Peter Stummp - The Orignal Werewolf? (1589)

[j d worthington]

Personally, from what I've gathered I would find it very difficult to accept Aldini's experiment(s) as the primary inspiration, but it is quite possible that it went into the mix to influence certain aspects of the tale, especially the moral and ethical concerns.

As for Vlad Ţepeş... the sensationalism remains the most notable thing about the way accounts of that rather complex figure are handled. Granted, by today's standards he was as brutal and vicious as they come when dealing with many (especially his enemies the Turks); but then, the nobility of much of Europe wasn't a great deal different in many cases, and it has been put forward that one of the reasons he became so notorious is that he bucked both the Church and the other boyars of the region, turning him from an heroic figure seen as a bastion against the enemy to someone who threatened their own stability and therefore became too dangerous to allow to continue.

He did have many more aspects to him than that, and makes a fascinating study; and I've met more than one Romanian who sees him as a great national hero -- in fact, we have a restaurant here named after him, which capitalizes both on his stature on this realm and on the popular view of him as the best-known source of Stoker's fictional vampire (there were others as well).

While I am always glad to see such things being made the basis of documentaries, I am also always wary of oversimplifications of this sort, as they cause more damage than good, frankly (Lovecraft as eccentric, even flaky, sexless, recluse, possibly syphilitic; Poe as drug-ridden, morbid half-lunatic; Howard as a "mamma's boy" so overridden by his "Oedipus complex" that it drove him to an untimely suicide; etc., etc., etc.). I would much rather see at least an honest attempt at tackling the complexities of these subjects, rather than the too-often (albeit not always) dumbed-down-for-mass-consumption handlings they tend to have.

I hope, however, that this series proves an exception to this -- it would be very nice indeed to have some really well-researched and thought-provoking looks at these things in the popular media....

 

[GOLLUM]

I hope, however, that this series proves an exception to this -- it would be very nice indeed to have some really well-researched and thought-provoking looks at these things in the popular media....

UM...not sure if I would be holding my breath too much on that one BUT word on the street is that the second and possibly third episodes are an improvement. If episode 1 was the weakest, then there's still hope....

I shall report back following Sunday's airing.

P.S. Frankly, I'm just grateful to get anything, however potentially tarnished, as offerings on free-to-air (v.s. paid TV) are fairly rare here when it comes to Horror docos in this country. As stated, this is more of a docu-drama series than "serious discussion", although as previously noted the "psychology" of Stumpp in Episode 1 made it interesting enough to persist with.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

As for Vlad Ţepeş...

In fact, my next post was going to be on the Dracula episode-summary, but you've covered what I'd intended to mention. Since we're on the subject of documentaries, I once saw a documentary about Romania where it was made clear that all the rubber bats &c. for sale around 'Castle Dracula' were strictly tourist trash - the people of Romania have a very different traditional remembrance of the man and reactions to vampire-crazed outsiders range from the amused to the offended. The one Romanian acquaintance I have (a software manager with a large MNC; those are the sort of foreigners one is most likely to meet in Bangalore, other than tourists of course) only said that 'that Englishman's book was a big fantasy', referring to Bram Stoker's novel, before we turned to a discussion on the Romanian black metal band Negura Bunget (who are very good if your tastes run in that direction).

I've always been interested in the 'stories behind the stories' and I think any long term horror fan will have amassed a few non-fiction volumes of varying degrees of sensationalism vs. accuracy regarding the gestation of prominent horror tropes. The most fascinating thing about the evolution of any myth or legend is the diffused yet often convergent nature in which such tales are developed; a factor that I think gets wrongly overlooked in attempts to find the 'one true source' of any particular story or legendary figure.

 

[j d worthington]

In fact, my next post was going to be on the Dracula episode-summary, but you've covered what I'd intended to mention. Since we're on the subject of documentaries, I once saw a documentary about Romania where it was made clear that all the rubber bats &c. for sale around 'Castle Dracula' were strictly tourist trash - the people of Romania have a very different traditional remembrance of the man and reactions to vampire-crazed outsiders range from the amused to the offended. The one Romanian acquaintance I have (a software manager with a large MNC; those are the sort of foreigners one is most likely to meet in Bangalore, other than tourists of course) only said that 'that Englishman's book was a big fantasy', referring to Bram Stoker's novel, before we turned to a discussion on the Romanian black metal band Negura Bunget (who are very good if your tastes run in that direction).

I may have to check them out; I never know what will appeal until I try it....

And yes, I'd say that the bulk of people from Romania have that sort of reaction. For one thing, they are (rightly) sick and tired of "Transylvania" being looked on as a country of monsters -- it is certainly no more so even folkloristically than any other, and the name itself certainly isn't anything sinister, albeit to most Westerners it has exactly that sort of connotation. Considering that most tourists go there looking for this sort of thing, rather than the rich history or the scenic beauty of the place (both considerable), it must become extremely tiresome....

