The Vampyre Society

Welcome to the Vampyre Society on Hubpages!

I bid you welcome, enter freely and of your own will, and leave some of the joy you bring with you!  Your friend, D.
I bid you welcome, enter freely and of your own will, and leave some of the joy you bring with you! Your friend, D.

Welcome to the Vampyre Society!

Welcome my friends and fiends to the Vampyre Society on Hubpages!

My name is David St. Albans and I will be your host for these pages, which are an excursion into the dark and terror fraught labyrinthine dungeons and cellars, tombs and sarcophagi of the Undead. Travel to distant lands of mystery and superstition. Abide with the revenants, living corpses and the vampyres as they feast on living...blood.

A few months back I developed Vampyre Danse on my Blogger, as a place for people to gather to read about vampires and monsters of all descriptions. Then I found Tagged.com as an outlet which garnered many new acolytes. However there were evil little bugs on tagged that infected my computer and I saw fit to move my casket to less injurious climes.

I discovered the Hubpages about three months ago and have been inclined to re-establish my domain here, among the other innocuous blogs and writings. I am hoping to shepherd my flock of vampire bats, blood feasters, were-wolves and other creeps and miscreants to this area where we might find a sort of community of like-souls, or devourers of souls...who can commune one with another on the whole milieu and ambiance of the trappings of the Living Dead. For now I will publish this tiny tidbit to establish the boundaries of my little enclave and then will at time, refresh the pages and links to further establish my dominion and plant my fangs a little deeper into the necks of my prey who come here to explore the dark!

I will add a bit of something now from Vampyre Danse and see who might take a nibble at my delicious bait!

I remain,

Yr Humble & Obd't srv't, and your friend,

D.

Critique of "Dracula~The Un-Dead" by Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt

This is the so-called Sequel to Dracula by Bram Stoker, written in part by his relative, a Great Grand Nephew, Dacre Stoker. Apparently the whole Stoker clan is still stinging from the copyright wars over the original Dracula which were lost by Florence Stoker when Universal Pictures tried to do a version of Bram Stoker's Prequel to Dracula: Dracula's Guest. Because of this long ago produced, still open wound, Dacre and Ian got together and formed an alliance to reinvent and reintroduce Dracula and the "Band of Heroes" of the original novel, as an homage and as a way to re-secure the copyrights of the original Dracula story and characters.

Though a noble effort on behalf of the long deceased Bram Stoker, who saw little or no rewards from having written the seminal horror novel of the 19th Century, I felt that often the writing lacked depth and definition. It also lacked the novel approach Bram took by using journal notes, phonograph records, short hand notations, typewritten papers and newspaper clippings, telegrams, which were all "new fangled" communications devices and concepts of the latter part of the 19th century. Which of course lead to the 20th century being an age of automobiles, steam ships and trains, telephones and recording devices. The effect of the original Dracula was trying for verisimilitude, a sort of "truth-in-fiction," giving weight to the awful story of a group of upper-class English people living amidst the explosively inventive civilization in Western Europe, attacked by a strange and exotic monster from the wilds of Eastern Europe. The new novel loses this effect all together and tells the story from the various viewpoints of the characters. Sometimes the segues between characters are so quick that one finds the jumps in the text a bit startling.

What was worse for me, having myself written what I consider to be the most in depth, and historically accurate prequel to Dracula, with my book Blood of the Dragon: the Journals of Vlad Draculya the Impaler, is that the two authors conspire to once again make the most evil and frightening of monsters ever to come into being, into a handsome, well dressed young "Prince" who is not only not a bad guy, but is a dedicated soldier of God in a battle against the most evil Countess Elizabeth Bathory. In the new book by Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt, Bathory becomes evil incarnate, to the extent that she is actually shown to be Jack the Ripper! Which means they had to manipulate the time frame of the original book from 1893 backwards to 1887! The evil Impaler Prince Dracula becomes not only loving, kind hearted and charming, but is actually shown to be lovable! He is a compassionate father, dedicated to slaying the real threat against his family into which he includes Mina and Quincey Harker (Jonathan and Mina's child named after the cowboy Quincey in the original novel)! He makes vampires only to help people! Meanwhile the other heroes fair very badly indeed. Poor Johnathan Harker is left in the dark about who his son is really related to and becomes a whoring, gin-sop and a failed lawyer. Eventually he is impaled because he goes out with the wrong woman after an argument with Mina. Poor Dr. Seward is also reduced to a morphine addicted fearful vampire hunter who is run over by Bathory's carriage! Which I felt was simply pathetic and sad. Aurthur Holmwood is a man given to drink and a violent need to destroy himself because of his loss of his beloved Lucy. He becomes a reclusive rather obnoxious English Lord and keeps wanting to die all the time.The heroes seem to be no heroes at all. And the villain Dracula no villain either.

