Book Review: “Vampireology: The True History of the Fallen Ones,” On Eurocentric Viewpoints and Unreliable Authors
This review will have 2 parts, a general overview of the book and story, and a second part for spoiler-heavy, more meta-commentary.
Preamble: Like many other worldbuilding enthusiasts, I enjoy a good book packed with lore — and like many monster lovers, I enjoy reading the many renditions of them available. Vampireology offers an alternate historical timeline and a different approach to vampirism.
It’s big, but mostly because it’s a pop-up book. It is only 30 pages long. There are flip-up notes, folded pages, and several other visually interesting devices scattered around. The book is easy to pick up and read within a day.
There are 2 “stories” present throughout. The first is obviously the vampire lore and history through the book, written by fictional author Archibald Brooks in 1900. The other plot follows the notes and annotations of his successor, Joshua Kraik, after Brooks’ death in 1920.
Each page is paced wonderfully, with developments happening on Kraik’s end on each page, sending telegrams back and forth, ala Stoker’s Dracula plot device of using letters, newspaper clippings, obituaries, and other notes to recount events or give updates. The handwritten letters may be difficult to read for some, so that is a drawback for the entire book since many of its actual story is presented through a hand-written font. Some text is also typed in a pseudo-old-English fashion.
Without spoiling much else, the vampire lore incorporates stories both old and new, “disproving” some but keeping other elements intact. It offers an alternative view of history wherein several big-name people (conquerors, gods, kings) are claimed to have been vampires.
All in all the premise is interesting, the plot is simple, understandable, with a good set-up and pay off. There are many colorful illustrations and myths. A good 3.5/5, pick it up when it’s on sale for your vampire-loving child. It’s apparently for 12+ audiences.
Now we move to the meta-discussion of the book as well as some of my gripes with it. This section will have spoilers.
Cut to the chase, Archibald here categorizes vampires into 3 bloodlines that descended from their respective “fallen angels”, all with their different “characteristics” and different ways to kill them. Their temperament also varies from one to the other.
To put it bluntly, Archibald is doing a White Man in The 1900s with this type of thing. With the advent of scientists trying to justify racism and eugenics by categorizing races into neat little boxes, Archibald’s writing checks out for this genre of book.
Vampires from the Belial bloodline are “tortured souls” and “the only ones who suffer remorse for their actions.” The Moloch “are born to destroy” and incite wars. and wait for it, the Ba’al are creatures “consumed by greed,” bearing “a resemblance to small goblin creatures.”
What’s important here to note is that Kraik is a layman to much of this. He doesn’t criticize but merely accepted Archibald’s writing almost at face value. He doesn’t question it besides doubt it at the start due to his skepticism. He quickly “learns” from the book while diligently taking notes.
“…stories concerning vampires have been present in every culture of the world for centuries. Using many guises, the Fallen Ones have concealed their true identities, hiding behind romanticized lore and legend. Although I find much fault with such lore, not all cultural depictions of vampires should be dismissed…”
In the opening pages, Archibald explains some other types of vampires but does so poorly. He finds “much fault with such lore” from different cultures. He talks about the Chiang-Shih (Jiangshi), where he states “I cannot offer an explanation for this strange behavior, though I can confirm that these creatures are from the Fallen bloodlines,” without elaborating on why.
Through this one entry on world vampires, he proves that he is unknowledgeable on the subject, attempting to disprove hundred of years of cultural/indigenous myth.
He goes on the claim that the Philipino Manananggal’s (he does not mention the country by name) ability to separate its upper torso “is misleading,” claiming “this creature is a shape-shifting vampire who has the capacity to change into a bird of prey, a bat — “
“The same region of the world tells stories of the manananggal: a witch that can separate its upper torso from the rest of its body as a means of taking flight. This description is misleading — in truth, this creature is a shape-shifting vampire who has the capacity to change into a bird of prey, a bat, a dragon or a gryphon…”
The artwork for the mananaggal is even a human-sized bat, not the half-a-human body-with-its-intestines-out that we know and love. This man is trying to disprove other cultures’ vampiric lore. The sheer misplaced confidence of this presumably white British man from the 1900s!
