Comments on: What do you think a vampire is? Join the debate

By: Anthony Hogg

Anthony Hogg — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:29:51 +0000

Hi K,

You mentioned that vampires “are real people with physical condition in which they need blood to satisfy a craving”.

How do you know this isn’t a psychological placebo? The human body isn’t designed to drink blood, so folk who “need” it to satisfy are physiological urge would certainly be a rarity. They could also be tested on this claim.

By: K

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:41:43 +0000

Fictional vampires from books and movies dont exist. But vampires are real people with physical condition in which they need blood to satisfy a craving, get a form of energy, and get some nutrients they lack. Vampires are just people trying to survive.But trust me its not something you would want to be. It brings alot of cravings and headaches and its scary sometimes.

By: roh

roh — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:52:45 +0000

I suppose there are two definitions:

1) Traditional vampires – these blood-feeding beings are supernatural and have been mythologized throughout history in oral legends, written works, and film. Their appearance has evolved along with the cultures that carry their myth. Some can pass for human at first glance, others cannot.

2) ‘Real’ or human vampires – they take from others – energy, blood, money, resources, etc. Some are benign and work in cooperation with willing ‘donors’; others are not, and those they take from are unwilling victims. They all are human, but the inhumane behavior of the stealers makes you question their origins.

What do I think of when I hear the word ‘vampire’?

I’m a child of the modern age, and my vampires are those of the mythology of this era: sophisticated blood-drinking hunters of humans. The monster you don’t know is there until you are in its deadly grasp.

By: Anthony Hogg

Anthony Hogg — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:46:17 +0000

In terms of folklore/historical accounts, I prefer using the “vampire” tag in a fairly strict sense. That is, where the term (or minor variant) was actually used. Take the Plagojovitz and Paole cases, for instance.

The way I see it, the vampire is a type of Slavic revenant (hats off to Perkowski). An undead bloodsucker, generally capable of turning others into its kind. Thus, I agree with David Keyworth in that the vampire of the eighteenth century was a type of unique undead-corpse.

That said, I’m familiar enough with the evolving nature of language to know that the term can be used in a fairly general fashion (especially with fictional renderings). But, I think it’s important to respect the localised terms for revenants and other creatures of the night, when making use of the “vampire” tag.

By: Sarah Dorn

Sarah Dorn — Sat, 08 May 2010 05:44:11 +0000

Vampires of the classic “I vant yo drink your blood” variety don’t exist and never have existed outside of folklore and fiction. On the other hand the sort of parasite that drains you of life requires no preternatural gift to do their work. They camouflage themselves and blend in with the general polulace and often don the disguise of an innocent victim, so no billowing cape or Byronesque appeal to warn the wary.