I couldn't agree with you more actually (above) and I appreciate you saying before that my book made was 'more believable' or 'made more sense' than another you've apparently read.
Well, I have been saying for many, many, years now that 'blood-sucking vampires' simply do not exist.
I have said that there DO exist different different categories of psychic entities, some more melevolent than others in that these have been known to 'attack' people psychically by draining them of energy and/or even having an hypnotic effect. Such entities are quite common; indeed, have been reported down through the centuries. But although these are said to take on 'vampire-like charasticics' (symptoms as just described), 'vampires' as portrayed in the Hammer movies, simply do not have any existence, except as myth.
Hahaha, that's right, Dave. Dismiss vampires as poppycock, but keep tooting your "vampire-like psychic entities" horn. Cos, ya know, they're not ludicrous or nothin' themselves!
Thanks Anthony.Iwill try and get hold of the books you mentioned.This vampire buisness is obviously something you have given a lot of thought .
You're welcome. As I said before, it's tricky to get decent independent
writings on the subject. Ellis' work takes a pretty good scholarly approach. I'd also suggest having a read of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's "Stalking the Vampire" chapter in her 1991 book, Vampires Among Us
All up, not many writers take a serious, scholarly approach to the subject. Considering the questionable characters involved, that's probably not all that surprising.
I try to approach it from a reasonably cynical viewpiont because there are so many people running around seeing ghosts and the devil everywhere.But im always hoping to be proved wrong.
I definitely agree with ya there. You gotta sort the "wheat from the chaff", so to speak. So, that's why other, "external" elements should be examined too. It's like a court case, really: hearsay is only as good as the people who recount it. And it gets pretty telling when they keep changing their story
Sean Manchesters book is certainly very odd. Perhaps he went through some kind of trauma as he seems to be 100 percent convinced it was real.
That's presuming that he didn't just make the whole thing up
After all, both sides of the fence have turned their so-called "experiences" into a cottage industry for the last forty years
. One of them even named his three volume autobiography after it, which speaks for itself.
If you wrote a story like that and knew it wasnt i doubt you could not end up a psychological mess.He believes he met a vampire and seems completely convinced.Meanwhile everyone wonders and there seems so much bad feeling and from what i have read outright insults.One wonders how it ever came to this. while there is so much backbiting can we ever really discover what it was that lurked in the cemetery.....
That's also operating under the presumption that anything but
vandals lurked about there!
Concerning the supernatural, though, there's a few interesting items to note here.
Firstly, you-know-who's account of vampires is generally dismissed...on the sole basis that he wrote about something generally not considered to exist (ie vampires).
Yet, on the flipside, it seems to be perfectly acceptable
to acknowledge the work of a "psychic entity with vampirelike characteristics" instead?
Am I missing something here?
I should also note, that before the two entrepreneurs started voicing their vampire theories, the other locals saw a whole variety
of things at the Cemetery (presuming they weren't taking the piss, mind you).
As the Highgate Vampire Wikipedia page
These ghosts were described as a tall man in a hat, a spectral cyclist, a woman in white, a face glaring through the bars of a gate, a figure wading into a pond, a pale gliding form, bells ringing, and voices calling ... Hardly two correspondents gave the same story.
Do have a read of the rest of that article. I think you'll find it quite eye-opening.