Poor Polidori. That's the title of D. L. MacDonald's (critical) biography of the sometime author and physician we turn our attentions to on this damp, grey and windy night. And a fitting title it seems to have been when one considers a few of his woes.
For not only did the text of "The Vampyre" (which he appears to have left behind him in Switzerland in the autumn of 1816) get submitted to the New Monthly in London without his knowledge or consent, but, when it was eventually published it was described (by the magazine's proprietor, Henry Colburn) as "A Tale by Lord Byron". Ouch.
Add in Polidori's subsequent career failures, his dismissal (from his physician duties) by nasty Byron, and it's not entirely surprising that he opted for a romantic exit from this cruel world - taking his own life at the tender age of 26.
Yet the last laugh (or morbid chuckle) remains his. While many of Byron's other hangers-on are remembered only for their (sometimes literal…ooer) connections to his Lordship, Polidori's contribution to the genesis and development of the modern vampire mythos has ensured him a modest literary immortality.
Prior to Lord Ruthven's appearance, traditional (Serbian/Hungarian) vampires tended to be "bloated, shaggy, foul-smelling corpses who preyed on their immediate neighbours and relatives".1 Not only that, but these grotesque revenants "were composed entirely of peasants".2 Quick! Pass me my lavender-soaked handkerchief!
Polidori's transformation of the vampire from "bestial ghoul to glamorous aristocrat"3 established a template which blew away all competitors. Bram Stoker, Universal Pictures and Hammer (et al) would later finesse this model, thus helping to ensure its almost complete dominance, but Polidori's misattributed tale was (pretty much) where it all started.
With that I invite you to grab your flagons of blood-red wine and get chatting. My own contributions may be less fast and frequent than usual, owing to the fact that I'm currently laid up in bed with a bastardly cold. Offers of sympathy and understanding are encouraged. Sniff.
Evening. I’m feeling suitably pale and wan tonight - stuffed up, bunged up, and laid out. Drinking a large bottle of Forest Fruits Yop and munching on pear slices. Rock n roll.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pmI am also feeling appropriately wan and pale, or as my son Herb would put it, “No my not feeling well!”
September 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pmI’ve been meaning to read this for ages, since I purchased the ridiculously cheap and excellent Children of the Night edited by David Stewart Davies.
It seems hard to separate the story from the biographical context. It does seem like a spiteful attack on Byron.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pmChildren of the Night? What that?
I’ve been busy flicking through Vampires: Encounters With the Undead edited by David J. Skal. Well worth checking out even though it’s oversized and likely to crush you when you doze off in bed reading it.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pmTried to put in a link to amazon. Will try again.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:16 pmIndeed. But with some justification it seems. Byron picked up and dropped companions according to his whims, with more than one of them taking their revenge in print.
Also, Ruthven is (I suppose) really just a supernatural development of the seductive, aristocratic rake so well-known to readers of the day.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:16 pmIt is one of the recent series of Wordsworth Tales of Mystery and the Supernatural titles.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pmI have no pity for Byron, but find the vengfulness interesting. The portrait is so hard that it is hard to find anything sympathetic, or even vaguely appealing about Ruthven. He is not a tragically doomed figure, or even beautiful/seductive. Just a git.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:19 pmI know the ones. They’re fabulously cheap and plentiful. If you want to pop in a link just cut and paste it. No need to use the “link” button above.
One interesting quality of the Ruthven vampire is his love of ruining the reputations and finances of the virtuous and then moving on. He only (I think) feeds on two people - Audrey’s love and his sister. His main purpose in life (or undeath) seems to involve reducing worthy folk to a wretched state.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:24 pmWe are only told about two victims, who are both the dearest of the poor old protagonist. He could have fed on anyone, but chose to kill in the most spiteful of ways.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:27 pmThat’s what I was getting at above. He’s not portrayed as doomed with an unquenchable thirst, a desperate need to feed to live - as many later vamps would be. Neither does he seem remotely ambivalent and conflicted about his position. He’s just pure malevolence - and lovin’ it!
September 29th, 2008 at 9:28 pmHe is also unsympathetic in appearance. I love the description of his awful gaze, which lingers on the surface of the skin and fails to penetrate to any interiority.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:31 pmThis is the bit in question.
