Are You a Vampiroid?

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.

The Dragon of Tamaranis

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.

Vampire or Vampyre?

You've probably seen these spelling variants bandied about on various websites; especially ones that cover the vampire subculture. So what's the difference between the two?

Some proponents of the vampire lifestyle claim that vampire is used to define folkloric, fictional or cinematic variants. You know, the bloodsucking corpse variety. So, they use vampyre to distinguish themselves from this motley crew.

Father Sebastiaan, a major figure in the Scene, elaborates on this distinction in his book, Vampyre Sanguinomicon: The Lexicon of the Living Vampire (San Francisco: Red Wheel-Weiser, 2010):

Our traditional spelling denotes a significant and profound difference between fantasy and reality. Thus the Strigoi Vii, when speaking in short text, spell Vampyre with a capital V and a y. We use the y spelling to designate the term representing Our existence and Our mysteries. For example, when referring to the practice of energy tapping from the Strigoi Vii perspective, one would say Vampyrism. When We spell vampire with an i and lowercase v, it traditionally refers to the mythological, literary, or popular concept of the vampire (8).

While ReligiousTolerance.org might accept such defintions, applying it to vampire studies on a broader basis requires that you completely ignore pre-twentieth century usage of "vampire" and "vampyre".

The still-standard vampire concept and term were introduced to the English language via coverage of the Arnold Paole case, in the March 11, 1732 issue of The London Journal. The term used at the time? "Vampyres". These were obviously not the quasi-mystical variety Sebastiaan talks about.

Not long after that, "vampire" was already making an appearance. Charles Forman's A Second Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Robert Walpole (London, 1733) used it in a metaphorical context when he contrasted the effective use of the Dutch governments' use of taxes against the taxes used by other States for unncessarily opulent projects ("the Rapine of a fat-gutted Vampire" [38]).

Let's skip ahead to the 19th century. What was the name of the first English language vampire story? That's right: John Polidori's The Vampyre (1819). By mid-century, "vampire" and "vampyre" were used interchangably in the penny dreadful, Varney the Vampire (c. 1845). Meanwhile, a then widely-consulted source on vampire history was a chapter in Herbet Mayo's Letters on the Truths Contained in Popular Superstitions (1849) and its subsequent editions. Bram Stoker, himself, consulted one of these latter editions in the preparation for writing his magnum opus, Dracula (1897). The name of Mayo's chapter? "Vampyrism".

So what's the deal with these spelling variations if they were used to refer to the same thing? That's where we get into liguistics. You see, it wasn't just "vampires" that copped inconsitant spellings. Many other words did, too. As with many languages, English has taken a long time to become the standardised form we use today. Thus, certain words became obsolete and archaic spellings are revised. We no longer say thy (your). We hesitate, not hæsitate. And we use the toilet, not the privy.

The very same principles apply to vampyre and vampire. In this case, they're phonetic renderings of the same Slavic term: vampir. As you can see, both terms have been used to describe the same being, that is, a bloodsucking corpse. When it was used metaphorically, it was in context of these same legendary beings. Thus, the distinctions made by Sebastiaan et. al., have no historical basis.

What about Sebastiaan's claim that Stoker's publisher wanted the "vampyre" renderings in his novel changed to "vampire", so they wouldn't sound "too ethnic", thus popularising vampire's usage (9)?

It's a pretty ludicrous claim in light of Robert Eighteen-Bisang and Elizabeth Miller's Bram Stoker's Notes for Dracula: A Facsimile Edition (Jefferson: McFarland, 2008). It clearly shows that Stoker was using "vampire" or "vampires" long before he'd even finished writing his novel. Seven times, in fact (19, 25, 63, 83, 125, 127, 131). That'd be wholly consistant with late 19th century usage, when "vampire" was the common rendering.

So, to sum up, in an historical context, there's no difference between "vampyre" and "vampire". Vampyre is merely an archaic rendering of vampire. If you insist on spelling vampire as vampyre because it's more "authentic", then you might as well regress your modern vocabulary to other archaic spellings like faile (fail), garbidge (garbage) and gullable (gullible).

Don't get me started on the strigoi vii.

Vampire Reality

Lisa Marie Basile asks a compelling question: "Do Real Vampires Exist?"

Just don't expect to see evidence of bloodsucking corpses. It's coverage of psychic vampirism and facets of the vampire subculture. An interesting read, nonetheless.

Laycock's Modern Vampires

First off, I'll say I'm not big into vampire "subculture". You know, the whole so-called "real vampires" biz. More on that, later.

But, I gotta say, I'm impressed with Joseph Laycock's interview for John Morehead's TheoFantastique. Specifically, this bit:

The connection between modern vampires and “re-enchantment” was first made by Christopher Partridge. In his theory of re-enchantment, Partridge points out that as traditional religion is declining, new belief systems are proliferating. Furthermore, the distinction between deviant and legitimate religion has begun to narrow. Re-enchantment then argues that religion is not fading away so much as changing. The metaphysics of vampirism, as well as emerging new religious movements and popular occultism are all evidence of this change.

Joseph Laycock is the author of Vampires Today: The Truth about Modern Vampirism (2009). The reference to Partridge most likely concerns his work, The Re-enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization, Popular Culture and Occulture, 2 vol. (2004, 2006).

It's good to see such sociological scholarship incorporated into a realm, primarily lorded over by sensationalists, propagandists, apologists, sympathisers, etc. Here's another interview he's done. You'll see what I mean.

I know I might be jumping the gun a bit, as I haven't read his book yet, but it's certainly on my to-get list.