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

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more