A great description and one suggestive of a dead blankness and absence. A void.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pmAnd such a contrast to the romantic evocation of vampires that we have come to know since. Polidori is able to see through the mythic sheen of the romantic hero, and see that such figures may be no more than mere gits.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:38 pmOne of the key passages, I reckon, is early on when we find that Aubrey has been looking for otherworldly, romantic thrills:
So just as he’s ready to give up and admit that the world is a rather prosaic place, in steps Ruthven. A classic case of be careful what you wish for I suppose. Again the parallels with his relationship with Byron seem pretty obvious.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:39 pmHa! Absolutely. The vampire, more than any other figure in horror, has (alas) become the property of lovers of the cruel but beautifully seductive anti-hero. Anne Rice, we’re looking at you.
I find that portrayal so tedious and teenagey. It’s also often pretty misogynistic - with swooning, weak-willed women giving themselves over to the dark-eyed ones at the drop of a cloak.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pmThere is a whole section downstairs at Forbidden Planet called ‘Paranormal Romance’. I wonder how much of it stems from such romantic fixations?
September 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pmThere is something about the way there is no last minute rescue, no miraculous triumph of virtue over corrupt evil, a matter of factness about the horror.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:01 pmI wouldn’t know…honest guv…
I guess the traditional male bodice-ripping hero of pulp romances has something in common with the cold but seductive aristo-vamp. Not that I’m suggesting that contemporary writers of “paranormal romance” are simply reproducing these dreary old types.
For all I know (honest) they may be pushing the boundaries of the genre in bold and progressive ways.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pmI have just started reading the first Sandman collection, which features a character called Ruthven Sykes. (I know, it is shocking that I have never got round to reading Sandman before, but there you go.)
September 29th, 2008 at 10:03 pmI’m sure they are, sort of. Who knows, they could be as much about /fiction as bodice ripping aristo counts, but there is probably a lot of the latter.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:04 pmIt has inevitable doom written all over it from the start. Ruthven doesn’t even come close to getting his comeuppance. Well…that one time in Greece where he gets shot and killed might count I suppose. Though he does get better!
The focus is really on Aubrey’s guilt and culpability. He invites this into his world and the end result is the grisly death of two loved ones. Ruthven is really just a force, one than vanishes when his ghastly work is done.
Given that, one wonders how effective a hatchet job on Byron it actually is. Is it more a case of Polidori beating himself up for falling under Byron’s spell?
September 29th, 2008 at 10:08 pmthis is a great discussion, but I haven’t read the story so I can’t add much,
EXCEPT that I agree that Polidori’s contrast of sight–>the skin vs. sight–>the heart is marvelous (it makes you feel that this vampire with his “dead grey eye” is truly an extra-ordinary form of sentient being )
PLUS
this has made me think in a broader way about VAMPIRES (to be honest, I am uneducated in this area of lit),
my mind has always focused on the erotic, the blood, the nocturnal
(and FUSTAR, I trust somebody who munches on pear slices ^^)
September 29th, 2008 at 10:13 pmI have to confess for thinking that there might have been some form of redemption, that Ruthven would turn out to be misunderstood, that his insistence on the oath would turn out to be some sort of test. Obviously not. Maybe there is a strong element of self punishment on Polidori’s part.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pmI’ve never read much Sandman either. I was always put off it because a) it seemed to be beloved of people who didn’t actually like comics, and, b) it appeared (to me) to be full of pretentious and overwrought supernatural fantasy. I’m probably totally wrong about it. But there you are.
As for the Ruthven name, apparently it originated in the novel Glenarvon by Lady Caroline Lamb, one of Byron’s discarded lovers. In it there’s a thinly-disguised Byron-a-like called Clarence de Ruthven, Lord of Glenarvon. It’s not a sympathetic portrayal apparently.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:16 pmWelcome to the discussion, Ira.
Well you’re obviously not alone! This side of the vampiric seems to be what really resonates with readers and viewers these days. I just found it interesting that this formative and seminal vampire portrayal features little blood. Ruthven’s cruelty and rakishness are much more to the fore than his blood-thirst and love of the night.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pmAre there contemporary authors who use the bloated, shaggy, foul-smelling vampires ?
September 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pmIt is a really interesting story. It is amazing how it is held as a formative point in the development of the genre and mythology, yet seems inconsistent in some fundamental ways. But it succeeds in evoking dread and is engaging. Have to call it a night to get over the lurgey.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pmCan’t think of too many authors off the top of my head, but I don’t keep up to date with a lot of contemporary horror (as it bores me by and large). The vamps in 30 Days of Night are pretty hideous and unattractive. More bestial than seductive certainly.
