Dear Real Vampires:
For the purpose of the content in this post, the term “real vampire” excludes life styling, roleplaying and fans. To an extent, it also excludes pranic/psi feeders… This is from the perspective of a physiological sanguinarian (blood feeders) and those of my peers. We may be few, but we deserve our own voice.
With so many different people considered to be within the Vampire Community, you know you can’t escape ruffled feathers. There has been many divides over the years, even “wars” if you want to be theatrical about it … recently, it has seemed to quiet down. More and more, people are trying to unify themselves under one heading: Vampire.
But, the problem comes down to one question: How accurate is this description? And more importantly, does it really describe ALL people who consider themselves members of the VC?
Etymologically, the origin of the word “vampire” is somewhat open ended and mysterious. However, our general understanding of the word is relatively new, only from the 18th century.
vampire (n.) spectral being in a human body who maintains semblance of life by leaving the grave at night to suck the warm blood of the living as they sleep, 1734, from French vampire (18c.) or German Vampir (1732, in an account of Hungarian vampires), from Hungarian vampir, from Old Church Slavonic opiri(cognates: Serbian vampir, Bulgarian vapir, Ukrainian uper), said by Slavic linguist Franc Miklošič to be ultimtely from Kazan Tatar ubyr “witch,” but Max Vasmer, an expert in this linguistic area, finds that phonetically doubtful. An Eastern European creature popularized in English by late 19c. gothic novels, however there are scattered English accounts of night-walking, blood-gorged, plague-spreading undead corpses from as far back as 1196. Figurative sense of “person who preys on others” is from 1741. Applied 1774 by French biologist Buffon to a species of South American blood-sucking bat.
It is important to note that the “real vampire” in modern day do not try and relate themselves back to a historical slavic vampire being; which was not much more than a bloated corpse that was only imagined to have fed on the blood of its family and friends because of how a body looked in decomposition.
It is also important to mention that those beings or persons that actually craved blood, or drank blood, related more to a occult thought-process and were more likely to be called demons or possessed.
Although it is rather the most modern version of the “vampire archetype,” of which is mostly originated from fiction writings, that those in the VC attempt to emulate…
… we must not forget that there are real in the flesh beings that persist on blood, and has been aptly named “vampire” by biologists. The obvious of such would be the vampire bat, so it is not out of the realm of thinking to call those in the VC, at the very least Sanguinarians, ‘vampiric.’
It may not be of concern to most folks, but there is a great deal of fantasticism employed within this community. The newly awakened is bombarded with a flood of information, and they can only look to “experienced” fellows for some semblance of truth… whether it makes any sense to them, or not. It will still become a narrative that is hard to shake away from. Which then becomes hard to explain to those who aren’t familiar with the VC, and even harder, especially when young, to keep your cool when you get harassed about not really being a “vampire.”
Sure, it’s easy to say “vampire” to give people a general idea, but I don’t think a continued use of the word is necessary in the community. It’s a bit too much wool over the eyes, at times.
Maybe it’s necessary to be more specific? But, how do we this without confusing the eff out of people even more? The vampire bat, for example, is not a real “vampire” unless you only live by the once- (still?) fictional definiton of ‘one who feeds on blood’ as to mean ‘vampire.’
Perhaps, using the term ‘haematophagic’ would be more correct? Feeding on blood to sustain thriving health. A true sanguinarian’s body would then be at the very least “haematophagic,” no?
In most cases, the term ‘sanguinarian’ works. Unfortunately, more and more individuals are using the term to describe those who drink blood for fun or fascination purposes and not for health-reasons.
A number of haematophagous animals are already used for code-wording in the VC. Some include; leech, bat, lamprey… So tell me, is it that much more of a leap to get rid of the “v” word completely? Instead of worrying about what something is, isn’t is more useful to know it’s function?