphysical direction vampires were taking, by returning to folkloric variants, giving us many of the tropes we associate with them now. Its basic storyline and characterisations (Van Helsing, anyone?) also set a benchmark.

Of course, this also meant that a new cookie cutter template was born and many clones followed in its wake. Thus, it's no surprise that the next major novel to have a significant impact on subsequent vampire stories was Rice's 1976 book, mainly because of its shift from vampire-as-shadowy-background-figure, to protagonist. Hell, a vampire even told the damn story. A big overhaul, as it essentially meant the vampire's personality (along with moral complexities) came to the forefront. No longer was it a mere figure of evil to stalk-n-stake.

And yes, I know Fred Saberhagen beat her to the punch in 1975. His novel served as the perfect bridge between Stoker and the new guard.

But here's the thing: how could all these changes have taken place, if you remove Dracula from the equation? If there's anything Dracula achieved, it was casting vampires into the mainstream. You know, the "popular" angle of the original question.

I mean, how many vampire characters do you know, that have inspired potential theme parks?

So, no, I don't think vampires would be as popular today if Stoker's Dracula never existed. I mean, you don't exactly see Carmilla Karnstein on a box of cereal, do you?

Admittedly, the vampire has gone through bursts of public interest, which Bane touches on, but what she neglects to deal with is the large gaps between this interest. That is, prior to the twentieth century. And even then, basic knowledge and exposure to vampire writings is one thing (I'm sure a lot of folk knew what a vampire was by that time), but popularity, another. Toys, fake fangs, games, movies, TV shows, comics, etc., etc. they were all largely born in the shadow of Dracula's mainstream success, not a penny dreadful boogeyman or Polidori's Lord Byron pastiche. Thus, no Dracula = no mainstream success.

What Is a Vampire?

Sometimes the simplest questions can have the most complex answers.

Don't believe me?

Then have a crack at answering the question posed by Theresa Bane. Let's see what you come up with and we can...compare notes!

Random Items Time!

Time to give this blog some semblance of activity by sharing some items I've stumbled across on the wonderful world of Google!

The first one's Kyle Van Helsing's Amazon list, "Vampirology: The Study of Vampires and the Undead". He's got some interesting selections on it, but much of it's disposable. You should also check out his 80 (!) Listmania! Lists, which covers other horror/paranormal stuff. This guy is hardcore.

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

A few blog entries you might wanna peruse over at Buzzy Multimedia, namely, Stefica Budimir-Bekan's "Hollywood's Crush on Vampires", and Theresa Bane's "My Favorite Vampire" and "Bite, Hype, and Bandwagons – The Truth About Vampires".

Bane's certainly getting around on the vampirologist hobby horse and...good on her! It's nice to see a vampire scholar proud to trumpet the field!

Her vampire encyclopedia still won't be out for a coupla months, but she's certainly been getting good media coverage, in the meantime.

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

Speaking of reference works, here's a couple for the sanguinarian (i.e. "real" vampire) crowd.

First off, there's Sanguinarius' The Dictionary of Sanguinese: Terminology and Lingo in the Vampire Community (2nd. ed. 2009). He (?) followed that up in 2010 with the second edition of The Dictionary of Vampspeak: Terminology and Lingo in the Vampire Community. Presuming, of course, that they're not the same book. I'm gonna say...they are.

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

I've seen several references to Pam Keesey's status as a vampirologist, usually accompanied by the "lesbian" tag. She also looks a lot younger than I thought she was. Anyhoo, to my knowledge, her biggest contribution to the field is Vamps: An Illustrated History of the Femme Fatale (1997).

I gotta admit, I haven't read the thing, but it don't sound all that substantial to the genre! Who knows, maybe she's got other tricks up her sleeve. She does seem to have an interesting blog, though! I'm gonna add her to my list!

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

Oh, I didn't realise the Across the Forest blokes had mentioned my review of their doco, until just now! And here's the review itself.