Sadly the film was (for me) a stinky pile of cack, so it was hard to care one way or the other.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pmNight night, wunderkammer. Thanks for stopping in. Where the usual gang of reprobates have disappeared to is anyone’s guess. I’ll have to open a can of whupass - in the shape of a very slightly cross email. It’s usually busier than this, Ira!
September 29th, 2008 at 10:29 pmgood night,
September 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pmI’m going now to google LURGEY, I presume it means “a cold” or “tiredness”, see ya
Night Ira. I’ll try and scare up a few more regulars for next time. Now back to those pears…
September 29th, 2008 at 10:34 pmhey, if you’re stll there, I just popped into “Grretings Earthlings” and took only a quick look … but it looks like tremendous stuff !!
(I think the two of us are going to get along just fine lol)
I started robotkrishna.wordpress.com only a few days ago, and at the moment, it’s all over the place, but there is a method to the madness (it’s a sketchpad related to fiction I’m writing)
September 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pmfollowing up on “the dead grey eye” of polidori’s vamp,
September 29th, 2008 at 11:32 pmhere’s a comment from your own EARTHLINGS bajada grande entry ( the appleyard quote)
I was in bed for the last 7 hours tossing, turning and having horrible feverish thoughts and dreams so I’ve dragged myself downstairs to curl up on the couch with my cats and try to distract my addled mind.
Glad you like GE. It’s something I’m still pretty proud of but I never get the time to update it anymore. Would love to resuscitate it but can’t see it happening any time soon.
Looks intriguing, I’ll keep a dead grey eye on it.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:14 amThat series is a godsend. They’ve been popping up somewhat regularly at the Half Price Books chain here in the states, and I grab them whenever I see one. So far, I’ve managed to get the Bulldog Drummond one, two Robert E. Howards, The Beetle, and the M.R. James collection. Still looking for the Carnacki one and the Conan Doyle one. The whole line can be viewed at Wordsworth’s website.
Anyway, The Vampyre. Read it years ago and couldn’t remember much about it, so it was good to revisit it. Polidori wasn’t exactly the most inspired writer, but the historical significance of this one is pretty hard to ignore, as it’s a pretty clear forerunner of Dracula. Also pretty hard to ignore is its status as a thinly-veiled attack on Byron. There’s really no way around that, but if the legends of Byron’s treatment of him are true, he probably had it coming. I doubt he was much bothered by it, being Byron and all.
One thing that’s interesting is the story about The Vampyre being an extension of the fragment that Byron wrote at Deodati that night. According to Mary Shelley, Polidori’s submission was something about a skull-faced woman and was also quite awful. It’s a shame that one hasn’t survived.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pmCouldn’t agree more about contemporary horror fiction, although I do like Thomas Ligotti, who seems to be one of the very few who can on occasion really nail the discomfort that should come from a really good weird tale. He doesn’t always pull it off, but he at least always tries. Plus, he’s a mighty impressive misanthrope, judging by his interviews.
And he’s about it, I guess. I can’t think of any others who’ve impressed me on any level. And contemporary vampire fiction is in an even worse state than general horror. It’s probably too easy and cliched to blame Anne Rice, but what the hell. I blame Anne Rice.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pmI’ve never read much Sandman either. I was always put off it because a) it seemed to be beloved of people who didn’t actually like comics, and, b) it appeared (to me) to be full of pretentious and overwrought supernatural fantasy. I’m probably totally wrong about it. But there you are.
You’re actually kind of right on both counts, but oddly Sandman still has some merit. It is often impressively imaginative, and the good in it is very good indeed and almost outweighs the more questionably arch moments. That said, I still prefer the 70s Kirby Sandman for sheer insanity.
I’ve never rated Gaiman as highly as, say, Grant Morrison, but he does have his moments, most of which are scattered throughout the Sandman run. His serious fans can be seriously annoying, though.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pmA skull-faced woman? That sounds great! He’d have called it “The Skull-faced Woman”.
But seriously, Polidori (modest writer though he was) hit on a winning synthesis when he married the revenant with the aristocratic rake. In a way that would no doubt have maddened him, he probably has Byron to thank for that. If Byron hadn’t been (in wunderkammer’s apt words) such a “git”, then it’s unlikely that Polidori would ever have conjured such a figure (though one of Byron’s other cast-offs might well have done). The fact that it was a character the world was ready and waiting for should be pretty clear by now.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:29 pmI haven’t, I’m afraid to say, read him - or at least not that I remember. Any particular best place to start?
