Talk:Vampire/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

First major once (or six times!) through

OK, now that it was unlocked I spent a while going through it. I tagged the whole article as needing sources for verifiability policy purposes, as just about none of it has any references. Anything new about vampires should be sourced to some verifiable scholarly reference, and a lot of what it there (especially on the gypsies and some of the historical stuff) needs to be gone through and verified. The Black Goddess part especially, as something about all that seems not quite right.

The Fictional and or Folkloric Attributes of Vampires is now with a shorter name and with all the outright fictional, incorrect and unsourced arguable information completely yanked out. There really wasn't a whole lot that could be salvaged there written as it was. A good portion of it was sheer nonsense, and trying to source roleplaying games and recent bad movies is completely ridiculous. There is room to add some more traits in as long as they are cited and accurate to vampires overall. And I still think the bullets need to be removed, they just don't work very well in an encyclopedia unless they are for short lists without all that much text. DreamGuy 08:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read it in detail yet, but the changes look pretty good to me. I do still think the bulletted list is fine, but I don't know if there are wikipedia style guidelines for the use of bullets: from a grammatical/academic standpoint, the purpose of a bulletted list is to collect datam which are of equal significance, so that there is no suggestion that one trait is more important than another. However, when it comes to Vampires, all of their strengths and weaknesses stem from their being "living dead" and therefore unnatural, so a normal paragraph with an progression to details would also be appropraite. Mostly, I think it's just an aesthetic choice: if someone composed a good well written paragraph or two, it would probably be appreciated. Otherwise, the article is looking good.

Be careful about cutting too many things right now, unless you have good vampire resources. I have several references on the subject and plan to check through to verify what is here, but remember that just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it is not true. And that, in this area, in my opinion, Google is not a good resource because Google is weak when it comes to things like cultural history. BarkingDoc

Google? I've read tons of sources. Not just those hokey modern overview books but scholarly commentary and a fair number of primary source material (like Calmet's 1759 work Dissertations upon the apparitions of angels, demons, and ghosts, and concerning the vampires of Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia). I'm not going to say that if I have never heard of something that it doesn't exist, but I think it's fair to say that obscure points definitely need sources or else they can't stay. That's a cornerstone of the verifiability policy here.

And I just peaked at the Further reading section of the article. Oy veh. Boy, do I need to update that would good references.DreamGuy 06:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. BarkingDoc

Proposal for a new page

(Yes, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, not the point). It seems to me that the "vampire lifestyle" page needs to be split, as it's combining a peripherally related topic in with lifestyle. I'd like to see a new page created for modern real vampirism, or sanguinarians (probably both linked to one page). There are substantial enough differences seperating this phenomenon from the lifestyle scene that they deserve their own page (and it may cut down on some of the rancorous language over there). This would result in only a minor edit to the actual Vampires page, removing a small line from the bit about the vampire lifestyle, and adding a line about folks who believe they are vampiric with a link to the new page. This page is clearly huge and packed with information, but this minor editing should not affect the length by much.Winged_Wolf 08:08, August 13, 2005

If you propose splitting that page I'd suggest you discuss it on the talk page for that article instead of here. DreamGuy 02:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've begun doing so, but such a change will affect this page, so I thought you might want to know about it.Winged_Wolf 08:08, August 13, 2005

I don't agree that people suffering from the delusion/belief in literal vampirism are not a part of subculture, or that such a belief can be correctly identified as "real" vampirism. But whatever changes you need to make to get the links and article sections to match up, go for it. BarkingDoc 03:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are undeniably vampiric, if not real vampires. ;) But they are definitely not living a lifestyle, which is where the current link goes, and why I proposed the change. It looks like the change may take place, we'll see. Winged_Wolf 11:55 PM, August 15, 2005

my next edit

Since wruitten records ( that the public can get thierh ands on) havnt reallly survbived in large quantitiies from the ages of ong ago, as it were, im going ot put in that since reccords havnt survived, its actually impossible to proove or disproove the vclaims in the pathology section. Also, the section labelled "modern real vamppiriism" isnt actually the vampire subculture, theres no significant overlap, so that section shall be reinserted as well. dontworry though, i can do it without reversion.Gavin the Chosen 10:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The kind of written records you are talking about have no relationship at all to the claims in the pathology section. The pathology section talks about people who came up with theories about the origin of vampires that mention features of modern fiction and not folklore, and also frequently get facts wrong about those conditions, so it can be proven wrong right away... Your edits have already been rejected by a number of editors, putting them back will just cause them to be taken out again. Save yourself the trouble. DreamGuy 10:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