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

Katherine Ramsland, an Anne Rice apologist (heh heh) has some interesting things to say about the Twilight phenomena in Katie O'Brien and Cassie Wierenga's "Coming Out of the Coffin".

Fangs N' Sunlight

Theresa's written an interesting little item on standardised vampire attributes, but I do have a coupla points of contention with it.

For instance, here's what she has to see about a classic vampire attribute:

Equally as common among the vampire are descriptions of long sharp teeth and nails, but this should not be surprising in the least to anyone. Vampires are often painted as being strict carnivores, and having the dull and rounded teeth and fibrous fingernails that we humans have would be of very little use to a creature that needs to be an efficient hunter and killer.

If one reads through folklore on the subject, as well as the various reports by Austro-Hungarian authorities, one finds nary a mention of elongated canines. This caused Jean Marigny to remark the following in Vampires: The World of the Undead (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994):

The overdeveloped teeth so dear to filmmakers are reminiscent of the werewolf's fangs but are an attribute that seems to have been invented by the literature of fantasy. In general, the vampire does not bite its victims; it prefers to get blood by sucking the skin's pores. (55)

To be fair, the stories aren't generally specific about blood being sucked through the pores, but as fangs were noticeably absent, this is a seemingly logical conclusion in itself.

As to her bit about sunlight...

People also assume that vampires are susceptible to sunlight and that their flesh will combust into inextinguishable flames if they spend even a moment in it. Although this is true for a scant few species of vampires, it is hardly the case for the larger portion.

I'm not really familiar with any (folkloric/mythical) vampire that disintegrated in this manner. Vampires were mainly nocturnal beings, that is true, and the occasional Russian tale had them needing to return to their tombs before sunrise. But, this was because they'd return to "death". That is, they'd revert back to being a corpse...only to rise again at night, anyway.

The whole death-by-sunlight thing was an invention of Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922). Try and find a source prior to that flick in which vampires disintegrate by sunlight. Go on! I dare ya!

Indeed, the film was even more specific about this modern-day "lore":

One can recognize the mark of the vampire by the trace of his fangs on the victim's throat. Only a woman can break his frightful spell--a woman pure in heart--who will offer her blood freely to Nosferatu and will keep the vampire by her side until after the cock has crowed.

When this lore was incorporated into other vampire stories and flicks, this portion was excised.

The vampire literature of the 19th century had no recognition of this form of vampire destruction: Varney (Varney the Vampire, 1847), Carmilla ("Carmilla," 1872) and even the Count (Dracula, 1897) are all depicted walking about in sunlight.

Bane's Encyclopedia Cover Revealed!

Sometime ago, I wrote about Theresa Bane's upcoming vampire encyclopedia.

She's posted an update about it on her blog, along with its cover, which, I gotta say, looks pretty spiffy.

It's called Encyclopedia of Vampire Mythology, but we'll have to wait a while for it. According to Bane, it's due for release in "June in 2010 as a 7×10 hardback and as an e-book download."

You can pre-order it now, if you like. That is, if you happen to have a spare US$75 lying around.

Further Contribution Manifests

In "Let's Hope These Wishes Come True", I wrote that "you can never have enough vampire encyclopedias!"

Well, looks like there's another one on the way!

Theresa Bane, author of Actual Factual: Dracula, A Compendium of Vampires (2007), mentions a new book she's got coming out, in her blog entry, "E Book Edition of Encyclopedia of Vampire Mythology".

However, we'll have to wait till next year for its release.

Definitely looking forward to that one.

Theresa Bane Responds

In "Let's Hope These Wishes Come True", I referred to Theresa Bane's Actual Factual: Dracula, A Compendium of Vampires (Randleman, NC: NeDeo Press, 2007) as, "another mere catalogue of vampire "species"".

Well, it appears that she took offense to my statement.

Here's a snippet from her comment to the aforementioned blog entry:

I don’t know if you have seen or even read my book, “Actual Factual Dracula: a Compendium of Vampires,” but it is not “just another” encyclopedia of vampires listed by species.

You can read my response here.