The Complete Vampire Companion: Legend and Lore of the Living Dead
Review by Baron Gideon Redoak, submitted on 22-Feb-1997

Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. _The Complete Vampire Companion: Legend and Lore of the Living Dead_. NY, Macmillan, c1994, ISBN 0-671-85024-5

As you can see by the date of publication, this book is already somewhat out of date. Time moves quickly on the modern vampire: the movie of Interview With the Vampire hadn't been released yet; nor had the recent contraversy over "vampire cults" hit the airwaves; the author doesn't even discuss the phenomenon of Vampire: the Masquerade.

Bearing that in mind, it's not a _bad_ book. Vampires for Dummies (tm)? Possibly. It's not a _great_ book, either. It does cover the folklore to a great extent; and skimps a bit on modern vampirism--a subject already covered by the author in her _Vampires Amongst Us_ so perhaps the skimping can be forgiven. I haven't read VAU, so can't comment on that one, but if her portrayal of those following the modern Goth movement in that book is as unsympathetic as it is in the Companion... but I get ahead of myself.

It's a very good manual for the folklore, at least, and covers the vampires or near-vampires of many different times and cultures. I never knew that there were quite so many vampires that preyed on pregnant women and newborn babies. Presumably, these were an attempt to explain infant mortality and childbirth deaths.

The book itself is a collection of essays and articles by various people, including some well-known in the vampire world, such as Robert Eighteen-Bisang and Margaret L. Carter. Guiley herself contributes a few inserts, most notably one that is excessively sarcastic and patronizing about those who consider themselves to be actual vampires. I wouldn't recommend reading this if you are in that particular segment of society--it offended even _me_; and I'm not exactly noted for my acceptance of this particular belief. (it's my opinion). However, there are excellent segments on films, novels (written by Robert), comic books, music, and vampires in pop culture as well as the interesting folklore sections. Did you know that you can drown a vampire by filling one of his socks with pebbles and then throwing the sock into a stream? The vampire will be forced to go after his sock, and drown. That's one I'll admit I didn't know. Wouldn't it be much easier to send your Renfield into town to buy new socks?

There's a comparison of the vampire craze to the UFO craze; a certain amount of overlapping similarity does exist. One article on the "The Vampire Poets" makes a rather astounding leap from discussing Lord Byron to discussing Aleister Crowley in a bit of ill-thought-out logic that made my head ache. There's a discussion of Bram Stoker and of Vlad Tepes; for once the book does not take it for granted that Stoker based Dracula on Vlad, it merely mentions it as a _possibility_. *nod to Bloofer*. There are interviews with vampire authors and filmmakers, although why they chose to interview Fran Rubel Kuzul (Buffy The Vampire Slayer) is a bit past my comprehension. BTW, the interview with F. Paul Wilson (The Keep) left a rather bad taste in my mouth, he's not very complimentary towards the genre. There's even a section on vampire plays, although the notorious opera is mentioned only in passing.

At least one bad mistake: a still of Carfax Abbey from the 1979 version with Frank Langella is identified as "Dracula's Castle". We never get to see the castle in this production, all the action takes place in England. And Robert Eighteen-Bisang, who should know better, identifies "nosferatu" as the Romanian word meaning "undead".

There's a rather amusing letter from the founder of the Vampyre Society, complaining about something many listmembers from Vampryes have encountered: the pathetic note from someone unhappy in their current life begging to be given the Dark Gift. A fairly extensive bibliography and filmography, as well as a perpetual vampiric calendar (Feb. 22 is the date Dwight Frye was born, btw) are included in the appendix.

Sooo.... take it with a grain of salt, skip the parts that don't interest you (I skipped the interviews with Rice and Lumley), and realize that it has it's flaws, and yes, perhaps, you have Vampires for Dummies (tm).