why dont you qait, and see if other peole, without your behest, actually do like or diwslike them? Ive tried very hard to do this properly, so please dont start soe edit warr type nonsense. the records im talking about are medical type tyexts that were destroyed in the dark ages, just to tell you.Gavin the Chosen 10:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Medical type tyexts that were destroyed in the dark ages" makes absolutely no sense at all for what's under discussion. And if you didn't want "edit warr type nonsense" you wouldn't be insisting upon adding your content back in over and over again. You just got back from yet another block for edit warring and you feel the need to blame other people for it? You aren't even trying to understand the things that are explained to you, you just mindlessly do the same thing over and over to get your version back. DreamGuy 11:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

just becaues HE doesnt like my attempts to improove this article, he keeps removing them, wpuld people please assit me in stopping DramGuys drstructive edits?Gavin the Chosen 11:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to agree with DreamGuy on this one. I don't believe that the information you are trying to put in is either appropriate or verifiable. I hope you will let it go and move on to discovering other contributions you can make to the article. BarkingDoc 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fountain of blood when staked

bodies swell due to fermenting gases, but blood pressure is somewhat different. Fermenting gases push intestines out the rectum. Faces turn red. Blood can be seen escaping from nose and mouth. "To drive a wooden stake through such a body would cause it to convulse, and to excrete blood through the nose and mouth" , BUT a fountain?!? http://www.pinktink3.250x.com/enthuse/vampires.htm (search "bloat") -OR- http://fishheadcurry.tripod.com/augustembalming.htm --Kim Nevelsteen 11:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fountain" is probably a bit much, I agree. I was wondering about changing that earlier. It doesn't seem to fit what's known about what really happens. DreamGuy 11:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I vote removal of that section. I elaborated on the next section which might compensate enough for the Fountain of Blood to be removed. --Kim Nevelsteen 11:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

use of corcerer

it flows better, and its more accurate and specific then plain old magician.Gavin the Chosen 13:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

the VERIFY checklist

• "Vampirism is the practice of drinking blood. In folklore and popular culture the term generally refers to a belief that one can gain supernatural powers by drinking human blood." They gained supernatural powers by drinking the blood or already had super powers and needed the blood to sustain. It is not too far fetched, but might be best to verify.--Kim Nevelsteen 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

stricly speaking, its not the blood itself, the blood is symbolic of the transfer of the life energy. this would be easier to explain if i cited the fact that phionic vampires do not need siuch symbolism.Gavin the Chosen 15:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I need a cited source to verify the facts. Have a link? Reference?--Kim Nevelsteen 16:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

here are tjhree, see if theyt are up to snuff

http://www.penddraig.co.uk/vampire/vampphy.html

http://www.vampiresamongus.com/psyvamps.html

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Vampire:lifestyle.html Gavin the Chosen 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please save me the reading. They are all about vampires, but which one states folkfore and popular culture imply vampirism to mean gaining supernatural powers by drinking human blood?--Kim Nevelsteen 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

isnt being undead supernatural? and they sustain thierexistnace by drinking blood. or in the case of psivamps, just the life energy.Gavin the Chosen 16:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How about scholarly sources instead? DreamGuy 16:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa... you can;t just label something as verified or unverified and expect other people to take you at your word. The verification should be something that can be checked by other editors. The cometemporary ones are ones I added newspaper articles for, for example. But there's no use to just putting a comment that says verified there. Verified how? where? DreamGuy 16:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Granted! Nod! Ok! --Kim Nevelsteen 16:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

