Interview With a Vampire Expert

Author Eric Nuzum surveys (and survives) the secret world of bloodsuckers

David Weigel | October 29, 2007

(Page 3 of 3)

Nuzum: It's same type of argument that you have about Thomas Jefferson owning slaves. That's always a hot debate after the second beer. And Vlad was working in a very similar context. He liked to position himself as the champion of people, and he had two problems. One was the political system he was in, which could bring down the leader if he was unpopular. I mean, imagine if we had presidential elections whenever the people got mad at the president. His other problem was that he was caught, physically and intellectually, between the Christian world and the Ottoman Empire. He quickly learned that the way to keep his country safe was by being fucking crazy.

reason: You'd defend that?

Nuzum: Obviously it didn't seem like such a good system if you were the family of one of his victims. But there was very little crime. He'd have his men leave money in cups in public places just to prove that no one would touch them for fear of his secret police. It's difficult to look at that say "you are absolutely wrong." It totally worked! The Communists actually thought he was a hero until Communism fell and they met these Westerners who wanted to buy Dracula merchandise.

reason: And you encountered vampire obsessives or self-identified vampires who didn't meet your expectations at all. When you started this book, what were you expecting?

Nuzum: I was expecting to talk to somebody sitting in an apartment with velvet curtains behind him, who'd say crazy shit like "If you pull that curtain back I will turn into dust." Not once have I met somebody who really defined themselves like that and claims that they if they walk outside they'll burn. Lots of people who've said they'll get dizzy if they face the sun. Nobody who died in 1866 and returned to feed on the living. What I found is lots of people who say this lifestyle just kind of works for them.

reason: Are you glad that we live in a country that can produce somebody like Jonathon the Impaler, the Minnesota fringe politician who claims to be a "sanguinary vampire?" Is that generally good or bad for society?

Nuzum: I don't think I'd say it's one or the other. Nobody took Jonathan or any of his ideas seriously, not that he had many ideas to be taken seriously. While it's easy to dismiss that—hey, the guy thinks impalement is a good way to curb crime!—it's not much of a step from saying "that guy believes in vampires" to saying "that guy believes in Allah! That's weird." If you create a culture that just mocks those ideas or mocks the people who believe them then you're in dangerous territory.

David Weigel is an associate editor of reason.

Comments

lunchstealer|10.29.07 @ 4:13PM|#

OK, so Zombies replaced the passe' ninjas, who had replaced the appallingly stone-aged pirates. So does this mean that vampires are the new zombie? Is that what the tragically hip are dressing as this year?

|10.29.07 @ 4:18PM|#

I can't get over the fact that someone ran for office on the "impale evildoers" platform. Really, that is weird and worthy of ridicule.

That said, at least vampires have much flashier wardrobes than zombies.

Beware the Mahdi|10.29.07 @ 4:18PM|#

"While it's easy to dismiss that-hey, the guy thinks impalement is a good way to curb crime!-it's not much of a step from saying "that guy believes in vampires" to saying "that guy believes in Allah! That's weird." If you create a culture that just mocks those ideas or mocks the people who believe them then you're in dangerous territory."

I'd say the opposite is true. Moral equivalency is far more dangerous! All beliefs are not created equal. Allah is not the God of Judaism or Christianity. There is nothing wrong with saying that someone is crazy for believing something or that they are wrong. Why should that form of disagreement be "dangerous territory"?

JasonL|10.29.07 @ 4:18PM|#

Did the tragically hip ever actually dress as zombies?

|10.29.07 @ 4:20PM|#

I hate vampires. Especially this one!

I love vampires. Especially this one!

|10.29.07 @ 4:29PM|#

Beware the Mahdi,

Yeah? Well my Level 37 Vampire Paladin would kick any god's ass!

Eric Hanneken|10.29.07 @ 4:31PM|#

For a brief history of vampire mythology, I recommend Vampires: Restless Creatures of the Night, by Jean Mariony. It covers thousands of years, going back to ancient figures like Lilitu .

Beware the Mahdi|10.29.07 @ 4:33PM|#

Well, your level 37 vampire paladin dresses like a girl. And you're stupid.

See everyone? I disagreed with AND insulted Taktix and the world did not end!

|10.29.07 @ 4:48PM|#

See everyone? I disagreed with AND insulted Taktix and the world did not end!

Jeez! Give me a minute. Armageddon take time, man...

Brian Sorgatz|10.29.07 @ 8:14PM|#

I don't know about vampires, but zombies are crucial for certain philosophical thought experiments about how a material universe can form sentient (as opposed to merely intelligent and emotive) beings at all.

Those with a stake (no pun intended) in the debate over God's existence should pay especially close attention here.

BakedPenguin|10.30.07 @ 2:22AM|#

Yes, but the real question is, do Vampires have any songs named after them as cool as this?

Mad Zombie Max|10.30.07 @ 3:53AM|#

Am I the only one who didn't know this tidbit from the zombie article:

"George Romero, a Pittsburgh-based director of TV commercials and occasional segments for Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood . . ."

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood
A beautiful day for a zombie
I want you alive
I want you alive

I'll devour your flesh, because it tastes good
Then I'll slurp your insides like spaghetti
And you'll die slowly
And you'll die slowly

I always wanted to make a meal out . . . of . . . you
I always wanted to come to your neighborhood
And eat you
So . . . let's have some fun on this beautiful day
As I'm devouring you I will hear you say
Won't you please
Won't you please
Please, Zombie Rogers
Kill me quicker.

|10.30.07 @ 4:25AM|#

"If you create a culture that just mocks those ideas or mocks the people who believe them then you're in dangerous territory."

He was speaking of an entire culture here - I think he is talking more pervasive than the largely impotent or repressed "mockers" in America today. Of course having some of us be xenophobic is kind of a fact of life; in this way, we are balanced, having some uncomfortable things like Guantanamo, but knowing these are the exception to the rule. Yet soon we approach having a majority of the populace treating people with mockery, which quickly escalates into physical form à la Spanish Inquisition or, you might argue, the War on Drugs.

dbust1|10.30.07 @ 9:29AM|#

I think drawing a parallel between the Spanish Inquisition and the war on drugs is a bit much, but more power to you if you can make it stick. I'd like to hear your take on it.

What concerns me is this idea where it's all of a sudden dangerous to mock a person or group for their beliefs. There isn't anything wrong with thinking someone is crazy for believing something. When those thoughts are put into action in order to silence, oppress or harm someone then that's dangerous. But to assume that thoughts inevitably lead to action is ignorant. At least twice on my drive to and from work I want to kill someone who cuts me off or almost causes an accident. But even if I had a gun in my vehicle I wouldn't pull it out and try to kill them. Thoughts are not dangerous, speech is not dangerous. Actions can be, but are not inherently so.

|10.31.07 @ 11:42AM|#

There are plenty of politicians who would run on an "impale evildoers" platform if they thought it would bring in the votes. As it is, they cloak the same sentiment in being tough on crime, cleaning up the streets and protecting the country.