Skip to main content

Vampirology - Kathryn Harkup ***

This is the second non-fiction book featuring vampires that I've read in recent days. The other, The Modern Myths by Philip Ball, didn't claim to be a science book, concentrating as it did on the nature of myth - but in Vampirology, Kathryn Harkup seeks to put vampires squarely into the remit of popular science. It's even (somewhat oddly, perhaps) published by the Royal Society of Chemistry.

To an extent, what Harkup is doing here is the well-established format of a 'science of' book - the subtitle is indeed 'the science of horror's most famous fiend.' Harkup has already given us Making the Monster taking a similar approach to Frankenstein, which worked well. Although the natural topics of such books tend to be science fiction - and Frankenstein is arguably proto-science fiction - we've seen a number of titles successfully straying into fantasy, from the Science of Discworld books to Science of Middle Earth. 

Here, we get a reasonable summary of what the vampire legend has entailed throughout history - with some pretty unpleasant attempts to dispose of 'real' supposed vampire corpses - plus a bit on the better known literary and screen vampires (though thankfully the Twilight gang don't get much of a mention) - particularly giving focus to Polidori's Ruthven and, of course, Dracula. But the majority of the book picks up on aspects of science and medicine/disease (particularly the medical side) that have some sort of parallel with the fictional abilities of vampires.

This means we get plenty on being undead - so the nature of death and conditions that can appear like death but aren't - on the function of blood (in general and as a supposed restorative), on sunlight and conditions that make people light sensitive (though they don't usually disperse in a cloud of ash), and includes pretty far-fetched attempts to deal with the potential science of supernatural capabilities, such as walking down walls or mind control.  Although I love vampires in fiction, I found the medical and disease-related aspects outside both my interest and comfort zone. You could either regard some of the linkages as ingenious or far-fetched - so, for example, in a chapter on disease, the idea of modelling the spread of vampires is tied to Snow's cholera mapping. Other chapters are driven primarily by vampire lore when dealing the evolution of vampires, vampiroids (essentially vampire wannabes), prevention and slaying (where I was disappointed not to have more on the science of Buffy).

As a book, perhaps surprisingly in a topic based on fiction, there's a bit of tendency to pile on facts with relatively little storytelling, which can feel a little heavy. This wasn't helped by a structure that felt like a series of articles that had been pulled together - a number of key points were introduced several times as if they hadn't mentioned before. For example, the Murnau film Nosferatu was introduced in some detail three separate times. 

Harkup has done a really good job of coming up with science that could be linked to vampires, often producing fascinating factoids along the way - but I did finish the book wondering if this was really a topic that required a 'science of' title.

Paperback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more