Handbook of the Vampire: Carmilla in Context

Written for Handbook of the Vampire by S. Brooke Cameron, the Chapter Page can be found here.

This was another HotV chapter looking at Le Fanu’s Carmilla, this time looking at the original text and specifically around the queer context and the political reading as it pertains to the Irish politics of the time. There is no doubt that the text has a very obvious queer reading but the chapter explores that within its historical context. On the Irish question there is a full discourse on the Protestant/Catholic tensions, the question of home rule and Le Fanu’s own political positioning, which the author suggests was, at best, uncertain.

The author looks comparatively at Carmilla against the other stories within In a Glass Darkly, touching also on Le Fanu’s Spalatro, from the notes of Fra Giacomo and looking briefly at the forward influence on with Dracula. By looking firmly at the nineteenth century the chapter proves an excellent companion to the Carmilla and the Daughters of Darkness chapter.

Handbook of the Vampire: The Bloody Countess Elizabeth Bathory

Written for Handbook of the Vampire by Cristina Santos the Chapter Page can be found here.

One of the early comments in this chapter that struck me was the fact that the Erzsébet Báthory story is one of the witch/vampire hybrid. This hybrid is found scattered throughout the megatext but I had never really looked at Báthory in that way. When pointed out, it is obvious. Not only is she (in many versions of the tale) aided by a woman versed in witchcraft but the whole bathing in blood to gain youth and vitality is certainly within the sphere of magic/witchcraft.

Santos looks at a variety of texts to explore the development of the mythologisation of the historical Báthory into the Bloody Countess – primarily prose, but also touching into both films and TV series that have reached into the myth. It was only after reading this, and considering this article, that it struck me that the author did not use the film Countess Dracula within the chapter; an omission given that the Hammer film likely brought the Báthory story to a generation of cinemagoers and the conflation of Báthory with Dracula in the title. The author looks at the way “his-stories” about the countess were constructed by those with power and a vested interest in her demonisation, which make the historical documentation complex. I will mention that the author does state that Gilles de Rais did not undergo a vampiric mythologisation (10), this is not entirely true. Whilst de Rais is considerably less well known, J K Huysmans (for instance) does liken De Rais to a vampire in his 1891 novel Là-Bas.

One thing I do like, when reading reference works on vampires, is to get new media to look at. Santos has put me on the track of the series American Horror Story: Coven and Salem, with aspects in them using that Báthory-like witch/vampire hybrid and the cosmetic use of or bathing in blood. Certainly, at the time I wrote this article, Coven had an instance of energy vampirism in the first episode (and the link above goes to my thoughts on the season). As for the essay, it was a very good read, it didn’t suffer from the missing Hammer film (I only thought of it after the fact) and the de Rais comment is minor. An excellent entry to the Handbook.

Handbook of the Vampire: Introduction to the Handbook of the Vampire

This is my First post looking in an in-depth way at Palgrave’s Handbook of the Vampire, a monumental reference work that has an introduction and 97 chapters concerning all aspects of vampire study. It is published as an e-book with the chapters available through institutional logins and being published as a two-volume hardcopy. I am lucky enough to have provided two chapters for the handbook (which I won’t be writing blog posts on but you can find links to the Handbook pages for each chapter I provided on the Handbook Page I have set up).

This first post concerns the Introduction, written by editor Simon Bacon. Of course, the chapter is an editorial, it outlines the scope of the project and what the reader can hope to find within. He suggests that “So much more research and study are required to understand and recognise the full implications of what we are saying when we say ‘VAMPIRE.’”. This is fitting coming from Simon – he and I indulge in frequent correspondence and have collaborated a few times, but his output into the arena of vampire study is vast (as both editor and author) but his definition of vampire is wide also and it is this width that allowed him to catch a vast net to snare the cornucopia of treasures within the Handbook.

I also have to give a moment of thanks for the fact that one of my entries for the Handbook was actually cited within the introduction.

As I continue to look at the Handbook, I will point out interesting ideas, new sources of vampire media and even where I disagree with a proposition within a chapter. This project, to map each chapter, over time, here at TMtV will undoubtedly take a long time. I will read the chapters over time and then have to write the article and schedule it for posting, of course, but it is a journey I think will be worth taking.

Bram Stoker, Dracula and the Victorian Gothic Stage – review

Author: Catherine Wynne

Release date: 2013

The Blurb: Bram Stoker worked in the theatre for most of his adult life, as theatre reviewer in Dublin in the 1870s and as business manager at London's Royal Lyceum Theatre in the final two decades of the 19th century. Despite this, critical attention to the influence of the stage on Stoker's writing has been sparse. Bram Stoker, Dracula and the Victorian Gothic Stage addresses this lacuna, examining how Stoker's fictions respond to and engage with Victorian theatre's melodramatic climate and, in particular, to supernatural plays, Gothic melodramas and Shakespearean productions that Henry Irving and Ellen Terry performed at the Lyceum. Bram Stoker, Dracula and the Victorian Gothic Stage locates the writer between stage and page. It reconsiders his literary relationships with key actors, and challenges the biographical assumption that Henry Irving provided the model for the figure of Count Dracula.

The review: If there is one area of vampire studies I feel more out of my depth in, it is within the realm of the vampire and the stage, especially the 19th Century stage. It is good therefore to read authoritative tomes on the subject (and I can recommend Stuart’s Stage Blood in that regard). This is not a book about the staging of vampire plays (though it does touch on Dion Boucicault’s the Vampire/the Phantom) but rather looks at the stage of the Lyceum, and the actors and performances thereof, to extrapolate possible influences on Stoker and his seminal novel.

The primary thrust is within the form and structure of the Gothic melodrama, the form that Irving mastered so very well and that actresses Ellen Terry and Geneviève Ward not only mastered on stage but, it is well argued, replicated in their personal lives. Wynne presents strong, cogent arguments for her contentions and places Stoker within a context that is not often considered but was absolutely the world in which he lived in. As well as using his literature (including “Personal Reminiscences…”), Wynne also had access to some of Stoker’s unpublished personal correspondences, which expand our view of the man and the time.

It is easy, sat in the 21st Century, to assume we understand the world that Stoker – theatre business manager and novelist – lived in. Wynne opens our eyes, with a monogram written in an easily digestible way (for an academic volume). For students of the author or the novel, necessary. 9 out of 10, however not cheap so do look out for Palgrave sales.

In Hardback @ Amazon US

In Hardback @ Amazon UK

The Vampire: a New History – review

Author: Nick Groom

First published: 2018

Contains spoilers

The blurb: An authoritative new history of the vampire, two hundred years after it first appeared on the literary scene Published to mark the bicentenary of John Polidori's publication of The Vampyre, Nick Groom's detailed new account illuminates the complex history of the iconic creature. The vampire first came to public prominence in the early eighteenth century, when Enlightenment science collided with Eastern European folklore and apparently verified outbreaks of vampirism, capturing the attention of medical researchers, political commentators, social theorists, theologians, and philosophers. Groom accordingly traces the vampire from its role as a monster embodying humankind's fears, to that of an unlikely hero for the marginalized and excluded in the twenty-first century. Drawing on literary and artistic representations, as well as medical, forensic, empirical, and sociopolitical perspectives, this rich and eerie history presents the vampire as a strikingly complex being that has been used to express the traumas and contradictions of the human condition.

