Vampires, Anglo-Saxon-Style

I referred earlier to a conversation with a friend. She is not Anglo-Saxon. She is Latina. So, when I mentioned to her that I was going to start writing about vampires, she was graciously quiet. What became evident after I blathered on for a while, something she often exhibits her patience with, is that vampires are not a prevalent pop-culture theme in her world. She was perplexed at our fascination with them. So, what is it about Anglo-Saxon culture and vampires?

The idea of people rising from the dead to prey on the living has been around as long as religion. Tibetans, Hindus, Egyptians, Christians, the Chinese, just about every religion and culture, have at some point introduced the evil spectre of your soul being lost to a perpetual state of ferociously destructive hunger if you are not adhering to the tenets of your religion or social code. Other aspects of vampires such as whether they can be out during the day, etc. vary from story to story, but this aspect is common to all. The vampire represents succumbing to our desires, most of which are deemed sinful because you are to sublimate your desires to the desires of your god. In the vast majority of these cases, however, vampires are rather simple constructs. They are usually gruesome looking characters with little intelligence or personality. Little would attract you to them for any purpose other than a scary fireside ghost story.

Yet, in Victorian times we see a shift. I'm sure there are others, but Bram Stoker's Dracula is the most well-known. The book, published in 1895 was critically acclaimed but did not become popular until later when film adaptations emerged. The character of Dracula is more complex than older tellings of vampires. Though our protagonists are English, he is from Transylvania. So, he is not one of "us", he is exotic. He is well-educated. He has carefully planned his move to England by studying British culture and history. Also, there is nothing in the description of who he was when he was human that suggests that he deserved an evil fate:

"...for in that time, and for centuries afterward, he was spoken of as the cleverest and most cunning, as well as, the bravest of the sons..."

It is thrown in that some in the Dracula family studied "Scholomance" which is the work of the devil. Presumably, this Dracula did or he wouldn't be a vampire. But the description of the bravery and honor in his life makes that unclear. Perhaps he was "turned" by an existing vampire.

The slowly unfolding mystery in Dracula of what is happening to this young woman who falls strangely ill is a classic page-turner. Why is she so pale and weak one day, then gets better, only to get ill again? What does her sleep-walking have to do with it. I tried to read it this time with an eye for what it must have been like if you had never heard of vampires or never would have suspected it to be a topic of literature. It's a compelling story when you do know. It must be absolutely riveting if you don't.

One interesting aspect of the story is that the victim, Lucy, a young woman being bitten over time to prepare her for becoming a vampire herself, has a vague fear during the day, but isn't repelled when Dracula actually comes to her. This man who is described as odd and unattractive looking by those who see him at other times, is somehow compelling to his victims. This young lady, at times, is trying herself to get to him in her sleep.

Ok. Let's talk about Anglo-Saxon society. Particularly the Regency and Victorian eras. You practically have to button your collar and zip your lip at the very mention. Jane Austen novels are set in the Regency Era. Most of the dramatic tension in her stories surrounds the characters struggling to express their feelings for one another because social interactions are so proscribed that they have no socially acceptable avenues of communication. This leads to misunderstandings that might prevent them from experiencing the love of their lives. The reader is rooting for them to buck the system and actualize their passions. This kind of restricted interaction persists through the Victorian era.

Of course, those passions are generally sexual. Here lies a gigantic chasm between Anglo-Saxon and Latino culture. Anglos have demonized sexuality. Particularly female sexuality. (Dissertations and books have been written about this, so we don't have to pick it apart. We'll just acknowledge it.) A woman's entire life could be ruined by an expression of sexual desire, much less an actual encounter. It's no surprise then that when demure, socially-correct Lucy becomes a vampire (the source of the 20th century word 'vamp'):

"The sweetness was turned to adamantine, heartless cruelty, and the purity to voluptuous wantonness."

No! Not wantonness! Oh, the impurity! (It's interesting that cruelty is coupled with voluptuous wantonness.)

Later, when Dracula is witnessed with his second victim, Mina, we discover that not only does he bite her to drink her blood, but he opens his veins for her to drink his blood. This is key to turning someone into a vampire rather than simply killing her by sucking her dry. It is an intimate act. They are ingesting each other's life blood. Bonding through this exchange. I don't think it's an accident that this is so closely related to the religious act of communion. The participants have chosen their own passion over the passion of the church. (Of course, the victim isn't consciously choosing, she is mesmerized, because of course, one would have to be tricked into making this choice.)

In Latino culture, sexuality is practically everywhere. When I lived in Brasil, my WASP-y sensibilities were appalled at the way young girls were dressed in "sexy" clothing. Sexuality is not sublimated the way it is in Anglo-Saxon culture. Even though we might see it in our entertainment and our advertising, we still shun overt expressions of sexuality in social settings, unless they are small single-gender gatherings. Try going to a mixed-gender dinner party and talking about that pulse in your groin when you saw that attractive man enter the room. We just don't do that. We talk about sex in code. Vampire stories are one of those codes. We're allowed to be fascinated by the "horror" of it because it is clearly depicted as evil. That loud beating of the heart and the short-breathing that ensue can be chalked up to fear. Because it couldn't be that we envy the unbridled lust, the total surrender, the resulting extraodinary power....

True to Gothic form and the accepted modes of expression at the time, sex is never mentioned in Dracula. He's never portrayed as attractive. There's an inference when one character sees him after he has been feeding and notes that he looks different, younger. All the sex and sexuality is expressed to us symbolically. Later, however, vampire stories change. It's no coincidence that the women's movement and the sexual revolution are occurring in the Unites States when Frank Langella's suave and sultry Dracula hits the screens and makes a generation of vampire voyeurs swoon.

So, yes. It's about sexuality. Sexuality as a proxy for passion in general. The powers and vulnerabilities that are attached to vampires begin to tell us more about how we view the expression of these. It's all about our fears of own natures. Fears instilled into us by our acculturation. Only, when we read these stories or see these films, are we scared? Or are we relishing the vicarious experience of voluptuous wantonness?