“Vampires are good to think with.”

The Vampire: A New History is little more than a string of anecdotes which become increasingly disorganised as the book progresses. Some of these anecdotes are fascinating – vampires’ deadly gaze mirroring that of the basilisk, Arthur Coga’s interspecies blood transfusion, the Catholic Church’s efforts to build an all-encompassing mythos – but the way the text flits from one assertion to another without rhyme or reason, then folds back on itself to repeat points already made, then delves into a subject only tangentially relevant to vampirism can be a little frustrating. Groom talks at length about Frankenstein because of the recurring blood motif, yet he barely skims The Vampyre. He discusses Dracula in the final chapter but his analysis isn’t particularly thorough. I’m curious as to why, after establishing the link between vampire myths and blood libel, as well as noting Count Dracula’s hooked nose and association with money, he’s so eager to dismiss any antisemitic tropes in Dracula as pure coincidence.

The “Conclusion” wasn’t a conclusion at all; rather, a rushed survey of post-Dracula vampire fiction. This ought to have been expanded. Groom already notes Dracula’s significance in the field of vampirology, with distinct pre- and post-Dracula eras of vampire tales. Why not lean into this? It seems natural to (quite literally) centre Dracula, to have the first half of the book detailing what inspired the novel and the second half exploring works that were, in turn, inspired by it.

The Vampire: A New History is not without merit, but it feels like the first draft of what could have been a much stronger book. I can’t decide whether or not I’d recommend it so I’m giving it a middle-of-the-road three star rating.

CONTENT WARNINGS: all the typical vampire stuff (death/undeath, murder, blood), as well as execution, disease, medical experiments, animal cruelty, body horror, racism, antisemitism, and misogyny