The Complete Book of Vampires

by Leonard Ashley

This provides insight into the role of the vampire in history, literature, and folklore, and seves as an anthology of hard to find vampire tales.

Genres: Nonfiction, Horror

366 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1998

Reviews

[Dark-Draco · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have to be honest and say I was severly disappointed in this book. I bought it from a library sale thinking it would be a good read/reference material, but the whole thing left me cold. The information is arranged in haphazard paragraphs, loosely collected into chapters depending on where in the world the info is gathered from. The trouble is, each paragraph bears no relation to the preceding one or to the ones that follow. It is repetitive, constantly going over the same ground and recommending the authors other books at every turn (I don't think I will be rushing to read them!). The illustrations are good and there is the odd interesting fact, but nothing is explored in any great detail. I read the first chapter and a couple of pages of the second, but became so frustrated with it that I gave up on the rest. Maybe ok if you just want to dip in and out at odd moments, but not something to read all in one go.

[Michael Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

My rating for this book has been up and down like a yoyo throughout the process of reading it. I have finally settled on a 2. Much of the material contained within deserves a 5, but the writing style and errors deserve a 1.

Let's get the bad out of the way first. The author is completely dismissive of material that doesn't fit his particular tastes: the Klaus Kinski 'Nosferatu' receives barbed jibes, despite it being the most eerie and atmospheric vampire film I have ever seen; Jean Rollin's prodigious and influential output goes without a mention; Hong Kong vampire movies, such as the enthralling 'Mr Vampire' are rubbished in a single sentence; Francis Ford Coppola's 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' at first seems to be completely blanked, but is finally addressed in a single word - 'kooky' - in the final chapter. We all have our favourites, but this book is seriously skewed and imbalanced.

As for writing style, the author often tries to be jocular, but instead comes across as sarcastic, snide and sneering. The book does contain a lot of interesting material, but its arrangement is atrocious, most chapters consisting of a random jumble of paragraphs.

Then there are the errors. Some of these are incorrect names, easily put right simply by taking a moment to check facts. They're not one off typos either, as they are invariably repeated several times. We see the book 'Drachenfels' retitled 'Drachenfiel'; Count Magnus is Count Magus throughout; poor old Barnabas Collins becomes Barnaby Collins.

Ashley then goes on to tell us that Kenneth Grant wrote 'Cults of the Shadow' in 1926, when he would have been 2 years old! It was actually published in 1975. Nor is this a typo, as it is used in a discussion of vampire literature in the 1920s. For someone who is supposed to be writing the definitive account of the occult across a series of volumes, this is a blinding error to make concerning one the Twentieth Century's foremost figures.

But there are a lot of interesting facts and figures in here, and pointers toward stories I have not yet encountered which I will now be able to look up. (Provided, of course, these facts are more accurate than some of the others!) The book also contains several excellent and eerie old vampire short stories which are a delight to read. So I can't say I'm sorry to have read it. Nevertheless, wild horses couldn't drag me to another volume in this series!

[F.K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was interesting in places (mostly the extracts from other stories) but there were too many inaccuries and I found the writer's weirdly judgmental commentary/outdated 'humour' grating.
Also, way too many random lists. A way to fill pages perhaps?

[Reese Lightning · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stick with David J. Skal's ”V is for Vampire" instead.

[Jussi Kenkkilä · Rating 1 out of 5]

Confusing chapters with little order, factual errors and repeated text. Plenty of long quotes.

[Tina · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is presumed to be into the supernatural and enjoys writing about them, but I could not have read a more dispassionate book about vampires than this. At every turn the author knocks vampire literature, films and culture, the entire book is merely based on his bias opinion and a few facts thrown in and some short stories from other authors just to fill in the book. It is as though this book was written in a rush.