Originally posted by Bellexista
ok, so another words, practically none of the vampire material i find on the net is reliable! lol. I'm looking into the information I found about Lanzo. To help date when the V5 virus was being studied. But that doesnt prove that people were into vampires before buffy. I wasn't alive then.

You weren't alive during the 15th C. either but I bet you've looked at Vlad Tepes.

How do you want me to prove that people were interested in vampires before buffy? And to be honest Merriman, I don't want to. I dont want to waste my time looking up stuff about tv and the pop culture.

Well, if that's the case then you're missing some serious clues about the 'reality' of vampires.

I here trying to get answers of my own, not answer one's i know nothing about.

WTF? Surely the answers you know nothing about are the ones you should be looking at?

I know i was interested in vampires before buffy came out. or atleast before i saw the show. All, i know is the alledged V5 virus was being studied in 1967.

Yes, you've said that already, but you've not posted any links with references.

thats way before 1998. If it hit the movies, i have no idea. I wasnt born then and i dont watch too many movies. movies cloud ur mind with idiotic ideas of the real world.

I think you're getting that 'arse over tit'. Movies tend to cloud your mind with idiotic ideas about fantasy worlds not the real world.

so on the subject of movies and which came out first, i'm done talking because i don't know. and don't care to argue about something that does not interest me. Cuz what i'm getting is that ur only wondering why vampires are so famous now after those shows and they weren't before. One answer, new world-new people.

No, you're really trying to simplify what I'm saying too much. I also think you're doing a disservice to 'movies' in that you appear to be very too dismissive of them. They're very useful in terms of following cultural currency and transmission of ideas, like all fiction. In that sense, films are as similar to passing on themes and idea in the same way as folklore or romantic/gothic novels.

Your "new world-new people" idea is silly. People's interest in vampires - no matter what the generation - isn't new. It's had that same mix of attraction, revulsion and fascination since the 18th C. The only thing that is new are the additions that popular culture is providing that 'vampires', 'hunters' and 'fans' add to the what they claim is the reality.

Originally posted by Bellexista
That's normally what I look for. That's why don't watch a bunch of movies. They do not interest me when the're false.

Maybe so, but the point I'm trying to make is that the vampire study sites you've talked about appear to have watched these movies and played the games &c.

how would you know the sites i have looked at if i havent posted them? Just because some directors choose to use things in their movies that i may have researched does not mean that their movies will bring me answers that i seek. i do not care about the pop culture (again). so the way it has or hasnt changed doesnt mean anything to me. by new people, i do not mean people in movies or directing or whatever. i was talking about new vampires. ones who have chosen to come out now. Just because we have not personally seen them, does not mean it's not happening. Maybe theyre tired of living in secret. It's probably a hard life don't u think?

Thanx pieman for the links. I appreciate that you understand where I choose to look for information and the continuation of providing me with information is gladly excepted. I would like to talk to u more about ur studies and what makes you doubt them after all. Especially because of how you answered my question.

Btw, if you do not live in the USA, you may not even know what I'm talking about considering it's an american government issue.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir


I've already pointed out that Bellexista should go down the folklore route - before most of this discussion happened - but they didn't seem particularly interested.

I've an awful feeling they're looking for something like a history book but one that somehow doesn't do what I've already talked about, which is the influence of vampire fiction (folk tales, books, films, comics, games) on the belief of vampires.

No, I do believe in folklore, just not that of the culture today.

I understand where you are coming from, this have connections to other topics like psy and sanguines. I am right? It's about results from various breeding combinations?

Originally posted by Bellexista
how would you know the sites i have looked at if i havent posted them? Just because some directors choose to use things in their movies that i may have researched does not mean that their movies will bring me answers that i seek. i do not care about the pop culture (again).

Well you're going to be stumped for information about vampires then if you don't care for "pop culture". Do you really think you'll get any kind of grasp on the subject of vampires if you dismiss, outright, the mid-18th poems, Byron & Polidori, works like (but not limited to) Varney the Vampire, Bram Stoker through to the early vampire films through to material like Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Whether you like it or not, folklore and the more recent popular culture like I've mentioned above constitute the bulk of information available about vampires.

so the way it has or hasnt changed doesnt mean anything to me. by new people, i do not mean people in movies or directing or whatever. i was talking about new vampires. ones who have chosen to come out now.

New vampires? Are you talking about people that have been 'turned' or 'taken across' or 'infected' recently?

Just because we have not personally seen them, does not mean it's not happening.

But how do you know it is? You're not seeing it with your own eyes, you're unable to provide links to material that might stand up to scrutiny - otherwise, why have you not done so? - and you're avoiding 'pop culture'. All that's left is the word of people who claim to be vampires or hunters. Why take their word? I've yet to see any self-professed vampire that can verify any claim they make. If that's what you're relying on, then good luck with that.

Maybe theyre tired of living in secret. It's probably a hard life don't u think?

Yes, my college years got a bit angsty too.

No, I do believe in folklore, just not that of the culture today.

Well, the pop culture of today is the folklore of today, whether you like it or not. Whatever the reason is you don't like it - perhaps somehow you don't think it's 'authentic' or real because it's new? - it's a mistake to dismiss it because the people that claim to be vampires now, all appear to owe a lot more to this 'folklore of today' than the folklore of yesterday. That's the point I've been trying to explain to you throughout this thread.

