Are We Mistaken About Vampires?

It seems we could possibly be mistaken on the views of vampires.This all goes way back to Vlad the Impaler.How did the vampire stories originate from him?Look at Bella LoGosi(srry for any mistakes),a man who played Dracula.He was insane and did drink the blood of people that played in the movie.When a human drinks blood they get a lust for it(in some cases,not in all),it can drive someone to pure insanity or raw meat.Vampires could simply be humans with a lust for blood.Just the years of the odd stories passed on broadens and becomes so far fetched no one really believes it,but vampires could simply be humans with a lust for blood.

The vampire topic is so vast, one could spend a lifetime exploring it on the www.

So I'll just mention a couple random thoughts that I find interesting.

I think one reason the vampire myth persists as an archetype is that it is psychologically appealing. For me, it represents Carl Jung's idea of the shadow: all the dark, dangerous impulses that are attractive, but are threatening to the ego, so they are disassociated. Vampire fiction gives people the chance to explore these territories in a safe, controlled experience.

Also, I think because vampires are supposed to be supernatural, they are allowed to be larger than life. Vampire fiction allows authors to deal with very human themes, like violence, seduction, and treachery, but with the volume turned way up. Purple prose describing such issues surrounding humans would come off as melodrama. But vampires are allowed to experience all the human emotions, but much more strongly.

There has also been a ton written on various medical conditions that might mimic vampirism. Certain ailments cause extreme sensitivity to sunlight. Others cause a craving for iron, found in blood. In general, in the times before medical science was developed, there was a lot of hysteria surrounding outbrakes of fatal illness. Vampire myths grew out of some of the same kind of parinoia that resulted in the burning of "Witches."

Vlad the Impaler is a historical figure who's cruelty was legendary. Myths surrounded him. Bram Stoker was influence by these myths when he wrote Dracula.

And that is just touching the surface.
.

I always linked vampire story origins to the gypsies, The gypsy vampire is reffered to as a mullo (one who is dead). This vampire is believed to return, do malicious things, and suck the blood of a person.


I think vlad is more responsible for literary vampire stories.

AAAhhhhh....so then is it safe to bet that gypsies(sp?) are also responsible for the "warewolf" or "lychen" that is responsible for the hunting and killing of vampires??

I know that sounds an awful lot like the plot to "Underworld" but I do seem to remember hearing somthing like that well before that movie came out.

sorry about the spelling errors...

The legend of vampires goes back alot farther than Vlad. Dracula, Bram Stoker version, is traced to Vlad. Vampires go back to the ancient Middle Eastern mythologies and possibly Asian. Bram Stoker was travelling in the Carpathians when he heard the stories around Vlad the Impaler and decided to base his character of Dracula on Vlad. The whole "romantic" notion of vampires arose from Stoker's story. Vampires as described in the old legends were nasty, evil spirits that reanimated corpses that disembowelled victims and drank their blood. It wasn't until after the publication of Stoker's Dracula that the suave Count arose. I never heard any mention of Lugosi actually drinking blood. He was taken with the role later in his life and was buried in the Drac outfit, but I doubt that he ever drank blood.

I'm not saying vampires do or don't exist, although I would tend towards the "they don't exist", however IF they do, I think Anne Rice's version of vampires in "The Vampire Chronicles" is probably the most accurate description of what they and they're lifestyles are like, assuming they aren't merely demons or evil spirits posessing dead bodies.

Sure for the first hundred years it might be fun (assuming you were taken willingly), but after a few centuries, you would have learnt all you could. Life would become dry and boring. You would get sick of all the violence, the way people treat each other. You'd yearn for the "good old days". The life of a vampire would be painfull. Eternal torture. You would still have human emotion and thought. Imagine getting sick of life but knowing you can't die? Watching all those you love grow old, wither and perish?

You'd have your downright thugs, out to enjoy pain, but you'd also have those who seek to have vampire & man live peacefully together, and those who will fight to keep that peace.

Personally, if they do exist, and they are the way Anne Rice describes them in her books, then I genuinely would feel pity for them. What a horrible way to live.

Reposting, from another Vampire thread....

Myself, I believe that the origins of vampires can be found in non-modern man's misunderstandings of the processes of death and decomposition, combined with superstition. Vampires, like werewolves, can be traced back to certain regions of Europe (as far as origins). These regions (and timeframes of accounts) coincide with flooding, that produced a lot of mold on wheat crops, resulting in natural PCP... This was responsible for group hallucinations, and many burnings of accused witches, vampires, and werewolves. Rather than look at germs, etc. causing illnesses, evil spirits were blamed. They'd dig someone up, and be shocked to find hair, fingernails, etc. had still grown. To us, this is common knowledge that this continues after death....not so for those in simpler times. Also, the gasses in the body would expand it, make it seem "full" and perhaps cause blood to ooze out of the mouth, etc. This further "convinced" townsfolk that a vampire was afoot.

If you look at the early legends, you'll find many such cases of misidentification, and that the illnesses continued, despite the dispatching of the "vampire".

There again the Anne Rice-style of bloodsucker is a reflection of the romanticed vampire. (i.e Dracula) That does allow vampires as characters in novels to be more three dimensional- more human, so a person can get wrapped up in the tale. But it does still stray from the ancient, legendary vampire.

But it does still stray from the ancient, legendary vampire.

Yep... Any of the "non-literary" sources of vampire tales will depict them more as blood drinking zombies, spreading disease.

The reason staking them through the heart was supposed to work, wasn't to stake them while walking, but stake them while in the grave, so that they'd be pinned and couldn't animate and seek out victims.

Other customs had the head dismembered, stuffed with blessed herbs, and then burned, separately from the body, to ensure the destruction of the vampire.

Even more had them cover the graves with a heavy block of stone, also to prevent escape from the grave.

Vampires of legend did not live in castles, wear formal wear, and play social games with humans...they were mindless predators, thought to be animated by an evil spirit. (which is why crucifixes were thought to thwart them).

on the subject of that konstantinos www.amazon.com...=1097968473/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/002-7146510-4547227?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 wrote an interesting book pertaing to the history of vampires and some modern odd cases of people crimnal and not drinking blood and the pertake of that.

well i have herd that when a dog has a taste for blood it will lust for it culd this be the same with humans?

That is a very interesting point you bring up there DR. I never thought of it that way. That is a very interesting point you bring up, but how can u explain the long life spands.?