RE: Blaming Anne Rice. Not only is it easy, it’s fun. There are plenty of other suspects who deserve a smack in the gob though. Stephen King and his clones are surely due kicks in the hole for blockbuster-ising horror lit and all but killing the short story form stone dead. Boo.
One obvious recent shift in the cinematic vamp template, as seen in the (wretched) 30 days of Shite, is how they’re being “zombfied” or demonised. This seems part of the baleful trend of making baddies so super-bad that any ambivalence or ambiguity is booted out the window. I have some loose ideas about how this depiction ties into fears of crazed, irrational (but intelligent) “foreigners” - but they’re only half-baked as yet.
What I will say (unequivocally) is that this trend is very, very shit - and automatically makes most contemporary horror tedious (not to mention borderline offensive) in the extreme.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pmWell, Ligotti really only writes short stories, which is great as he’s a master of the form and god knows we need good short horror stories but not so great in that it means that it takes years for him to amass enough material for a new collection. And then those collections seem to go swiftly out of print. There’s a new one from Virgin Books, though. It’s mostly recent material which I haven’t read, so I can only vouch for the four stories that I have read when they originated as a collaboration with Current 93. They’re quite good.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pmOne obvious recent shift in the cinematic vamp template, as seen in the (wretched) 30 days of Shite, is how they’re being “zombfied” or demonised. This seems part of the baleful trend of making baddies so super-bad that any ambivalence or ambiguity is booted out the window. I have some loose ideas about how this depiction ties into fears of crazed, irrational (but intelligent) “foreigners” - but they’re only half-baked as yet.
You might be onto something with that, though. There’s definitely a trend towards animalizing the baddies, stripping them of any complex motivations, and thus making them a whole hell of lot less interesting. It might be a modern ‘extreme’ extension of the Yellow Peril, only worse, because at least the main threat with Yellow Peril was that ‘they’ were cold, calculating, and just plain smarter.
To bring it back to The Vampyre in some loose way, I guess if it was done today, Ruthven would be super-fast and super-strong, just to ensure that he’s super-bad. And probably skilled in the martial arts, as apparently all vampires are now required to be. Oh, and he’d have guns, because vampires need those, too. For some reason.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:24 pmJason, The use of the “other” in horror is obviously extremely important and widespread (and certainly not a new phenomenon).
Your mention of the “Yellow Peril” automatically brings Fu Manchu to mind - he who’s served as a template for plenty of diabolically cunning (though completely unfeeling) baddies for the best part of 100 years. Ming, of course, is his sexually voracious half-brother.
It’s interesting how the fear of the cruel but brilliant (machine-like) Eastern other (that saw articulation in plenty of Bond movies too) seems to have become passé. What seems to be stepping into its shoes (surprise, surprise) is the hoary old fear of the diabolically motivated collective. I don’t think we need strain too hard to see what buttons are being pushed here…
I should add that when we talk about cinematic/TV representations we run the risk of confusing American themes and preoccupations with universal ones. Lazy journalists do this all the time and it always winds me up. Not only that, but it’s also dangerous to draw conclusions about the zeitgeist and national psyches (etc) from cultural products made by complete morons and money-grabbing cynics.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pmWow, I missed a great discussion. The one time F wants to get all sociological and shit, I have to be in Dublin.
All too often, I catch myself crediting Carmilla with the alluring, aristocratic vampire thing, even though Vampyre’s decades older. I suppose I just like Sheridan’s writing better.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pmIt was a good one, despite the low turnout. If you’re around for the next one I promise to, once again, get all sociological (and shit).
As for Le Fanu, I don’t think anyone would seriously suggest that Polidori is his equal as a writer, but he (Polidori) remains very significant nonetheless - almost in spite of himself.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:35 amHey Fustar,
Moderate this!!!
Just spent thirty minutes looking at the Dreadful Thoughts section. Some very interesting chats going on there. Will try log on for the next one. Also passed the link on to a couple of other ghoulophiles so they might drop in too.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pmI just did. Moderate that. So there.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Actually, there is. That Yoda was talking out his arse.
Hope you (or some of yer ghouly friends) can make it. With babas, commitments and all that other adult jazz it can be hard to gather everyone together at the same time. Fresh blood welcome.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm