The Year That Was, Pt. 1

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?

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?

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

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!

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

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

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.