y not, you do it all the timrGavin the Chosen 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• UN-verified: Vampires in Fiction quote: Bram Stoker's Dracula has been the definitive description of the vampire in popular fiction for the last century. Its portrayal of vampirism as a disease (contagious demonic possession), with its undertones of sex, blood, and death, struck a chord in a Victorian England where tuberculosis and syphilis were common.--Kim Nevelsteen 16:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And just how did you UNverify this? Slow down here. DreamGuy 16:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Un as in not verified yet... --Kim Nevelsteen 16:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I see... well, there are a lot of components there, but those are all pretty basic. You can mark Matthew Bunson's book for all that. DreamGuy 16:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Be my guest. I am heading out for the day. Have a good one! --Kim Nevelsteen 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE stop "verifying" information with hidden links to nonauthoritative websites. Most of those sites do not count as verification under the verifiability policy here. And did you check out the link actually provided in the article? That gives a source showing that porphyria sufferers do not crave heme in blood, like the article said until Gabriel/Gavin started messing with it. 16:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

My apologizes --Kim Nevelsteen 17:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just hate to see you put that much effort into something that doesn't qualify under the policy. There are a lot of sites out there that say all sorts of strange things, so one could "verify" just about anything if those counted. DreamGuy 17:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

On that note then, I would ask if you can comment on my post on the bottom of this page Wikipedia talk:Cite sources#Verifying books --Kim Nevelsteen

Going to take a look. DreamGuy 11:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

why do you blame EVERYTHING on me????Gavin the Chosen 16:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Because, as Vashti said, you keep making the same mistakes, over and over. You need to learn, among many other things, the difference between good and not-good sources, and between fact and POV. ~~ N (t/c) 17:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• DreamGuy, you want to revert to a certain point where there is less clutter because of the verify links? --Kim Nevelsteen 20:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Should be OK, I can clean up some as I go.

By the way, I do not consider Encyclopedia Mythica Online to be a reliable source, based upon that it was written by members of the public (often school children) with no known credential, not to mention the huge number of glaring errors I've found there.DreamGuy 11:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. There is a Wiki article Yara-ma-yha-who, shouldn't it be cited there and just point to that article? --Kim Nevelsteen 11:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How about NationMaster? http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Yara-ma-yha-who

Nationmaster is just a mirror of Wikipedia... Can't use our database as a source to verify our database. I think if we just link to another article than we shouldn't have to get cites for what that article says, but it'd be a good idea to cite anything written on this page for veracity, especially because less active pages generally have nobody verfiying them. DreamGuy 00:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Great to know I am doing things correctly. Unfortunately I don't have access to those books. I also don't know how you mark a whole section as coming from one source either. A cite number at the heading would seem tacky to me.--Kim Nevelsteen 07:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I commend you for your efforts on verification here... more articles here should be handled like this. DreamGuy 00:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

Destroying and Avoiding Vampires

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PUT IT UP SOMEWHERE INVOLVING VAMPIRES!!!

Cleanup suggestions

Do we need to do something about this article? It is growing longer and longer, and now exceeds the recommended article length. It also contain some information that IMHO belongs elsewhere, such as information and links that should be classified as vampire fiction. Also, since most of the information is relevant, I suggest that we are very strict about what should go in this article, since the vampire in itself is a specific mythological creature.

Items that I suggest we remove from this page:

- The picture of Count Orlock from the movie Nosferatu. Orlock is a fictional vampire. It belongs in vampire fiction.

- Links to vampire games, etc, like Vampire: The Masquerade and Vampire: The Requiem. Those belongs in vampire fiction as well.

- Links to articles related to Dracula (Dracula, Vlad III Dracula), count Dracula is a fictional vampire, while Vlad III Dracula never had anything to do with vampires or vampirism. Or that we at least mention that the relation between count Dracula and Vlad III Dracula is strictly fictional.

- Links to other kinds of articles that are either dealing with fiction, or information of more or less dubious nature, such as Fire vampire.

Furhtermore, I suggest that we replace sections about mythological creatures from other cultures with separate articles (if no articles about those exist), and link to them from here, in a new section with links to vampires in other cultures and other vampiric creatures:

- Civatateo

- Hopping corpse

- Kitsune

- Lamia (mythology)

- Manananggal

- Penanggalan

- Pontianak

- Soucoyah

- Vetala

- Vrykolakas

Since this is an encyclopedia, it would benefit from articles that are strictly on-topic, with as little irrelevant information as possible. And since this article in itself contains such an abundance of relevant information, it's even more important that we remove as much irrelevant information as possible, to keep the lenght down. Overly long articles are often hard to read, and make it hard for the reader to find the information that he or she is looking for.

