Adianna Alexandra Ash said . . .
What is your idea on vampires? Real or not? Or do you read fantasy fiction at all? Are you a non fiction person?
---
We'll deal with the simple questions first: I've read some fantasy fiction, but yes, I am more of a non-fiction person (currently indulged in Orson Welles: Road To Xanadu by Simon Callow).
On to vampires! [Insert maniacal laughter.]
[Giant bat flies through the air.]
[End maniacal laughter.]
--
I spent my younger years, which would consist of ages four through nine, indulging myself in two particular areas of literature: private-eye detective works (largely "how-to" books) and old horror movies, especially those regarding Boris Karloff and a few on Bela Lugosi, the original film Dracula who later sank so far in his career as to work with Edward Wood.
Oh, and a quick note: quarto notes that Bram Stoker's Dracula is hideously dull, and having perused the first thirty pages or so, I uninformatively agree.
In order to save time on what I believe will be an incouragably long post, I quote this from Nation Master's Encyclopedia:
"Stoker has based his character loosely on the historic Wallachian ruler Vlad III, also known as Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Ţepeş in Romanian). In his six year reign (1456–1462) he is estimated to have killed 100,000 people, mainly by using his favourite method of impaling them on a sharp pole. However, it should be noted that the history of Romania at this time was mainly recorded by German immigrants, a group with which Vlad is known to have clashed several times. Indeed, Vlad is revered as a folk hero by Romanians for driving off invading Turks with his brutal tactics; his impaled victims included thousands of Turkish Muslims.
"The name Dracula is derived from a secret fraternal order of knights called the Order of the Dragon, founded by King Sigismund of Hungary (who became the Holy Roman Emperor in 1410) to uphold Christianity and defend the Empire against the Ottoman Turks. Vlad II Dracul, father of Vlad III, was admitted to the Order around 1431 because of his bravery in fighting the Turks. From 1431 onward Vlad II wore the emblem of the order and later, as ruler of Wallachia, his coinage bore the dragon symbol. The word for "dragon" in Romanian is drac (from Latin draco) and ul is the definite article. Vlad III's father thus came to be known as Vlad Dracul (Vlad "the Dragon"). In Romanian the ending ulea meant "the son of". Under this interpretation, Vlad III thus became Vlad Draculea, or "The Son of the Dragon." (The word drac also means "devil" in Romanian, giving a double meaning to the name for enemies of Vlad III and his father.)
"Stoker may also have drawn upon stories about the Sídhe — blood-drinking ghouls from his native Ireland — and the Dracula myth as he created it and as it has been portrayed in films and television shows ever since may be a compound of various influences; many of Stoker's biographers and literary critics have found strong similarities to an earlier Irish writer, Sheridan le Fanu's, classic of the vampire genre, Carmilla."
Note: The encyclopedia does hesitate to declare entirely that these are the sources of Stoker's Dracula in its entirety. One might also note that the history of vampirism and Dracula as a character can be seperate items, Dracula simply the most famous of all vampires.
The mythical aversion to sunlight also varies from culture to culture. Stoker's Dracula merely lost a few powers during sunlight, but was still quite alive and well. The original concept of full vulnerability to sunlight did not take hold of the public mind until the 1922 film Nosferatu.
Alas, I ramble on too much when I could simply provide interesting information offered by Benjamin H. Leblanc.
--
Let's face it- the only organic beings on the planet that survive without blood circulating through the physical body are plants. Vampires? Plants? Oo.
Naturally, the idea of worrying about central nervous systems, reproductive ability, the functioning of organs (which, in fact, are believed to exist in vampires- an early manner of killing them was to gut the vampire and burn its internal organs) is worthless.
Originally considered evil spirits which came out of the ground in the night to enslave victims, which then became blood-sucking vampires, the entire myth regarding vampires is entirely based on your belief in the supernatural.
The major religions of today, and I'll stick largely to the dominant religion of America (Christianity) should be entirely unable to deny the existance of vampires (which isn't to imply they should submit to their existance; merely allow for the possibility), if this early consideration regarding their creation is to hold with current belief in biblical text as literal taking of history.
You'd be hard pressed to get them to confess to the possibility, it is true. The stubborn reaction offered by most would be a light scoff and sarcastic comment (even the denomination I am most familiar with, Assemblies of God, a ridiculous sort and laughable in their manner and shameless flaunting of political orientation though unlawful, held prayer services to protect children from that "demonic book and film" Harry Potter, making fun of it while at the same time worrying about the possibility of encouraging children into witchcraft. You wouldn't believe the gossipy riot that broke hellishly loose when I announced to my peers that I enjoyed the book! Apparently Magic: The Gathering playing cards aren't worth their concern- thank goodness, or we'd have a riot on our hands and the largest spree of month-long groundings known in the history of mankind).
Let's face, they obviously buy into the possibility, but good luck getting them to admit it.
Why this rampage? Not sure, but don't worry, I'll tie it in.
You ask my opinion; I'm not a believer in the supernatural, and thusly not a believer in vampires. Of course we have our Jeffrey Dahmers and the like, but there's an endless debate as to whether or not cannibalism has ever existed as a norm in any known society (aside from desperate scenarios and a means to survive in situations in which starvation is a possibility). For more on that, click on random blue words in the previous sentence and you'll find something. Oh, and I like this article, poor in concept or not.
Note: Yes, I know cannibalism and vampirism are different in definition, but I feel the similarities are noteable.
In conclusion Adianna, now that this thoroughly biased yet rather educational essay is complete, no, I do not believe vampires exist any more than I believe an angel is guarding your back. Which is to say, not at all.
For those interested in the spiritual realm, however, I would say to you, watch your neck at night.