If you only belief or trust the old folklore, then seriously, start with today's folklore and start working backwards. See which elements of vampire folklore slowly begin to disappear and what these 'new vampires' you mention are claiming has little or no relation to the old folklore.

Originally posted by pieman
i think you need to come to your own conclusions but my opinion is based on the same things that i believe merriman weirs opinion is based, i have witnessed the evolution of the mythology based on popular media coupled with an understanding of the way legends and stories grow through reading and researching lots of myths.

It's undeniable that this is the case. Even a cursory knowledge of vampire mythology and how it develops shows how this works. I really don't understand why Bellexista has such an issue with it.

there are two types of myth, they either explain a reason why or they are based in fact. the only way to determine which is which is to study older and older sources until you can't get any further.

I suggest exactly that in my last post. Start now, and work backwards as far as possible and see what's left and how much modern 'fact' and 'evidence' for vampires is actually recent add-ons.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I'm not playing 'spiteful uncle' here

i didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort, i've never noticed you being anything but helpful, but i will steal that phrase.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I'm not playing 'spiteful uncle' here

i didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort, i've never noticed you being anything but helpful, but i will steal that phrase.

no, I didn't think you did, but some of Bellexista's responses here and on another thread have had a hint of that.

I'm sorry. I never looked at how long it might take to find out alot of it is fake. I do think I have a good grasp on things. But i tried saying earlier, the stuff I found on the net was not reliable. I have read books about these things. That's where I learned most of my stuff. I do not know the titles, I just sit down at libraries with stacks of books and read. If repetetive, then I take it mostly for fact rather than fiction. I did some thinking about the pop culture because I didn't realize why you were so stuck on it. Vampires have changed in the pop culture the way they have changed in life. (well, the way it's assumed they changed) So maybe you're right. I am sorry that I seemed so against it. I just didn't want to get wrapped up in what I see in movies. Because most of them people who seem true when they say they're vampires, say its nothing like that. I'm not talking about the ones who partake in drinking each others blood for fetishes. I mean more like the psi-vampire. Even though, I'm still wondering about them and why they call themselves vampire. But maybe I should look into it. But the whole Ultraviolet thing ur talking about.... I don't understand. Is that like the movie ultraviolet? Cuz i didnt think that movie had anything to do with vampires....

ok, i looked at that site. I think i'd prolly have to see the show. But yes, that sounds alot like V5 Virus. I'm not sure if hollywood came up with the idea prior to 1998 or not. I tried finding the references for the site i found about lanzo in 1967 but I couldn't so I'd have to go through books and let you know. But where did the idea of ultraviolet come from? (the whole pathological disease).

i think it's just a modern update of the old stories, when religion was used to answer every question demonic possetion was used to explain the origen of vampires, now that science is used to explain everything, a scientific type answer was used to explain vampirism.

Originally posted by Bellexista
ok, i looked at that site. I think i'd prolly have to see the show. But yes, that sounds alot like V5 Virus. I'm not sure if hollywood came up with the idea prior to 1998 or not. I tried finding the references for the site i found about lanzo in 1967 but I couldn't so I'd have to go through books and let you know. But where did the idea of ultraviolet come from? (the whole pathological disease).

As Pieman points out below the idea of vampire as pathology isn't new in itself.

It's also ironic that it was at one point in time a lack of understanding of science probably gave rise to concept of vampires and now you have people trying to use science as explanations for it.

I think it's a given that the likes of rabies and porphyria have played a large part in the emergence of the the active 'vampire'. However, the fact remains that if someone's got rabies, porphyria or some alleged 'weird medical condition that makes me total crave blood or raw meat, my doctor told me the name which I forget but I swear he told my mom to keep lots of raw, bloody meat in the fridge or else I'll get worse and really ill' actually means you've got a medical condition and not vampirism. I appreciate it's not as cool sounding or romantic and less likely to impress peers at school or college but that's tough.

There's a serious downside for people who try and use science to prove the existence of vampires and that science is repeatedly testable and 'provable' in that sense. Vampires who claim they're driven by a lack of magnesium - because they've read on some 'really cool site' that a lack of magnesium could result in vampire-like symptoms can actually put their money where they're mouth is (or where their fangs are) and be tested for it. This kind of thing is very easily provable.

The same goes for 'psi-vampires'. I've met loads of people over the years that are really draining to be around, are sometimes confusing and give off 'weird vibes'. This isn't a vampire, this is what's called a 'pain in the arse'. Psi-vampires who claim to feel replenished after what they do are what's called 'people who enjoy being a pain in the arse' and get a 'high' from it and the fact they're charismatic enough to be able to influence someone more gullible, naive or even stupid than themselves.

Vampire 'fans' also talk about symbiotic relationships with psi-vampires. It already has a name and doesn't need supernatural vampire 'explanations' - it's called being in an abusive or dysfunctional relationship where people, for whatever reason, persist with an unbalanced and unhealthy understanding of some sort.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

The same goes for 'psi-vampires'. I've met loads of people over the years that are really draining to be around, are sometimes confusing and give off 'weird vibes'. This isn't a vampire, this is what's called a 'pain in the arse'. Psi-vampires who claim to feel replenished after what they do are what's called 'people who enjoy being a pain in the arse'

LMAO, yer a funny guy.

magnesium is pretty cool, my science teacher made it explode once, in the days before health and safety nazis. i've never heard of a magnesium deficancy making people vampiric.