/Magore, 2006-02-14

I decided to be bold and implement some of the changes I suggested earlier. Removed a few parts of the article that are to be considered Vampire Fiction (picture of Count Orlock from Nosferatu), and truncated/removed some elements that deals with vampire-like creatures from other mythologies. Replaced those with links to their own articles, and listed them under Vampiric creatures from other cultures. Removed cleanup-notice, although this article still needs a cleanup. /Magore, 2006-02-21

of interest?

Until 1823, when it was made illegal, it was common practice in England to drive a stake through the heart of suicides. In Romania, red-hot bars were often used. The vampire's body whould then be burned or reburied at a crossroads.--Kim Nevelsteen 16:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC) source: http://www.factmonster.com/spot/dracula9.html

silver

Why was the reference to silver bullets in modern fiction removed? Examples include:

-- Blade: http://www.newsandentertainment.com/zMblade.html (I could also give you some Tomb of Dracula references, but Blade originally comes from the Tomb of Dracula comics)

-- Dark Shadows: http://www.darkshadows.com/cgi-bin/eplist.pl?ep=460 -- Satanic Rites of Dracula: http://monsterhunter.coldfusionvideo.com/SatanicRites.html

-- Dracula 2000: http://www.filmmonthly.com/Video/Articles/Dracula2000/Dracula2000.html

You are not seriously suggesting that there's no such thing as vampires being vulnerable to silver bullets in modern fiction, is there? Ken Arromdee 16:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the fiction article. You want Vampire fiction. We already went through and removed all the references to solely fictional information as it doesn;t belong here. DreamGuy 16:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

And I might add that the Dracula 2000 bit at least wasn;t that vampires were harmed by silver but that Dracula himself specifically in contrast to normal vampires was harmed by silver for a very specific in-plot reason (which was cool in one way and total nonsense overall). DreamGuy 16:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

"This isn't a fiction article" - the principled distinction between mythology and other fiction being... what? Unless you're postulating the verifiable existence of these creatures. DaveWF 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I seem to have to clear this up all over the encyclopedia... the distinction between mythology and fiction is that fiction is made up as an act of creative writing and not believed to be true, whereas myths and legends are things that are believed to be true by the cultures that came up with them (though other cultures may not believe them). Mythology is not fiction, so "distinction between mythology and other fiction" is a complete misnomer. There's a huge difference between the two. It's like, say, genuine religious beliefs versus the Flying Spaghetti Monster. DreamGuy 06:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The existence of God is not any more verifiable, DaveWF, and a vast majority of the population does not see that as being fiction. There are many species of animals that were believed to be fictional, such as the giant squid, which have been proven to be real. Since the 1990s, there has been a surge in what is called the "vampire subculture," which is no less valid than anything else. Vampires are a belief deeply ingrained into many cultures, past and present and, like myself, I am sure these cultures wouldn't take kindly to part of their beliefs being equaled to fiction. That is why, in my opinion, there's a different section for myth and for fiction.--Cirya 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

the legend

I propose to create a page called vampire (the legend) or (in legend) or whatever ... and REDIRECT this page to that one to avoid future confusion. --Kim Nevelsteen 16:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We already discussed an option similar to that and soundly turned it down a short while ago. Why on earth would you want to do something that would mess up the article space that way? DreamGuy 16:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Because "vampire" is ambiguous and it doesn't state that this article is restricted to "the legend" in anyway apparent fashion. What do you exactly mean by, "mess up the article space"? And, btw, "Vampire (fiction)" is not on the disambig page, unless I am mistaken.--Kim Nevelsteen 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't responded to this earlier because frankly what you say doesn't make sense. This article is not restricted tot he legend, it just ends up covering that most because it is most notable andbecause Vampire fiction has its own article. Mess up the article space means that most of the fiction goes in the Vampire fiction article, and Vampire (legend) would be redundant, needlessly complicated, and inaccurate, making a redirect for no good reason. Vampire (fiction) is not on te disambig page because it's not an article about Vampie as the term as used in fiction, it's about Vampire fiction. And one more time I would point you to the article Vampire fiction for more information on fiction about vampires. So if you have info on vampires as they appear in trivial instannces of fiction, where does it go? That's right, either Vampire fiction or not in Wikipedia at all, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of nonnotable fictional references. DreamGuy 14:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Japanese vampires