The review: I came across Nick Groom as the beset expert in The Luke McQueen Pilots: Britain's Hidden Vampire Crisis, however I had also read an essay in the Cambridge Companion to Dracula and, unfortunately, I found that the weakest of the chapters. However, one piece of work does not cover a body of work and – free of the confines of a chapter – Groom’s work here excels.

Groom explores the vampire from the 18th Century panics – arguing that these were the first vampires, and that revenants, spectres etc. are not vampires as emerged in the panics, indeed cutting the vampires from other blood drinking mythological creatures. It is a position that I can accept as an argument basis (as much as I can recognise the folkloric tropes that are common). He then draws a thorough socio-political history that allows us to see the context.

He carries this through the panics into the 19th century literature that developed (and I must say I always appreciate finding new pieces, and Groom covers pieces I’d not considered before). He skirts around Christabel suggesting that she appears vampiric, if not actually a vampire (I subscribe to it not being a vampire piece but, again, Groom dealt with this even-handedly.

The final chapter then moves on to Dracula (a brief view beyond Dracula is found in the conclusion but Dracula is seen as the loci between the developing vampire from the panics into the modern phenomena). To concentrate on this, for a moment, as it was where I was less positive about his previous essay; where the author drew a direct line between Ţepeş and the Count previously, in this it is less concreate a connection that is drawn (and then only briefly). I perhaps would still want a recognition that there is a strong view against the connection but it felt less “In Search of Dracula”.

One thing I did enjoy was how he drew the view of female hysteria with the figure of Lucy (and her subsequent healing, through the stake). There was mileage to connect this back to Varney the Vampire and Clara Crofton. Another thing I enjoyed was his vampire/vampiric reading of Frankenstein and I will, at some point, look to explore that here – with all due credit, of course.

But it is the historical context… the politics, the religious contentions, the societal views that he explores and ties into the development of the vampire as a figure up to, and including, Dracula that makes this such an important book. Highly recommended. 9 out of 10.

In Hardback @ Amazon US

In Hardback @ Amazon UK

On Vampires – review

Author: Ronald Murphy Jr

First published: 2017

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: Join cryptozoologist and folklorist Ronald Murphy as he journeys throughout history in his quest to uncover the impetus for the archetype of the vampire. Beginning at the lair of cannibals at the dawn of human history, explore the images and evolving ideas of the vampire, tracing these concepts up to the information age. Keep a stake close by as you uncover the world of the vampire.

The review: You can call me old fashioned but when I read a reference book I expect referencing. If an argument is put forward without evidence, and referencing thereof, it is nothing but assertion. Whilst the author of On Vampires very occasionally refers to other texts, he does not reference. To be fair there is a bibliography, however the book is so filled with assertions and (quite frankly) wild theorem that I found myself doing surface level research via google to check the assertions and more often than not came away with nothing or undermining evidence. If the author wishes to provide sourced evidence later I will revisit the book.

The book begins with a foreword by a “sceptical psychic” and then an introduction where the author references the alleged vampire of Eerie Cemetery. However, no background research is offered to the reader. Rather urban legend is presented, if not as fact then, uncontested and without corroboration. Murphy Jr does not return to Eerie within the text.

We then have a discussion of the Palaeolithic origins for vampires. This chapter really is supposition and wild imagining. Yes, there is evidence of cannibalism from Palaeolithic sites – this does not necessarily lend itself to the development of vampire myth (and there certainly is no evidence thereof) and the entire section feels nothing more than projection of pet (wild) hypothesis over archaeological evidence.

Citing the find of a skull in Monte Cicero as an example of Palaeolithic vampire slaying was, to say the least, problematic. A surface google revealed that whilst a skull, split at the base, had been found this could equally have been caused by something like Paget’s disease. The same (referenced) source suggested that the skull found was Neanderthal and not Homo Sapiens.

Now, it needs to be said that Murphy Jr uses the “Summers” system of vampirism – anything that vaguely sounds like the modern take of vampires, within myth or folklore, is treated as a vampire. I actually don’t necessarily disagree with this approach from a media sense but this volume conflates the media vampire and actual folklore. Thus, citing Lilith and suggesting, “Without Lilith and her numerous incarnations there might very well be no vampires in human form.” (p 31) is problematic. Despite being archetypally attached to some of the same mythological explanation of negative social events (in this case infant mortality), Lilith was not the progenitor of the vampire (myth) until the figure was conflated into the media version of the myth. Is Lilith interesting, yes; is she important to the development of restless corpse folklore, unlikely.

He also states, “many believe the myths of vampires were born from this legend {of Lilith}, as well as that of Cain,” (p 30) I have seen no evidence connecting Cain and vampirism prior to the mythology invented for the game Vampire the Masquerade (I can accept that an artist might have conflated the two prior to this, if evidence can be provided, but do not believe this will have been prior to the twentieth century). In the chapter following Lilith, on Egypt, we see one of the real issues with selective research. The author makes a case for connecting obscure Egyptian deity Shesmu into the vampire narrative, confidently stating that “he was known as the “Lord of Blood”,” (pg 37) amongst other chilling titles. He conveniently does not mention his less macabre titles, such as “Lord of Perfume” and “Lord of Wine”, nor does he mention that the Ancient Egyptians offered wine as the blood of the Gods. Of course, an even-handed revelation would have undermined the vampire argument.

Moving to the Greco-Roman world he cites the lamia as “the closest construction of a traditional vampire the ancient world has to offer… …seducing and then devouring the living and even possessing a serpentine aspect of needle like canine teeth.” (p 52) However the traditional Slavic vampire was not a seducer (sex may have been involved, but not seduction) and was a bloated ruddy corpse whose description never included fangs, to my knowledge.

On the Roman side he suggests that “it is a plausible scenario that the idea of the vampire being able to transform into a bat was first sewn into this work of Pliny.” (p 55) This is in respect of striges and is a leap of logic of mind-boggling audacity. Firstly, the striges were a bird (rather than a bat), secondly, bats and vampires were almost certainly not conflated prior to the discovery of the New World, thirdly, this was a popular media conflation and not one of mainstream folklore and finally there is only a little evidence of that conflation until the concept was popularised by Bram Stoker.

Beyond this, I tried to research the Roman vampire Murphy Jr mentions, named Scorn, and drew an absolute blank – googling the character in both English and Latin. I suspect the character to be the author’s invention but do stand to be corrected.

Next we get a whistle-stop tour of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. One thing I noticed was the author’s on-running misunderstanding of the Christian factions, as he repeatedly suggested that the Romanian territories were Catholic rather than Orthodox (the distinct sects growing disparate leading to the Rome/Orthodox schism, which occurred in 1054). He suggests that vampires were “killed” in this period by a stake through the heart – stakes pinned the corpse to the grave – and whilst grave dirt does form part of the traditional Slavic folklore (such as eating dirt from a vampire’s grave to cure a victim of an attack), the need to sleep in native/grave earth is a media invention.

The author then conflates Vlad Ţepeş and vampires; not only in this chapter as Vlad gets the next chapter also and is mentioned elsewhere in the work. Let us be clear, there is no evidence that shows Vlad associated with vampirism prior to Bram Stoker and Stoker did little more than borrow his patronym, Dracula. Later Murphy Jr states “The voivode was a term we first saw used in the medieval period to reflect the idea of the living dead” (p 102) – my notes are less polite than what I’ll put here, but we need to point out that Voivode was an honorific used across the Slavic nations meaning warlord, which is often translated as Prince.

