The Living Dead: A Study of the Vampire in Romantic Literature

by James B. Twitchell

In his Preface to T he Living A Study of the Vampire in Romantic Literature , James Twitchell writes that he is not interested in the current generation of vampires, which he finds "rude, boring and hopelessly adolescent. However, they have not always been this way. In fact, a century ago they were often quite sophisticated, used by artists varied as Blake, Poe, Coleridge, the Brontes, Shelley, and Keats, to explain aspects of interpersonal relations. However vulgar the vampire has since become, it is important to remember that along with the Frankenstein monster, the vampire is one of the major mythic figures bequeathed to us by the English Romantics. Simply in terms of cultural influence and currency, the vampire is far more important than any other nineteenth-century archetypes; in fact, he is probably the most enduring and prolific mythic figure we have. This book traces the vampire out of folklore into serious art until he stabilizes early in this century into the character we all too easily recognize.

Genres: Nonfiction, Vampires, Academic, Literary Criticism

232 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 1981

About the author

James B. Twitchell is an American author and former professor of English, known for his work on advertising, consumer culture, and popular media. He earned his BA, MA, and PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A tenured professor at the University of Florida, Twitchell resigned in 2008 following allegations of plagiarism. Despite this, he remains recognized for his engaging writing style and provocative insights into American cultural and consumer behavior.

Reviews

[Osie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, I really enjoyed this study of early vampire fiction. It is essentially an overview of the development of the vampire novel through the late 18th and 19th centuries. I found the chapter “The Artist as Vampire” especially intriguing.

My only complaint with this work is that I was disappointed that the author did not use a broader selection of vampire fiction in the study. Twitchell only utilized a handful of novels/ novellas, mostly focusing on vampire poetry.

[απέραντος · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bueno, como dicen por ahí, un poco desactualizado y ...... se le va con Freud en los últimos capítulos.
Sin embargo, los tres primeros me han gustado y he aprendido cosas. Regulero, pero bien.

[TammyJo Eckhart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vampires and the living dead have been hot subject for centuries, particularly since the popularity of the 19th century. Therefore a layperson might pick up this book in the hopes of learning something about the history of vampires in literature. Unfortunately, unless you are used to how literary criticism is structured, you are likely to feel lost. Subtitles or headers would have helped the average reader understand when Twitchell is moving from one author's work or from one literary piece to another. Inclusion of more of the text which is being discussed and not just about it would improve this for layperson, scholar, and expert alike. Instead quotations are generally small and focus on adjacent work not the one currently the subject of its own section.

On the scholarly or expert side the book fails in the basic premise of proving that each of the pieces discussed include vampires at all, particularly those of the "living dead" variety. The introduction felt too long; much of the information should have been folded into specific chapters or even the discussion of specific pieces of literature. Likewise the images included in that first chapter didn't do much to prove points; using images increases the cost of production and book sale, so use it wisely.

As a scholar who has studied literary criticism, done a bit of it herself, and loves all things vampire, this book turned out disappointing. I do give it stars for tackling the subjects and investigating the difference between "female" and "male" vampiric figures at all in a world where the masculine dominates discussion and investigation even though that ignores reality.

[Cornerofmadness · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was the text book for the lit class. I have to say I was a little disappointed in it because for one it came out when I was in high school (i.e. a couple decades ago). Old doesn’t necessarily mean bad (well I’m a scientist so it sort of does) but talking to other humanities profs this is a rather outdated view of vampire literature. It’s all very Freudian and uber-man. For one, it tends to read a lot of texts as vampire literature that I would never have considered and frankly, after doing the readings I am unconvinced.

The text is broken down into ‘female vampire,’ ‘male vampire in poetry,’ ‘the vampire as an artist’ and ‘the vampire in prose.’ While I can see arguments for Wuthering Heights as being vampiric at least in the emotional sense, I see the Picture of Dorian Gray more as supernatural than vampiric, ditto the Fall of the House of Usher and Jane Eyre. It’s not a completely uninteresting book but it’s the usual dry literary critique. I’m not sure why anyone would seek it out unless they’re very interested in vampire literature.

[Elisa Enzo · Rating 2 out of 5]

I won't say this book is bad. I can't. But it's not good either.
It is interesting, it helped me researching for my thesis in literature, but some interpretations are just too far-fetched or boringly academical.
Forcing the reader to see Christabel as a male substitute takes away the homoerotic/romantic view from Coleridge's poem, and heavily compromises the link between "Christabel" and "Carmilla", and in other parts it just tries too hard to cling to a vampire stereotype that isn't too deeply researched.
The analysis on "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" made me so nervous I was going to hit something, and I'm not too sure on his view on "The Portrait of Dorian Gray".
It's a good study to start researching, but definitely not enough for someone who really wants to dig into vampire literature, or who already knows a thing or two.

[Bryn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book when I was 12 because it was one of my sister's college textbooks and it was lying around the house. I learned 1) who Coleridge was and 2) that he was gaaay.