I wasn't familiar with the references to Oni and fox vampirism so left them as is. However, a Kappa is in no way a vampire. It does not suck blood through the anus as much as it sucks ones innards out and this is by way of food and sustenance rather than a mystical association. However the kamaitachi reference, which I inserted, is much more analagous of vampire legend.--Cadmus Kyrala

Ok, granted they are not reputable sources, but some sources state exactly that. The text you removed was horrible, so I can't complain there, but I do protest to the information being lost on the "Kappa". [1], Look for the post by Clearwitch on "Mar 24 2003, 05:24 AM" Another source, again probably not reputable, but [2] it states the same. Sorry, I must revert. Sources [3], [4], [5], etc...

Please feel free to change the wording around a bit to be more correct, but be sure to add a source to back up your changes. --None-of-the-Above 06:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Those pages you cite are just awful... The first on the list is unverified and just some random guy spouting stuff. The second one gives a lot of info about Kappas but not anything that gives a reason to list here. The third is just a link to a site that is a mirror of Wikipedia content. The fourth and fifth links are also not very authoritative, and the fourth mentions nothing about vampire aspects at all. The fifth one makes the claim that it ias a vampire but gives no source. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a site to list wild speculation by random people on websites. Your citations make a more stronger argument for not listing the Kappa here as most of them give no inidcation of vampire traits and the few that do do so on an off the cuff unscholarly and unverifiable manner. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and other applicable policies (and my comment further down). DreamGuy 14:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the information on Kappas would not be lost, as there is a very thorough and informative article on them under Japanese mythology here. But I still do not accept the relevancy to Vampire mythology. The kappa are not undead, not immortal, and not dependent upon feeding off people. (Actually it would seem their favorite food is cucumbers, after which the kappa-maki variety of sushi is named.) There is still the tradition in some areas of writing a child's name on a cucumber and throwing it into a body of water thought to hold Kappa as a means to keep on its good side. While of course, there could be a broad comparison made on the order of often malevolent fictional creature, the disparities seem to me too striking to leave any room for a valid correlation. Add to that that Kappa are not necessarily malevolent, and there is almost nothing left to compare it with a vampire outside of it's occasional desire to eat people. --Cadmus Kyrala (of course I can't make you leave it out, one of the problems with a perhaps too malleable information resource, but that's my two cents' worth.)

What I ment with the information becoming lost is that there is not even the slightest link to the Kappa's. If you like you can state just that, "there is almost nothing left to compare it with a vampire outside of it's occasional desire to eat people". But at least there would be a link between this article and the Kappa article to allow people further reading and investigation. --None-of-the-Above 08:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If Kutsuki village refers to the same village as the article Kutsuki, Shiga, please add the link. --None-of-the-Above 08:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cadmus... Kappa is in no way, shape or form a vampire, and the fact that some websites try to list it as one in no way obligates us to list us here. There's no point to having the article say that the link is debatable... We don't ned to give tons of info on something and then say, meh, it probably doesn;t belong here. I've removed it and cleaned up the rest of the paragraph. DreamGuy 14:34, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I too agree with Cadmus- Kappa are in no way a vampire, in fact, other websites say that it is NOT. Kappa are japanese water spirits, usually found in family shrines, mostly hidden within a water well. There are no relevancy to Vampires, and no one should make that assumption, unless you'd try to prove me wrong. Maia - 03/25/06 6:36 pm EST (USA)

Orthodox Vampires

Can you please tell me the source of this

" the Orthodox church believed incorrupt bodies were saints while Catholic believe they are vampires"

Yes, Orthodoxy believes that saint bodies remain incorrupt but this has nothing to do the Vampires (which exist in all Slavic nation traditions) - AND SOMEONE MIGHT THINK THAT OUR SAINTS ARE VAMPIRES :-)

See ... so rethink, redo.