And the historical figure himself is deserving of both his fearsome and heroic reputations, from what I've read. He could be quite uncompromising and horrific in his treatment of people; he also had a very strong sense of justice and pride in his country, and fiercely defended it to the best of his abilities; and he had no patience with traitors, either. On the other hand, he often respected honesty. There is a tale (whether apocraphyal or not, who can say?) that at a feast for an emissary, he had two things brought in and stood on either side of said emissary: one was a long sharpened stake such as he used to impale those he deemed deserving of it, the other a bag of gold. He then asked the emissary what he had been told about Vlad. Naturally, the poor man was in a devil of a quandary, but he went with an honest answer, expecting to be hauled out and lowered onto that sharpened point. Vlad apparently smiled, had the stake removed, and rewarded with him with the gold, commenting that, had he lied, the stake would have been his portion but, as he was an truthful man, he should be rewarded for his honesty.

(He also apparently had a golden cup set up by a well for all travelers to use. The point being that he wanted all to know he ruled with an iron hand enough no one dared to steal the cup, but that also all weary travelers were welcome to refresh themselves without fear of trouble by others. So far as is known, that cup was never stolen....)

At the same time, his horrific treatment of enemies and the like can make any modern blanch... being impaled as he performed it (which he apparently learned from the Turks, incidentally, as a prisoner when a young man) was no quick death, but rather a long, slow, lingering process whereby that wooden implement worked its way up through your bowels until enough damage was done to where you expired. Some records indicate that at more than one point, he had several thousand such impaled victims surrounding him as he calmly ate in the midst of them... but again, these are based on accounts by political and religious enemies, and therefore themselves suspect in degree, if not in severity....

I've always been interested in the 'stories behind the stories' and I think any long term horror fan will have amassed a few non-fiction volumes of varying degrees of sensationalism vs. accuracy regarding the gestation of prominent horror tropes. The most fascinating thing about the evolution of any myth or legend is the diffused yet often convergent nature in which such tales are developed; a factor that I think gets wrongly overlooked in attempts to find the 'one true source' of any particular story or legendary figure.

Yes, that is the particular problem -- as nearly all of these things are fairly widespread (the vampire, for instance, dates back as old as written records in one form or another, and many of those same traits still exist in the "classic" vampire of today, thanks to Stoker and others adapting them to their tales) and follow common patterns, it is frankly impossible to track them down to their "original" source, as they are cultural, religious, and mythical artefacts predating, in their earliest forms, any hard evidence which we have been able to find. Most are probably based on a combination of religious mythology whereby the gods or demigods of other cultures become converted to the devils of the culture in question (just as various "pagan" deities became so converted into the demons of Christian belief) and certain relatively rare psychological or physical ailments which drew attention to themselves from the unusual symptoms involved... things which still exist to this day, and the reactions to which even now bear strong echoes of these beliefs. Witness, for instance, the witch-burnings in Africa recently, or the outbreaks of excavating the dead and burning their hearts which were seen in parts of New England toward the end of the nineteenth century, and are still seen in some parts of the world as late as the present. Lycanthropy, for instance, is apparently a real -- albeit very rare-- type of mental disturbance, and so forth. And in some areas, changes seen in corpses, such as the fullness accompanying early -- and sometimes delayed, due to peculiar circumstances -- stages of decay, the appearance of reddish fluid expressed from the mouth and nostrils, and the like, are still seen as evidences that this cadaver is that of a vampire.

 

[GOLLUM]

Interesting conversation so far. I was aware of a number of those facts but not all aspects so far discussed.

Keep this up and I won't need to watch those programs over the weekend...

In fact now that you've both raised some pertinent points relating to variant contemporary perceptions of historical figures and the underlying reality that myths or legends may commonly stem from the evolution of multi-faceted viewpoints, I shall pay particular attention to how they handle these themes. I expect them to be brushed over but I may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Ursa major]

Q. What's the difference between Count Dracula and Vlad Ţepeş?
A. Dracula prefers his stakes to be very rare.




We shouldn't be at all surprised that the images of historical (and, sometimes, minor) figures become distorted. It is sometimes very difficult to determine the facts surrounding people currently in the public eye.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

A good point, and my favourite kind of joke - the cringe-inducing pun! Did you just make that one up?

 

[GOLLUM]

Well, I've been watching the two final episodes on Frankenstein and Dracula.

Like the first episode, they are in essence docudrams of the historical figures who were supposedly inspirations for the 2 literary characters. Particularly dubious in the case of Shelly's Frankenstein from what I know.

Both Giovanni Aldini (Frankenstein concept) and Vlad the Impaler (Dracula character) are only described from a viewpoint of being human monsters and once again the psychology of both of these historical figures and their times proves to be the most interesting part of the program.

As J.D. predicted may occur, the programs are a little biased towards only the negative aspects of these figures. Undoubtedly they performed some fairly dubious practices from which I personally didn't particularly derive any great pleasure in witnessing in glorious technicolour BUT no real counter-balance is ever properly attempted. In fact, visual and narrative sensationalism sprinkled with a raft of talking heads (apparent "experts" ) wouldn't be a totally inaccurate way to describe these 2 programs.

Like the first program, the precept that these 2 single events were the predominant or at least central influence on Stoker's and Shelly's works respectively, is questionable at best.

Therefore, as per the first program, you probably couldn't rate these above 3 stars out 5 and that primarily for the re-enactments and associated psychology discussed.

I found the programs relating to Giovanni Aldini and Peter Stumpp the most interesting as I knew next to nothing about them and it is from this perspective that the programs were of some interest.

'Nuff said...