On thinkers off the Enlightenment, he suggests “Calmet did not reject the influence of Christianity.” (p 85) Of course he did not, he was a Benedictine monk and theologian. He did, however, reject the idea that vampires were actually real, though that isn’t mentioned. The author selectively quotes Voltaire, also, neglecting the quote: “These vampires were corpses, who went out of their graves at night to suck the blood of the living, either at their throats or stomachs, after which they returned to their cemeteries. The persons so sucked waned, grew pale, and fell into consumption; while the sucking corpses grew fat, got rosy, and enjoyed an excellent appetite. It was in Poland, Hungary, Silesia, Moravia, Austria, and Lorraine, that the dead made this good cheer. We never heard a word of vampires in London, nor even at Paris. I confess that in both these cities there were stock-jobbers, brokers, and men of business, who sucked the blood of the people in broad daylight; but they were not dead, though corrupted. These true suckers lived not in cemeteries, but in very agreeable palaces.” (Voltaire, 1764) This, of course, shows Voltaire's view of what vampire related to in reality.

This is important as both Calmet and Voltaire were responding to the stories of vampirism coming to Western Europe from the Slavic countries. I note that the author covers (briefly) the earlier story of Jure Grando but fails to cover the stories of Arnold Paole or Petar Blagojevich – two alleged vampires during the period of the Enlightenment whose stories were documented and, regarding the former, is seen as the first known source of the word entering the English language. He does, however, conflate Báthory with vampirism, which is again a modern conflation.

Moving to America he covers the New England panics but suggests Simon Whipple’s grave actually cites his cause of death “was at the hands of a “vampire””. (p 91) He includes a photo of the grave but the reproduction is so poor one cannot read the inscription, which actually says; “Altho consumptions’ vampire grasp—Had seized thy mortal frame”. I’ll let you decide whether the author’s interpretation is accurate. What I will say is: yes, Stoker was aware of the case of Mercy Brown (who incidentally wasn’t disinterred as she hadn’t been buried when examined so couldn’t have “turned in the grave” (p 94)). No, the Mercy Brown case is unlikely to have inspired the Lucy character.

So, I was less than impressed with the volume and felt the need to vent about some of the entries in this review – actually missing out many of the issues I uncovered as I read the volume. If I jump towards the end of the book I can mention that the author conflates lifestyling, media and folklore when it comes to modern vampires. However, it was his treatment of le fanu’s Carmilla that was the last straw for me.

Carmilla was not “the first vampire of the Victorian age” (pp 99-100) beyond the fact that it was not le Fanu’s first story featuring a vampiric entity (though it was the one that was most traditional in form), and beyond numerous other continental examples, Varney the Vampire predated the story and contained a scene more likely to have inspired part of the Lucy story in Dracula than the Mercy Brown case.

I am not aware that it “draws indirectly from the psycho-sexual world of Elizabeth Bathory” (p 100) though some do argue that Le Fanu did draw from Baring-Gould’s the Book of Were-wolves, but I can state that Calmet’s Treatise on Vampires and Revenants had a direct inspiration. The “small blue spot on {Laura’s} chest” (p 101) was actually described as being just below the neck and is indicative that she had been bitten. Though the story states that Laura died somewhere between writing the story down (over a year after the events) and the publication of Hesselius’ papers, to conflate a bruise from a bite with the spread of a disease (which was the unstated cause of death) is really reading too much in.

I could go on. My recommendation is leave this volume well alone.

EDIT 02/02/18 - Anthony Hogg has found the source of the "Scorn" entry and its a list and shift from a creative writing source, which has been plagiarised pretty much. In light of that the 1 out of 10, which I thought was generous, was too generous. 0 out of 10.


In Paperback @ Amazon US

In Paperback @ Amazon UK

The Vampire in Folklore, History, Literature, Film and Television: A Comprehensive Bibliography – review

Compiled by: J. Gordon Melton & Alysa Hornick

First published: 2015

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: This comprehensive bibliography covers writings about vampires and related creatures from the 19th century to the present. More than 6,000 entries document the vampire's penetration of Western culture, from scholarly discourse, to popular culture, politics and cook books.

Sections by topic list works covering various aspects, including general sources, folklore and history, vampires in literature, music and art, metaphorical vampires and the contemporary vampire community. Vampires from film and television--from Bela Lugosi's Dracula to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood and the Twilight Saga--are well represented.

The review for this is hosted at Vamped.

The Poet and the Vampyre – review

Author: Andrew McConnell Stott

First Published: 2014

Contains spoilers

The blurb: Love affairs, literary rivalries, and the supernatural collide in an inspired journey to Lake Geneva, where Byron, the Shelleys, and John Polidori come together to create literature’s greatest monsters.

In the spring of 1816, Lord Byron was the greatest poet of his generation and the most famous man in Britain, but his personal life was about to erupt. Fleeing his celebrity, notoriety, and debts, he sought refuge in Europe, taking his young doctor with him. As an inexperienced medic with literary aspirations of his own, Doctor John Polidori could not believe his luck.

That summer another literary star also arrived in Geneva. With Percy Bysshe Shelley came his lover, Mary, and her step-sister, Claire Clairmont. For the next three months, this party of young bohemians shared their lives, charged with sexual and artistic tensions. It was a period of extraordinary creativity: Mary Shelley started writing Frankenstein, the gothic masterpiece of Romantic fiction; Byron completed ChildeHarold’s Pilgrimage, his epic poem; and Polidori would begin The Vampyre, the first great vampire novel.

It was also a time of remarkable drama and emotional turmoil. For Byron and the Shelleys, their stay by the lake would serve to immortalize them in the annals of literary history. But for Claire and Polidori, the Swiss sojourn would scar them forever. 16 pages of color and B&W photographs.

The review: The story of the night at the Villa Diodati has been much told and, in truth, it was a focal point that led to two of the enduring horror figures – Frankenstein and the vampire. With the secondary title The Curse of Byron and the Birth of Literature's Greatest Monsters, this book is written in a way that makes it feel almost like a biography rather than a reference work. The end of the book is packed with notes – though strangely these numbered notes do not have corresponding numbering in the body of the text. There is also an extensive bibliography – though, again, the actual body of text does not contain citations. This approach lets the text flow, but makes it disjointed (at best) as a reference work.

However, whilst examining all the primary characters, I did like the fact that Stott offered more clarity than most offer to both Polidori and Claremont. Indeed to me these two where the primary focus of the work.

Polidori was my personal focus and it was great to see more of his works than just the Vampyre being considered. It is interesting to note that Polidori used the symbolism of a vampire bat in his poem Chatterton to his Sister:

 “As vampire bat excites a breeze 
 Soft, cooling, lulling to repose 
The child whose life’s blood quickly flows, 
Feeding the filthy beast with all 
A mother’s fondest name may call.”

Another vampiric connection I noticed was the fact that Shelley was accused of being a vampire by his estranged wife Harriet (“The man I once loved is dead. This is a vampire.”)

