Vienna conference papers to be published

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

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

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?'

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!

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

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

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.