Or I`ll do it :-)

--Rastavox 01:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Roman Catholic angle of this section is "suspect"! I recall that when Pope John Paul II died, some news commentators noted that if his body did not rot, it would be considered a miracle after death. This "miracle" would then help establish his canonization and sainthood. (Some have also speculated that he was on a hidden refrigerated slab while he was laying in state, to assist the "miracle".) Why would a Pope that failed to rot be saintly, while an ordinary Catholic that failed to rot is a vampire??? 155.84.57.253 15:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No where in the Catholic faith is it ever mentioned that incorrupt bodies are vampires. There are countless saints such as Saint Bernadette and Mother Cabrini whose bodies have not decayed. See the incorruptibility article. I had heard that it was the Orthodox religion that thought the incorrupt were vampires, but then I could have misheard it. -- 20 February 2006

Where is the source of the first lines?

I see the first lines of the article refer to Vampires as in folklore and myths as being made by having an dead person drink blod, but that dont match any thing i know, and seems an inacurate describsion of the belife in new wampire belivers, who is based on fantasy literature as Anne Rice and Vampire the masquerade. And those vampires in Rice and other fantasy books never was dead, they got blood off from an vampire while being still alive, but with blood loss. Cant the roleplay vampire parts be gathered somehow, and marked properly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kimg

I removed the line in question. You are correct, that's only in a few modern fiction stories and is not part of the folklore. DreamGuy 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, shut up...you don't know what your talking about. You ought to call yourself User:NightmareGuy (comment unsigned, but by User:131.247.118.130)

The above comment was added by a spammer-vandal as part of a rather silly revenge tactic. DreamGuy 05:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does it say in the article that "The Orthodox church believed incorrupt bodies were vampires"? Incorruption is a sign of sainthood in the Orthodox Church.

question

in Ann Rice's 'interview with the vampire' (or the novel-turned-movie rather). Lestat had drank some dead kid's blood and went all wild and stuff. is there a reason for that? (just a quick question, i hope i put it at the right place. will delete afterwards) thx (comment unsigned, but by User:70.70.209.80)

It's kind of like orgasmic for him I guess. No clue. It seems to be such a big deal for him. No clue why. Just is. I am a vampire (yes there are modern day one) so I know I should be able to tell you about it, but I truthfully have no clue why. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Because we'll obviously accept your esteemed testimony for what it is, oh vampire. That I can promise. Don't get me wrong, I'd be overjoyed if you were. Proof of the supernatural, bam! Mwehehe Jachra 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He didn't go "wild", he was dying. He drank a child's blood (after Claudia tricked him). Lestat tells Louis to never drink from the dead. I assume this is because a vampire (being a dead creature) derives it's unnatural life from the blood of the living. To drink the blood of the dead would be tantamount to say, a double death. I've never read the books, though my friend who's read them all assures me it's a common theme. User:Ghola8

Yes I remember that now in the movie. I haven't read the books in a long time so kind of a brain fart. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct about the movie, incorrect about the book. In fact, it's adressed in Rice's own commentary about the movie. In Rice's "Vampire Chronicles" (which Interview is just a first part of ) a vampire can drink a blood of a corpse - when Lestat flees to Paris in his devastation to seek comfort at Armand, he is locked in a cell and given only corpses to sustain himself. It is highly unpleasant, but not at all impossible or harmfull. As for blood drinking being orgiastic - at some point Lestat compares sex (as human feels it) with blood drinking - orgasm being short and insignificant feeling comparing to the pleasure of savouring the life blood of a victim. In book the boy Claudia feeds to Lestat is poisoned with Opium what disorentiates Lestat, giving Louis and Claudia the chance to strike.

Then again all this is related to fictional vampires in one canon and probably rather irrelevant to this article. But since your question was...

Then why did it say over and over in the book "Never drink the blood once they are dead?" TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It didn't. It said, "Always stop drinking when the victim begins to die, because they will drag you down with them. Drinking from corpses is fine, but not from a person at the very moment that their heart stops; It will lull the vampire into death as the vampire's own heart, beating in rhythm, stops beating.--Sable Scarecrow 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

From Coleridge's Christabel:

The lady sank, belike through pain, And Christabel with might and main Lifted her up, a weary weight, Over the threshold of the gate : Then the lady rose again, And moved, as she were not in pain.

It isn't spelled out, but this seemed close enough to the "can't enter without an invitation" superstition to be worth mentioning. --Calair 00:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)