I also noticed a mention of zielverkoopers, the notes in the book suggest that these “soul sellers” were gangs in the habit of pressganging farmers into service for the Dutch East Indiamen but Campbell’s Guide through Belgium (1815) suggested they were accused of murdering victims and draining their blood to sell – Stott’s endnote on the subject wonders whether this was a vampiric urban legend.

So, a nice focus and a good read. The lack of marrying up notes (and citations) in text was frustrating but the prose is sprightly, the subject interesting and the book deserves 7.5 out of 10.

Frankenstein and the Vampyre: A Dark and Stormy Night – review

Director: Philip Smith

Release date: 2014

The story of the events at Villa Diodati on the shore of Lake Geneva in 1816 was the subject of this dramatised documentary shown by the BBC over Halloween 2014.

Villa Diodati

Of course the story has been fully dramatised several times most poetically with the film Gothic and also in the film Rowing With the Wind (which I did not feature on the blog as the Polidori aspects were absolutely marginalised).

Hannah Taylor Gordon as Mary Shelley

The reason, of course, that the events are so very important is because, at the urging of Byron (Rob Heaps), the residents of Diodati had a story writing competition that eventually led to the composition of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (Hannah Taylor Gordon) and the Vampyre: A Tale by Polidori (Sam Swann). As such it spawned two of the pillars of modern horror, one of which being the first English language vampire prose.

Neil Gaiman

This documentary tracks the events and is narrated by Claire Foy (Vampire Academy) and has commentators such as Neil Gaiman involved. The documentary does tell us the bare bones of the story (though perhaps more could have been said about the origins of Ruthven’s name amongst other things). There was nothing within it that was factually incorrect, that I noticed, and is thus a perfectly good primer for those unfamiliar with the story but offered no new or keen insights for those of us more conversant with the events. 6 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Written in Blood: A Cultural History of the British Vampire – review

Author: Paul Adams

First Published: 2014

The blurb: The British Isles has a remarkable association with vampires – chilling supernatural creatures of the night. From the nineteenth-century writings of John Polidori, James Rymer, Sheridan Le Fanu and Bram Stoker, to the modern literary horrors of Clive Barker, Ramsey Campbell, Brian Lumley and Kim Newman, the vampire casts a strange and compelling shadow that spreads from the realms of fantasy into the world of the living. Here you will find vampire murderers and vampire hunters together with the real-life mysteries of Croglin Grange, Alnwick Castle, the Vampire of the Villas, the Yorkshire Vampire and the enduring phenomenon of London’s famous Highgate Vampire.

In this thought-provoking book, illustrated with never before seen photographs and drawing on extensive original research, writer and paranormal historian Paul Adams explores the fascinating history of British vampirism in both fact and fiction. With extensive chapters on the post-war revival of Gothic cinema horror and the influence of cult studio Hammer Films on the vampire in British television and music, here is a modern guide where every page is truly written in blood…

The review: Paul Adams takes us on a whistle-stop tour of vampirism as it ties in to British culture, running the gamut from 1816 to 2013 and looking at everything from Penny Dreadfuls through to Hammer films and beyond. He looks at legends (such as Croglin Grange) and some of the earlier appearances of the restless dead (as recorded by William of Newburgh and Walter Map). He touches on continental Europe, of course, and delves into vampire murderers – which does see him veering off the Isles as well as into general occult orientated killings, I think as a need to pad out what would have been a thin chapter had he remained in Britain.

Mostly I found his writing balanced, the discussion of the Highgate Vampire steered a fair line between the two primary personalities involved in the case without fawning over either. The book is quite tabloid in its brevity, in places, but Adams chose to write an overview – each chapter may have generated a reference book of its own. The writing style is chatty and engaging but the book does have a bibliography and indexing, allowing further reading into the subjects.

Given the general balance shown, I found it (possibly unfairly) unfortunate that he had not unearthed the potential controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Penny Dreadful story, The Skeleton Count, or, the Vampire Mistress. But, then again, my own reference bookdid not pick up on this when written. More unfortunate was the continued association between Count Dracula and Prince Vlad III. Adams’ suggests that Stoker “immersed himself in the history of the Wallachian warrior knights Vlad Dracul (d 1447) and his son…” but there is absolutely no evidence of this. For more on this please see my article. That aside the balance in the book – when looking at competing theories, was well maintained.

All in all, a fine primer on a plethora of vampire related topics. 7.5 out of 10.

Realm of the Vampire: History and the Undead – review

Author: Daniel J Wood

First published: 2009

The Blurb: Do vampires exist? Our ancestors certainly believed they did.

We are forced to rely on ancient records and eyewitness testimony, and absolute proof remains in the shadows, just out of reach.

Vampire research has fallen into a pattern of debunking, with academic writers chasing after trendy theories to explain away the vampire.

The review: I came across this book through Anthony Hogg and purchased it via kindle as this seems to be the only way to get the book currently.

After a foreword by David A Sattman, which seems to garble the Arnold Paole story, we move onto Wood’s work. He briefly introduces English Tradition and then the New England vampire scares before going into the work proper. This concentrates primarily on Polish vampirism.

There is debate as to whether the restless dead of the English tradition, revenants, can rightly be called vampires. Wood answers that by laying down the concept that whilst, “More and more modern authors, frustrated by this linguistic looseness, have attempted to restrict the use of the term ‘vampire’ by imposing an artificial dichotomy between the vampire-as-living-corpses and other unquiet dead. The folkloric sources of many nations, many realms of the undead, do not support this dichotomy, which itself is based upon a unique set of eighteenth-century cases.” Pretty much espousing, therefore, the Montague Summers broad view of the folklore.

Wood seems to almost take the view point of accepting the existence of vampires as reported. To me, accepting the theories of (say) Barber does not lessen the power of the original belief and thus I can, at least, accept a (mistaken) genuine belief by those who laid down the stories and unearthed the corpses, and the impact this had culturally, psychologically and politically thereafter.

Wood is right in his assertion that less is known of the Polish traditions, compared to those of the more Southern Slavs, and draws a fairly vivid picture of a Poland at the height of its power. He introduces us to concepts such as the zmory, living vampires that fulfilled a night hag role but tended to be shown as young and beautiful (interestingly the zmory only appear in Bane's Encyclopedia of Vampire Mythology, under zmora, as an alternative for incubus and do not have their own section). He also contemplates whether the occult activities in Poland (and Czech) led to the large numbers of restless dead reported through the post-Renaissance period – a position that seems sustainable only if one agrees that the outbreaks were real.

One thing not mentioned, but that did strike me whilst reading the book, was around the thought that victims of vampiric attack often speak of strangulation and not blood drinking, the blood drinking apparently assumed because of the state of the corpse when exhumed. However, if the vampire strangled a victim and then drank the blood post mortem, then surviving victims would only have reported strangulation.

One frustrating part of the book was that whilst it has a large sources section, there was a tendency to not cite within text and one feels that a scholarly work should do so. There is no index, though this might have just been missed from the kindle version as redundant (kindle's having a search capacity). Beyond this it was an enjoyable read and, whilst I disagree with some of Wood's assertions, an interesting tome. 7 out of 10.