Archibald here has his own “guide” of killing vampires that are explained in the following pages. His method of killing vampires supposedly only work if you do an elaborate blood-draining routine with a beheading over a body of water.
How does that match up with other culture’s vampires that could be killed by other means? Does that mean they’re not actually dead? Or is Archibald here drawing broad generalizations with poor cultural understanding and writing it down as a fact? It’s one thing to re-write the vampiric lore of your own culture or region, it’s another thing to claim that other culture’s vampires aren’t actually “real” and implying the locals of that region have gotten it all wrong for centuries.
The next thing I want to point out is the eurocentric bias shown in the “history” map. Is it a mere coincidence that the 3 bloodlines were first spotted in Egypt, Rome, and Greece? Of all the regions in the world? Mentions of other mythologies are sparse. The 9 successors of the original 3 are all from the aforementioned myths. Only in later branches of the family tree foreign (non-European) names show up.
It is by no means an extensive list. Even though the Americas are empty on the map, it points out the sparse information around that area but doesn’t mention how barren South-east Asia or Australia are. Most of the names of figures and people are ones you’d find in your “Western Culture & Civilization” textbook.
I would argue that these examples imply that Archibald is a product of his era, his findings prompt him to deny other cultures’ interpretations of bloodsucking monsters, all while promoting a rigid 3-race system to categorize vampires and favoring one over the others (Belials).
His findings and writings should be taken with a grain of salt, his accounts, and anecdotes are just another way of seeing things — not the objective “truth” as pitched in the beginning. He considers his “rational” to triumph over other’s understandings. That is both the beauty and the missed opportunity of this book. The reader, Kraik, is not given the opportunity to truly question the book at hand, he takes up the task of being the next protector almost automatically.
The book subtly hints at Archibald’s incompetence (whether it is intentional or not) with outdated views and misunderstandings that reflect what was considered “science” at the time, shaping him as a man of that era.
Additionally, there are some other fine details that I didn’t bring up in my examples due to its more nitpicky nature — such as the use of pseudo-Old English text and mentioning religious “artifacts” that don’t hold religious significance that didn’t make the cut.
These details still support the notion that Archibald Brooks is a flawed writer, some of his lore should be questioned, his version of “history” should be reviewed, and probably should have experts or natives of the cultures mentioned check his work for validity.
That concludes the meta-review of the book. I think both reading approaches — the surface level and meta-level give readers more options in consuming the text. Whether you want to scrutinize over the lore or read it for Kraik’s mystery-solving, there’s something for everyone.
I covered this aspect of the lore mostly because my other favorite “annotated” books such as The Shadowhunter’s Codex and The Never Ever Handbook offer two viewpoints, one from an institution occupying a position of authority possibly with an agenda in mind, and the other comes from the characters that live in the world who hold a more practical experience. It recontextualizes the “official handbook” and leads the reader to ask questions about the validity of the original guide’s claims. These books have definitely influenced my perspective and judgment on Vampireology, as I believe that with annotations as a writing device, the potential for this genre of pop-up books could be even more interesting to the audience had the annotator thought more critically of the party publishing the lore book.
The holes and flaws in the writing might as well be unintentional, maybe the (IRL) publishers wanted the lore to be taken at face value or be considered “realistic” with the amount of world-building and history-revising they’ve put into this book. But hey, death of the author.
This is the end of the review. Thank you for reading up to this point. I hope you’ll read something, whether it’s 30 pages or 300 pages, whether it’s about philosophy or a children’s pop-up book, I hope you enjoy the act of reading, whichever way you choose to approach it.
This review was taken from the author’s Twitter thread, edited to fit the formatting, with added pictures and a closing excerpt from another thread.