The original Dracula novel was literally shredded and rewritten into some kind of weird pastiche that winds up with the sinking of the Titanic! Yet even so it is too obvious that a sequel to the sequel is in the offing and the movie rights are probably in committee with Hollywood director and producers right now...coming swiftly on the heels of the Twilight Saga's money making box office. The two authors say Bram would have approved and been proud. I am not so sure. I think Bram would have been taken aback. He created true heroes and a true villain that the world has been in love with since 1893. In Dacre's book an ineffectual team of inept, broken down heroes go on the track of a guy who means them no harm at all while Elizabeth Bathory literally mops up the floor with them! Talk about being clueless! Even the new character, drunken police detective Cotford is a failure from the old Ripper case and there is not any hope for anyone who comes up against Bathory except those with vampire blood. Everyone else is torn limb from limb. Van Helsing's answer to that is to allow Dracula to make him a vampire and then attack the two men he loved most in the world instead of going after Bathory! A lot of this book just does not make any sense and a lot of it is pulled from Dracula movies and remakes, rather than being original and fresh approaches.

Putting my own upset aside, since I tried hard to reinvent Dracula as the most vile and hateful monster known to man...I read the book as a fan of Dracula and Stoker. Though much of it made me cringe with displeasure I have to say as an over-all thrilling roller coaster ride full of vampires, evil gargoyles, dragons, bloody murders and sick and twisted sexual perversions, I did find it readable and "fun." But I really, really, really had to suspend my disbelief! I liked that the book brought in real characters and events from the early 1900's. And I felt very good that finally the two authors have authorized the DIRECT LINK of the Stoker Dracula, with the Prince Vlad the Impaler who was a real person. There has been so much idiocy written in recent years about Stoker not intending to have people believe that Dracula was Vlad the Impaler and that the reference to Vlad III of Romania in the original Dracula is often "vague" and that there is not a lot of historical accuracy to Stoker's account...that it makes me want to spit venom! Van Helsing describes the original Impaler Prince Vlad III to a "T" when he references him as the crusading knight who overcame the Turkish forces in 15th Century Romania. That man was the first Dracula, and one of the only one's history actually recalls who went by that name, since he was the son of Vlad Dracul the II. Dracula is the diminutive of Dracul. Any son of Vlad Draculya would have been Draculyaulya! Son of the Son of the Dragon. Vlad actually made Draculya his family name. (Whereas his brother, Radu (Vlad's brother) became a Turkish traitor to his own family and never used the name Draculya.Thereafter many men carried the name Draculya. But Vlad III was the famous crusader who fought the Turks and forced them back across the Danube first, the others fell far short of their sire's glory in battle, terror tactics and pure evil cunning. So at least Stoker and Holt have given their whole hearted acceptance of Dracula as Vlad the Impaler. Unfortunately they make the mistake of naming him Vladimir Basarab. His correct name was Vladislaus Bassarab Draculya called Tspesh (The Impaler). But they do rectify the facts and introduce a tad more historical accuracy and justice to the original Vlad Tsepesh.

Over all I am glad the book was written and I did enjoy it as a good read. But as a philosophical person I cannot abide the tearing asunder of the original Dracula novel in order to remake Dracula in the image of Frank Langella and Louis Jourdan! (In the Dacre book Dracula is actually an actor! I think Christopher Lee and Jack Palance gave Dracula at least a modicum of monstrosity, making the vampire something to fear. Now-a-days though Transylvania is for Goth Lovers and and Vampires are really nice guys who just need a little blood now and then to survive. Gulp...From rending fangs in the dead of night to glittery bodied angels who can abide a little sun and are eternal high school students...Not my cup of tea at all. And I believe Bram would have agreed with me!


David St. Albans-Pudlevitcz 4/20/10

re-posted from: http://vampyredanse.blogspot.com/

Dracula's Bats?

This is from an article published in "Dark Nights: Official Journal of the Vampyre ConneXion" Issue #21 Deep Midwinter Edition 2008-2009. I have added some revision.
Vampires and bats are related in several different ways. The Etruscans, a group of Eastern European people who brought civilization to Greece, painted some of the first images of "demons" that is, men with bat like wings and (barbed) tails on tomb walls in Italy. the bat has always been associated with both the dead and evil. (The ancient Sumerians said the Land of Death, under the earth, was inhabited by "bat-like souls who ate only dust). Most gargoyles, dragons and devils in the European tradition, bear bat-wings when they are representative of evil. The bat was considered a "night bird" (since most people in ancient times did not have categories and distinctions between birds, reptiles and mammals. Hence reptilian dragons with bird like beaks, lion's paws and bat's wings, and other mammalian accouterments like horns). Bat's were in the same unfavorable position as crows, ravens, vultures, owls and other "evil-birds" which either feasted off the dead, or like bats, lived in tombs and catacombs and which flew only by night, which of course is when the dead arise to bother the living. (In her book No Go The BogeyMan by Marina Warner, it is said that the Dutch invoked the BogeyMan as a bat. And a 14th Century writer quoted in her book says that witches and vampires can indeed transformed into bats). Bats were harbingers of bad ghosts because they often lived in tombs.

Bats were not considered "bloodsuckers" but then neither were most vampires at first. Only some of them drank blood. Most lived by spreading plagues or instilling a killing fear into their victims. (Some sucked the breath out of babies, sucked out a nursing mother's milk, some stole and ate people, and some were more like sexual predators living off the sexual energy of others, which is where the mixture of sex and bloodshed came from in Stoker's seminal work {pun intended}All vampires are really forms of Bogeymen). The Eastern European vampires were more like super poltergeists, evil souls which being so full of anger and hate could not rest without destroying other's lives, on which they fed.

Bats, like mice and rats were considered "vermin" which spread disease. And since a bat bite could cause rabies, they were strictly a forbidden and unclean animal. Such animals were always associated with witchcraft and witch's familiars. Bat's blood was put in potions to either create a poison or to give the person imbibing the potion the power of a bat, to see in the dark and to fly swiftly from one place to another in order to observe others. Owls and bats of course can see in places which humans cannot. (Again ancient people did not recognize that bats were using echo-location in the dark).

Vampires were "created" when men or women became witches, were born witches (i.e. the children of those convicted or accused of witchcraft), or were excommunicated for practicing witchcraft, spells and charms. It was witches that people were afraid of not bats or owls. And witches that died badly (were murdered), or who were not buried properly (nailed into their coffin, having their head lopped off, mouth stuffed with garlic or a brick, etc.), would become fearsome vampires which would rise at night and seek victims to kill, usually close family members first. They would then, as witches did in real life, cause plagues and panic in a community. And yes in some Eastern European traditions witches, warlocks, sorcerers and vampires would take on the form of a bat, a rat, a large dog or wolf,a raven or a crow,owl or cat. Let's face it, these ancient people feared a lot because they did not understand the world they lived in. But they knew rats, wolves and bats could cause trouble in their communities.

Later when European Conquistadors from Spain entered the New World and found bats sucking the blood out of their cattle and themselves they of course named them Vampire Bats.(Recently a giant vampire bat has just been discovered). And the bat, especially to the Aztecs represented a very bloodthirsty "god." I could go on with some very interesting digressions concerning vampires and bats. But just think: Vampires, rats, bats = plague bearing vermin. If a bat got into your home, you killed it immediately. It was a bad omen and very few people would keep such night flying critters as pets. Such a person would be considered to be a witch.

If a plague came into town and no one could find a source or a cure, someone dug up a person they considered to be a "witch" or someone evil or accursed, or even just a unlikeable person who had recently died. Then they would be accused post mortem of being a vampire and they then disposed of the corpse in some traditional manner to prevent vampirism. By the time all the rites and rituals were accomplished the plague usually played itself out. So the idea that destroying the vampiric corpse stopped the plague gained legitimacy. (You have to remember how slowly the wheels of thought and action ground back in the olden days).

Bram Stoker did extensive research on Eastern European vampire, witchcraft and superstition traditions that state evil beings could become bats. this was a "natural" transformation for supernatural beings. the idea that "turning into a bat" was some Hollywood myth created by modern writers begins to make sense when one realizes the Hollywood community at the time Dracula was first made, was composed of many Eastern and Western European men and women who still had cultural ties to the old country and would have known that vampires could turn into bats. It is the confusion between European bats and the New World Vampire bats that have made people think that a vampire becoming a bat is a post-modern addition to the Dracula story.

Blood of the Dragon: The Journals of Vlad Draculya the Impaler


The Newest Dracula Novel out now from iUniverse.com by Prof. David T. Pudlevitcz PhD



Vlad the Impaler: Original Dracula!

The Original Count Dracula
The Original Count Dracula

From Bram Stoker's Dracula, by F.F. Coppala

Blood of the Dragon Part 1

Blood of the Dragon Part 2

Blood of the Dragon part 3

Comments 4 comments

Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 6 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Some nice bits of information here.


Full Moon 5 years ago

I am a werewolf and i fond this intrusting


Zodiacimmortal profile image

Zodiacimmortal 2 years ago from Yonkers, NY

If I remember correctly it's awhile into the story that Bathory is mentioned (and a twist in the story which I absolutely loved esp. a certain name of a murderer that it turns out well being you read it you know! I enjoyed the story and the title un-dead was the original title of Dracula .

If Dacre & partner would have used the same way Bram did to write the book then they would just be ripping off his style and then that's what all the critics would say. I think however a person is comfortable writing a story and presenting it their reader should be happy with. (So long as it's not a drag to read. I read the book in good time I think in a week. Maybe 2

Those 'vampires' that would be sexual predators... would be an incubus or Succubai (depending on the sex of the creature.

Vampire bats do suck blood, mostly from livestock, VERY rarely from humans if ever

Always wanted a bat as a pet!

Black cats have always been associated with being witches' familiars not bats.. (owls, rats & ravens/crows as well)


Whisperindave profile image

Whisperindave 5 months ago from Scottsdale, AZ Author

Well I lost access to the Hub Pages for some time. Now I am back. Anyway, research the Middle Ages and you will find that witches could turn into bats, cats, weasels, rats, wolves, owls and other animals that live in the dark. Tradition stated that witches had to be buried at a crossroads, sometimes with a steak through the heart, or a stone in their mouth, to prevent them from rising up as vampires.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working