The Vampire in Slavic Cultures – review

Editor: Thomas J Garza

First published: 2009

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: Eight hundred years before Bram Stoker gave us the West's most memorable vampire in Dracula (1897) and long before the exploits of Vlad "the Impaler" Tepes horrified Europe (1431-46), the Russian Primary Chronicles write of a Novgorodian priest as Upyr' Likhij, or Wicked Vampire (1047). The Slavic and Balkan worlds abound in histories, legends, myths and literary portraits of the so-called undead, creatures which draw life out of the living in order to sustain their own. These stories of the vampire simultaneously fascinate and horrify, as they draw the reader closer to an understanding of death and the undead.

This unique volume brings together a wide variety of historical, critical, and literary texts that reveal and explore the origins, growth, and development of the vampire myth from its beginnings to the 21st century. These texts explore the vampire within the region of its origin in Western cultures: the lands of the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Russia. From the earliest recorded tales to the recent offerings of Russian vampires on film, this volume gives the reader a dynamic perspective on one the world's most enduring cultural phenomena, the vampire.

The Review: Normally I try to avoid comment on price when doing a review – content is more important, and I’d expect a higher price for an academic reference book. However I must mention that (at time of review) the new volume price for this book, on Amazon UK, has only just (for the first time) dipped below £100. On Amazon US it is still over $115.

Now, trusting I didn’t spend anywhere near that for my used copy, and despite the fact that it is a large tome, the contents of this would seem to be problematic given the price. Firstly it is made up of extracts from other works (all accredited) as well as having a section of literary offerings. There are extracts ranging from the great – for example Keyworth’s Troublesome Corpses – to the not so great – I still have no love for Konstantinos’ Vampires: the Occult Truth. However extracts from books such as Dundes’ The Vampire a Casebook and just about anything by Perkowski were noticeable by their absence. Perhaps permission to reprint couldn’t be gained, however missing these when including some of the lower quality extracts seemed at best a mistake.

The first section contains several definitions of vampires. Pulling these together from a variety of sources was a great idea. It allows the student to see several variants. However it has absolutely no commentary and this is a problem. So, when we get mention of vampires taking the form of a monstrous bat, Garza does not inform the reader that the primary association of bats and vampires comes from the novel Dracula. Given this is a reference book I would have expected some commentary but the book contains no primary commentary on the extracts, hence suggesting that Garza is an editor rather than author at the head of the review (he does translate a couple of pieces).

Worst still is that the reference for each extract dates the extract to the publication Garza used. Thus, when we read the definition of vampire from Dudley Wright’s Vampires and vampirism it offers the date of 2001 (the date the specific publication it was lifted from was reprinted) but the reader may be unaware that the original publication date is 1914. Looking at the date enables us to track changes in genre/folklore thoughts (to be absolutely fair some of the literature, later in the volume, carries an original publication date at the end).

Worse comes with the referencing and footnotes from the extracts. Some have them intact, some don’t – and we know some should have footnotes because the footnote’s citation number is still in the text but the foot (or end) note is nowhere to be seen. At the best this was lazy and unhelpful.

There are sections on both Vlad Ţepeş and Erzsébet Báthory. In the introduction Garza admits that neither was Slavic but suggests that “the geographic proximity of their dominions to the lands of the Slavs clearly had an effect on the development of the vampire myth in those neighbouring countries,” No evidence is offered for this by Garza, though he does suggest that both figures were given the “moniker of ‘vampire’”. Certainly that never occurred until post-Stoker for Ţepeş. Then again, given the cover of the volume I shouldn’t have been surprised by this content. Anyway, the sections themselves carry little in the way of balanced extracts. Though I personally suspect Báthory was guilty (at least to a degree) of the crimes accused (though they were used by her enemies to their advantage) I would have liked to have seen a “she was innocent and framed” article as a balance. As for Ţepeş an extract from Dracula: Sense and Nonsense or similar was sorely needed to offer a balanced viewpoint.

I was mystified as to why an essay on The Golem was included – again commentary would have explained Garza’s thinking, perhaps he expected readers would only be people with his lesson plan? I was also mystified as to why an extract from Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled was included, only to be followed by a Montague Summers’ extract that contained the very same extract!

I was rather excited about the literature section. Though I have read the Night Watch (there is an extract from this), Viy and the Family of the Vourdalak there were others included that I had been unaware of and wanted to read. Positively I discovered Jan Neruda’s The Vampire and Iván Turgénieff’s Phantoms (even if I had to find the date of publication from other sources).

I was bemused at the inclusion of the extract from Dracula and the full text of the Vampyre: A Tale. Let us look at the title of the book again – In Slavic Cultures – as important as these two works are, they are not from Slavic culture (though some of the lore used by Stoker is). Other inclusions that were actually from Slavic culture (primarily Russian, it has to be said) bemused me just as much. Karamzin’s the Island of Bornholm is certainly gothic but may not even have a troublesome corpse, never mind a vampire (and is deliberate in its obfuscation). There were four Pushkin poems included – ish. I say ish because The Bridegroom was included twice. A commentary explaining why the different translations were included would have been useful. More useful would have been an explanation why The Bridegroom (x2) and Evil Spirits were included as neither contains any hint of vampirism. At least Pushkin’s the Drowned Man has a troublesome corpse in it, though whether it was a vampire in the strictest sense of the word is highly debatable.

Pelevin’s A Werewolf Problem in Central Russia is fantastic – but has no vampire aspect (so why not an extract from his (currently untranslated) vampire novel Empire V?) Indeed why not two extracts (the vampire parts obviously) from the Probratim: A Slav Novel by Prof. P Jones (1895)? (If you are interested, my reference book, The Media Vampire, covers this work pp136-144!) Indeed why not an extract or the full text of Milovan Glišić’s Posle Devedeset Godina or 90 Years Later – unfortunately not available yet in English but based on pure Slavic vampire lore and the legend of Sava Savanović. The volume’s final section contained vampire lyrics in Russian popular music, which is fair enough if you want that sort of thing.

To be fair, the interesting sections were interesting, but the book has one more sin that needs to be recounted. It doesn’t have an index, so its academic use becomes further limited. In total honesty the book confounded my expectations as I expected a fresh reference work that explored the Slavic vampire rather than a regurgitation of other books, many of which I had. If you see it cheap you might want it, if you are in Garza’s classes then it expect it becomes much more useful but at full price it comes with a health warning. 5 out of 10.

Just a Bite: A Transylvania Vampire Expert’s Short History of the Undead – review

Author: István Pivárcsi

First published: 2012

The blurb: Historian and Transylvania traveller István Pivárcsi addresses the essentials in more than thirty bite size chapters: How did the vampire legend emerge in Eastern Europe? Did a disfiguring illness play a part? To what lengths did people go to keep vampires at bay? Who was the real Vlad the Impaler – and what tortures titillated him? Did “Blood Countess” Elizabeth Báthory deserve her reputation? What other bad things have melded with vampires in our imaginations? How have the undead come truly alive in literature and film?

A chronology of historical events and a glossary of terms further make Just a Bite a must for anyone who seeks a user-friendly short reference to the un-dead that separates facts from fiction.

The review: Oh dear. I wanted to like this I really did and, despite some misgivings from the start, up to a point this was going to get a reasonable review. Then we got to some certain chapters and the whole thing fell apart – not just around those chapters, they caused the misgivings about earlier chapters to come fully to the fore.

The misgivings started around the fact that Pivárcsi says the book is to be “not so much a scholarly work… rather than providing citations throughout I opted to write it more or less as the information came to me.” You may ask ‘what is wrong with that?’ I would say that it suggests the possibility that it is a bullshitter’s charter (quite frankly). That there is every possibility that the information within is not based on fact nor supported by sound research. As we will see this misgiving proved to be all too true…

Yet, at first, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt, despite some issues. For instance Pivárcsi seems to suggest that Transylvania is the birth place of folkloric vampires (in the strictest sense of the word) – but then does qualify that it is actually the Slavic regions that is the source area. Despite contradicting himself like that I was taken by the chatty, easy to read style – but I was not too sure about the veracity of all his assertions.

When he reached historical figures my defences went up but he was quick to point out that Stoker new little of Prince Vlad III and conflated aspects of Vlad II in with his knowledge – on the other hand he indicates that Stoker’s knowledge was wider than it really was and doesn’t mention Wilkinson as the source of his information. Pivárcsi was also refreshingly even-handed when discussing Báthory. I should also note here that his chapter “Will the Real Dracula Please Stand Up” bears almost the same title as my article about the identity of Count Dracula – pure coincidence and Eminem (as per my article, at least) has a lot to answer for.

I did, however, get the impression that folklore and filmlore merged into one for Pivárcsi. The chapter on “Pellagra and Porphyria” underlined this as (whilst he seemed less than convinced about Porphyria) it was the reaction that suffers of Pellagra had to sunlight that figured as one of the central arguments and, as we know, the vampiric reaction to sunlight was born of the movies and not part of most folklore.

A chapter on real incidents (presumably in Romania) had no referencing at all – no dates, names (or pseudonyms) or locations. Frankly they could have been fiction rather than alleged witness statements, as we had nothing to go on. The chapters on other “creatures” (zombies, golems etc) had no real point and showed no myth bleeding as the blurb reproduced above suggests.

Then things went really wrong. He suggests that Méliès’ Le Manoir du Diable is a vampire film – it isn’t but it does contain many tropes we would see later. He also says that it was from 1896 (it was) but then suggests it was released at the same time as Dracula (ie 1897). He goes on to give a synopsis of Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens that indicates that he hadn’t seen the film for some time (at the very least) prior to writing the chapter, given that it is inaccurate – as an example he suggests that Hutter escapes the castle and is pursued by Orlock.

A more thorough synopsis of Dracula Halála (a lost film) than I have ever seen before makes us wonder, given the poor quality of this entire section of the book and the fact that his synopsis of a film readily available is wrong. He mentions a paucity of vampire films through the 1950s until Polanski’s the Fearless Vampire Killers in 1967 – conveniently forgetting the very important Hammer output (amongst other films). Then we get to the novel Dracula…

I’ll pick out some prime rubbish… and I quote… “Stoker also revisited the material, publishing the sequel titled Dracula’s Guest in 1913”. Stoker did not revisit the book that we are aware of. Dracula’s Guest was not a sequel (more an unused prologue). Stoker did not publish it from beyond the grave (he died in 1912). Florence Stoker, however, did publish the “missing first chapter” as a short story.

He then says, “After some analysis it can be stated that he [Stoker] wove four separate threads.” These were? 1) The historic Vlad Tepes. No. We know he used the name and a tad of back history, he was far from a thread that led to the writing of the novel and Pivárcsi does at least admit (again) that Stoker could know very little about the historic figure. 2) Emily Gerard’s Land Beyond the Forest. Actually Stoker used her Transylvanian Superstitions and the Scholomance examples Pivárcsi gives are from that second volume. As for Land Beyond the Forest there is no evidence that Stoker read the book and it does not appear in his notes. 3) Attending a series of presentations by Arminius Vambery – after the first he met him and had a private chat and met him several more time. This is complete fabrication. We know exactly how many times they met (twice, though the second time may have only been watching Vambery speak) and roughly what was spoken about (neither Prince Vlad III as some maintain or vampires as Pivárcsi suggests). How? Stoker tells us in Private Reminiscences (1906). 4) Stoker’s imagination – this, at least, is correct.

As an inspiration to Stoker he also directly mentions I Vampiri, an opera from 1812 by Silvestro Palma. This is intriguing, it is possible that Stoker saw the opera (not when written, of course, as he wasn’t born… but then Pivárcsi does have him acting from beyond the grave so why not before birth…) but I am not aware of any evidence that he actually did. When Pivárcsi gives a very sparse synopsis of the novel we again wonder whether he read the book, ever – suggesting, as he does, that Harker escaped the castle and returns to England “with the goal of preventing the Count from carrying out his diabolical plan.” Rather than his stay in hospital, with brain fever, and then helped home by Mina, doubting the events that happened (until they meet Van Helsing). Lucy, with her fate, and (other than Van Helsing) the other characters who hunt Dracula are not mentioned at all.

The inaccuracies and (quite frankly) fabrications really spoil this work. I cannot, therefore, recommend the book. 2.5 out of 10 reflects that the chatty narrative is very readable.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula – review

Editor: Elizabeth Miller

First published: 2009

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: Bram Stoker’s Dracula, upon its publication in 1897, shocked, captivated, titillated, outraged, thrilled. Two years later it astounded an American reviewer that Stoker - “A great, shambling, good-natured, over-grown boy with a red beard and ruddy complexion” - might be a successful businessman let alone the creator of the mysterious, seductive count from a castle (and coffin) in Transylvania. In more than a century since, Bram Stoker’s Dracula has never gone out of print. Yet the count has long overshadowed his author.

A Broadway stage adaption of Dracula in the 1920’s, and then the 1931 classic film version starring Bela Lugosi would make the fictional vampire a cultural icon. His story would continue to fascinate moviemakers and successive decades would bring the count to the silver screen in the shape of Christopher Lee, Jack Palance, Frank Langella, and Gary Oldman, to name only four. On television Buffy would slay vampires, while in print Dracula’s tale would spawn a whole genre of vampire fiction from Anne Rice’s wildly popular Vampire Chronicles to Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series.

This generously illustrated documentary collection explores in full the scope of the Dracula phenomena, from the folkloric origins of the vampire legend to its unending legacy as a vital influence on the literary and performing arts, not to mention the Romanian tourist industry. Nor does it overlook Bram Stoker himself – among its many exceptional primary documents are his working notes for Dracula – for without Bram Stoker, as this comprehensive volume shows, Count Dracula would never have assumed a life of his iconic own.

The review: I like blurb’s such as this book has, detailed and accurate. It almost makes me want to give a score and leave.

This book describes itself as “A documentary journey into vampire country and the Dracula phenomena” and it truly is. Edited by Dracula expert Elizabeth Miller it is split into six primary areas: 1) Bram Stoker, the Man and the Writer, 2)The Vampire before Dracula, 3)Contexts for Dracula, 4) the Writing of Dracula, 5.) the Publishing History of Dracula and 6.) The Legacy of Dracula. The book then fills these sections with essays and articles enough to make the Dracula student’s head spin.

The contents page is very detailed and all the articles are very well referenced – in the Harvard style – and the references fall behind their relevant article. There is also a reference and further reading section at the end of the volume that ties to the articles themselves. However I will gripe about a lack of index. Though the book has the detailed contents that I mentioned, an index would have been, I would say, a godsend for dipping back into aspects and using the book as a scholarly tome.

For scholarly it is, and filled with a huge amount of data, theory and fact. Perhaps too much for the casual reader but for the student of the vampire in media and, particularly, Dracula it is a must have. 9 out of 10.

Vampire Forensics - review

Author: Mark Collins Jenkins

First published 2010

Contains spoilers

The blurb: Your brain tells you it doesn’t really exist. You know its just a myth. Yet it bends over you… the shiver down your spine still lingers after you wake with a start.

Why do vampires fascinate us so? From the earliest whispers of eternal evil in ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome, vampire tales have flourished through the centuries and around the globe, fuelled by superstition, erotic mystery, fear of disease and death, and the nagging anxiety that demons lurk everywhere. What has archaeology discovered about vampire beginnings? Where has anthropology tracked their folklore? And has modern forensics ripped the lid of their coffins? The recent discovery of the “Vampire of Venice” – a 16th-century plague victim buried with a brick in her mouth – has sparked new debate.

This is a journey that will bring you face-to-face with the oldest of humanity’s deep-seated terrors: the fear of the (un)dead. So grab some garlic and a stake and read Vampire Forensics, the spine chilling tale of how this most enduring of legends took shape.

The Review: When you read the title and then the blurb. When you see the focus upon the Venetian find, you would be forgiven for thinking that this book was going to be a scientific forensics journey into the Venice events. This is actually more forensics as defined as a debate or argumentation and the Venice skull is more a starting point for the journey, a landmark en-route, rather than the entire landscape we are exploring. Indeed this is a serious traipse through folklore that could have led to the birth of the traditional vampire myths.

Friend of the blog, Anthony Hogg, has mentioned this book at his blog and, whilst his opinion of it improved, at first he lamented the fact that the book seems to stroll through the same old areas of investigation. However, the difference between myself and Anthony is that my study of the genre has been more media orientated, whilst he has a strong background in examining the folklore/traditional aspects of the genre. As such I found the opening of the book to be a well written refresher on things I had read before and certainly a useful source for those starting their exploration of the myths behind the media.

Two pieces of errata, if I may, however. The so called ‘Cape Man’ was Salvador Agron and not Salvatore (page 28) and more importantly, in a blooper sense, Stoker wrote about the Bloofer Lady and not the Blooper Lady (page 48) – a couple of minor typos aside I found Jenkins style eminently readable, the book flowed well and was informative and it has an extensive notes, bibliography and index area – an aspect too often missed. I do take Anthony’s point about footnotes being useful in an scholarly sense, however.

The book does look at funereal rites in depth – but it is more a primer for Barber’s “Vampires, Burial and Death,” a book that Jenkins acknowledges as a classic. Where, however, this came into its own for me, was in its study of comparative folklore as it tried to track the source of the mythology. One massively interesting area was the look into the thunder god myths. I think a trick may have been missed, whilst it was likely to be coincidental (or at the most synchronicitous), was around the fact – as mentioned earlier in the book – that Stoker used the idea of the Scholomance and the idea that this is “where the devil claims the tenth scholar as his due” as the price for teaching the ten students the black arts. Emily Gerard (Stoker’s source) suggested that this scholar would be “mounted upon an Ismeju (dragon) he becomes henceforward the devil's aide-de-camp, and assists him in 'making the weather,' that is, in preparing thunderbolts.”

Between Stoker and Gerard we had links between the modern Dracula based vampire, the idea of the thunder gods, dragons (which also receive scrutiny in this book as a source area) and the devil who, of course, is a Christian debasing of horned Gods such as Cernunnos (also a subject of the investigation). As such my mind flicked to this connection and perhaps Jenkins will consider exploring this connection in a future volume.

Talking of missing a trick... If Jenkins were to produce a future volume an area that lays unexplored by him, so far, that I might be so bold as suggest as a source area, would also be the Trickster mythology. Indeed Lewis Hyde’s Trickster Makes the World, investigates how the Trickster form begins with appetite (and greed), sojourns in the Land of the dead, becomes the God of crossroads. There is a whole investigation that could be entered into there.

Now, you may think that it is strange for me to tangent off into areas the book didn’t touch upon but the truth is that the book made my mind spin in these directions and, as such, the book most certainly did one of the primary functions of a volume like this – it made me think.

I enjoyed Vampire Forensics, and as long as you know what you are getting – the comparative folklore will take you through a twisted path of areas that may be related to, but are not necessarily directly vampire mythology – then I recommend this book. 7.5 out of 10.

From Demons to Dracula – review

Author: Matthew Beresford

First Published: 2008

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: In blood-soaked lore handed down the centuries, the vampire is a monster of endless interest: from Bram Stoker’s Dracula to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, this seductive lover of blood haunts popular culture and inhabits our darkest imaginings. The history of the vampire is a compelling tale that is now documented in From Demons to Dracula, which reveals why the vampire myth and this creature of the undead so fascinates us.

Beresford’s chronicle roams from the mountains of Eastern Europe to the foggy streets of Victorian England and to Hollywood film as he follows the portrayal of the vampire in history, literature and art. Investigating the historical Dracula – Vlad the Impaler – and his status us a national hero in Romania, Beresford endeavours to minnow out truths from the complex legend and folklore. From Demons to Dracula tracks the evolution of the vampire, drawing on classical Greek and Roman myths, witch trials and medieval plagues, Gothic literature and even contemporary works such as Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire and Elizabeth Kostova’s The Historian. Beresford also looks at the widespread impact if screen vampires from television shows, classic movies starring Bela Lugosi ad Christopher Lee, and more recent films such as Underworld and Blade. Whether as a demon of the underworld or a light-fearing hunter of humans, the vampire has endured through the centuries as a powerful symbolic figure for human concerns with life, death and the afterlife.

Wide-ranging and engrossing, From Demons to Dracula casts the bloodthirsty nightstalker as a remarkable, complex and telling totem of our nightmares, real and imagined.

The Review: Phew, with a subtitle “the Creation of the Modern Vampire Myth,” and the blurb above this book sets itself a real task and I feel somewhat torn as I review this as there are some really excellent aspects to the book but, occasionally, examples of poor research and downright inaccuracy. Be that as it may (and I will explore several of those areas where I felt the book fell over) it is nice to see a reference book that is properly referenced itself, bibliographied and indexed.

My caution with regards the book started small, there were just the occasional areas that gave me pause for thought and I could actually understand why they occurred. There is an illustration in the introduction, page 12, of “‘a vampire rises from the grave…’in an 18th century illustration” . Actually, not long before receiving the book (as a Christmas present from my ever loving wife) I read an article about this illustration on the blog Diary of an Amateur Vampirologist. It seems the illustration was reproduced in Frayling’s Vampyres: Lord Byron to Count Dracula (listed in the bibliography of this) as such a piece, but it is actually of "BIANCA RUBEA, wife of BAPTISTA Á PORTA / crushes herself with the tombstone of her husband." A minor problem, as it is an illustration of a suicide and not a vampire, but I can see why Beresford believed it to be of a vampire given Frayling used it as such.

Later a law is mentioned, repealed in 1823, which allowed stakes to be driven through the corpse of any person deemed undead. That information came from Seán Manchester it seems, whom Beresford has corresponded with and play is made by Beresford that it is specifically a corpse deemed undead and not vampiric… however, to my knowledge the word undead only came into usage in 1897 as it was invented by Bram Stoker in respect of Dracula (EDIT: Evidence has come to light that undead was used prior to 1897 but it was only connected with vampires by Stoker and was actually referential to the divine prior to that). However, in the main the book was proving excellent, insightful and a good read.

I was taken with the chapter on Vlad Ţepeş, especially as Beresford recognised that there was precious little connection between the historic Vlad, vampirism and Stoker’s Dracula. I was even more taken by the look at the classic literature, where Beresford recognised the importance of The Vampyre and Varney the Vampire, as well as Carmilla and Dracula. Indeed he points out “It is interesting that whichever one considers, be it The Vampyre, Varney, Carmilla or Dracula, it will be described as the most influential or the most imitated vampire story, and one cannot help but believe it to be true of each in turn upon reflection.”

Then we hit the movies and things sank low, though perhaps I am being a little too critical. To be fair the section is very small, especially given the sheer volume of vampire movies but I’ll have to point out that the Doors song covered by Echo and the Bunnymen (not the original Doors version, note) on the Lost Boys was called ‘People are Strange’ and not ‘When You’re Strange’. However it was the musings upon Bram Stoker’s Dracula that got my goat up, as it were. It does not follow the novel fairly closely at all; it overplays the Ţepeş connection and adds a love affair between Dracula and Mina as she is his reincarnated wife, something lifted from the works of Dan Curtis – a fact that is not mentioned here. However it was the following that really irked “The novel itself ends with Dracula being killed in Transylvania, but here Coppola’s Dracula continues briefly. One year after Dracula’s death, Jonathon and Mina Harker have a baby boy that they name Quincey…” No. No No. The film ends with Mina chopping Dracula’s head off to give him peace, no continuation further. The novel ends with a transcript written seven years later, when the hunter’s return to Castle Dracula, that mentions Mina and Jonathon’s son. It is as though Beresford just went off on one and one then questions whether either was watched/read or is the quoted passage just a typo of the most massive order.

He pulls it back as he looks at vampire killers and asks the question of why the press dub many of them vampires when their acts seem to have precious little to do with vampirism. He goes on to look at the Sophie Lancaster case – indeed the book is dedicated to her – and does not suggest that there was a vampire connection but that in the eyes of those who perpetrate such hate crimes (of which the one against Sophie and Robert Maltby is without doubt of the most heinous order) there is no discerning between vampiric and the gothic lifestyle but a general resistance in society to darker sub-cultures. He ends this section by mentioning the attacks by the establishment on Sam Stone for daring to actually be creative when she wrote her novel and how a non-discerning tabloid press turned someone who writes about vampires into a vampire with their lurid and sensationalist headlines.

The book ends (ish, there is a conclusion and an extract from Historia Rerum Anglicarum) with a look at the Highgate Vampire. Three things struck me. One, Beresford maintains (through the book) that Stoker had Lucy buried at Highgate. Not necessarily true, Stoker does not name the cemetery and it is McNally and Florescu (wrong on so many counts, as they are) who argue that case but other cemeteries fit just as well. Two, most of the references seemed to come from Seán Manchester. Beresford does not necessarily conclude that Manchester was correct but I would have wanted some verification from other sources. Thirdly, it seemed a little much to use a whole chapter on the Highgate events – but that’s just me.

So there you have it. An excellently written book, easy to read, but inaccurate in places. For the main of the book, however, it is well referenced and Beresford draws some interesting conclusions. 6 out of 10 but it should have scored higher.

Book of the Vampire – review

Author: Nigel Suckling

Illustrations: Bruce Pennington

First published: 2008

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: “An examination of the vampire in legend and history, taking Bram Stoker’s Dracula as a starting point since it is mainly responsible for the modern vampire’s notoriety. Nigel Suckling examines Dracula’s fictional ancestry as well as the folklore and historical characters (such as Vlad the Impaler and Countess Elizabeth Bathory) that informed Stoker’s many-layered monster. The book ends with a look at the vampire legend today and the resurgence of belief in such monsters.”

The review: The Blurb for this, as relayed above, is all well and good. However there are two blurbs. The inner dust jacket tells us that “Nigel Suckling is the UK’s leading authority on vampires and the myth and legend which surrounds them.” This leads me naturally to two thoughts, the first being that if he is such an authority why have I never heard of him before? The second being that this, therefore, must be amongst the most authoritative books on vampires, with no fear of inaccuracy.

To be fair the blurb does not match Suckling’s own introduction where he admits “In writing this I’m not setting myself up as any great authority on the subject. My starting point was uninformed curiosity…” Which is it? Given the content I would have to take the second (and Suckling’s own) admission and say shame on the publishers for misleading blurb, unfortunately it raises an expectation that can only be dashed.

One of the first things to strike me was when Suckling discussed Varney the Vampire. Firstly he re-summons the idea that it was written by Prest when it is mostly agreed that Rymer was the primary author, indeed Curt Herr offers an authoritative argument for Rymer’s penning of the series. Suckling suggests that it is “much like trying to read the collective scripts of a soap opera”, which in many respects it is, given the penny dreadful form was the soap opera of its day. However no real explanation of the penny dreadful form is given, instead Suckling goes on to admit “I gave up after a hundred or so pages,” which, to me, does not give Suckling the least bit of authority to write on the subject – at best he is recycling second-hand views and the overview of the story, placed as an appendix to the book, misses the mark on just about every level.

Of course the recycling of views would be acceptable if those views were properly attributed. For example, when discussing Carmilla, Suckling states “For a while, apparently, Stoker even considered making his central character female, basing her on the bloodthirsty Elisabeth Bathory, but no doubt this felt too much like plagiarism.” Fascinating, I’ve never heard this before and yet… where is the reference to establish Suckling’s supposition as fact. There isn’t one, so we cannot tell if this is true, and yet the influence of Le Fanu upon Stoker has long been established in the fact that Stoker did consider setting the book in Styria, as Carmilla was – for some reason this wasn’t mentioned.

Another example of reference failure was when looking at The Vampyre. Suckling suggests that when plays were performed based on the tale they were often double billed with plays based on Frankenstein. He then adds “no playwright went so far as to try and combine them into a single play, as has been done on film.” What film might that be? I ask with all excitement as I’ve never heard of it and, typically, Suckling does not say. Then I realise that he must be referring to Gothic and I stagger as, of course, this is about the creation of the stories, and the drug induced frivolities that led to said creation, and not a combination of the actual stories as Suckling intimated. Now the quote is perhaps just misleading, not useful in a reference book, but that is fine for me but what about another reader who perhaps doesn’t make said connection?

We are only up to page 29 with these issues and still in the heavily considered (within many a volume) classics of the genre. So, do things get better? Quite frankly, yes. As Suckling leaves the classics behind and explores the myths and legends from around the world the book improves. Part of this is down to the fact that Suckling writes in a way that is rather readable.

However, even though there are many quotations, which are referenced on use, there is no overarching bibliography and there are stories and suppositions added throughout that are not referenced at all. The book also contains no index itself. I was a little put out when we entered the realm of historic ‘vampires’ (Vlad Draculea, Gilles De Retz and Erzsébet Báthory) when the myth that Dracula was based on his historic counterpart seemed to be propagated, ignoring the fact that Stoker, at most, took a name and a few choice quotes to put into a character’s mouth.

This is vampire-lite and, in truth, quite sensationalistic in style. But it is readable and Pennington’s illustrations are lovely. 4 out of 10.