I was just chatting with Howard Mackie, and the subject of vampires came up. (He'd just caught an ANGEL rerun he had not previously seen.) This got us talking about the response in some quarters to the portrayal of vampires in the current JLA arc, and the insistence of some that I am getting vampires "wrong".
This got us both thinking about how vampires have been portrayed, in books, movies, comics, and everywhere else. And we could not think of a single coherent portrayal outside one book or series.
"Dracula" gave us what most people think of as the definitive vampire -- but the evening clothes (not tuxedo) wearing gentleman of elegance was an invention of the second stage production (staring Bela Lugosi), not of Bram Stoker's novel. Stoker's Dracula was much more as portrayed in Francis Ford Coppala's film version (minus the weird hair) -- an aged relic who gets younger the more blood he drinks. Stoker's Dracula was also fairly comfortable parading around in daylight.
When Hollywood got hold of the mythos all kinds of elements were introduced that served to make it easier to put the concept on film. The stake thru the heart as a way of "killing" vampires is a Hollywood invention, for instance. In mythology the destruction of a vampire requires a combination of beheading, burning, and scattering ashes -- that last in a specific location -- and the stake is administered only when the vampire is in his coffin, and then to trap , not kill him.
Vampires turning into vampire bats is largely a Hollywood concoction, too. Vampire bats are native to South America, and do not crop up in European legends!
Scooping up his ashes and pouring blood -- preferably viginal -- on them is something that makes for sequels, not restored vampires. The one good thing about the mythology, pre-Hollywood, is that dead vampires tend to stay dead.
The fear of crucifixes is not found in all the legends, either. The cricifix represents the holy things the vampire has turned away from, and the effect would depend mostly on whether the vampire himself believes in the religion behind the symbol.
Recently, we have seen many versions of vampires coming out of Hollywood, and most of them were born out of necessity, rather than lore. Joss Whedon gave us vampires that are really demons inhabiting the husks of dead humans, and who turn instantly (or nearly instantly) to dust when staked (with wood). When Dracula turned up on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (in a particularly disappointing episode, I thought), all kinds of excuses had to be found for the powers with which he had been traditionally invested ("gypsy tricks") but which the standard Buffy-verse vampires lacked. "From Dusk til Dawn" gave us vampires that turn their victims with a single bite, and react to sunlight as if struck by phaser fire.
Some are making much fuss over my vampire biting Superman, when a previous story established that this could not happen without the vampire being consumed by the "sunlight" in Superman's blood -- tho I had done an even earlier story that showed a vampire ripping into Superman's flesh with her claws, and suffering no ill effects from this.
Some have written vampires as "virus infections", which can work if we narrow the definition and eliminate about 99% of the supernatural trappings (turning into bats, mist, wolves, not being able to cross running water or cast a reflection).
In other words, there are just about as many different takes on vampires as there are stories about vampires. In the DC Universe alone we have seen dozens of different vampires. Marvel has given us Dracula biting a cow and producing a vampire cow!!
Vampires, like any other fictional creation, occupy a broad spectrum of conceptualizations, and the only thing that matters is that there be consistency within the storyline . Establish that only Sara Lee poun cake can kill your vampire, and you better not knock him off with a slice of Enteman's chees cake!
Seriously, John, I had no problem with your vampire and find the Superman story where his "sun blood" killed Dracula akin to one of those Silver-Age DC kind of things that are hard to take ("Oh, no! That knockout gas has little tiny bits of Red Sun Kryptonite® in it!")
What fascinates me is that a lot of the old legends of how to dispatch a vampire are nearly as heinous as the vampire itself! Just where did those God-fearing folk get the blood of a virgin anyway (and who qualified it as such, eh?).
My perfect vampire (and please note I have not read JLA #94 yet, so no slight to JB's vamps is implied or intended) would be cobbled from several of the legends.
-He was at one time human, and became a vampire not from merely being bitten, but from himself consuming vampire blood at some point before death.
-He is NOT restored to humanity if his "sire" is killed.
-He does not cast a reflection, but can enter homes freely without the invitation of it's owner.
-Stake through the heart does the trick, but no dusting here. If you merely stake the vamp, you leave the door open for resurrection if you do not do something to destroy the corpse. Sunlight does the trick nicely, causing spontaneous combustion of any area exposed to sunlight.
-Holy water has no effect, and crosses make them uncomfortable, but do no physical damage.
-No transformations! I don't care if it's bat, wolf, mist, rats, rabbits, fish, puppies...nada!
Fascinating! So, does anyone know the source of 1) the garlic business, and 2) the whole silver thing, as figured prominently in the Blade movie? Something tells me that, like the stake through the heart, these items came out of Hollywood.
1) the garlic business, and 2) the whole silver thing, as figured prominently in the Blade movie?
*****
Earliest sources I have found have a much more specific use for the garlic than what we tend to see in movies these days. A string of garlic bulbs hung around a sword that has been thrust thru a keyhole would traditionally trap a vampire in the room behind that door (assuming no windows or other means of egress).
As near as I can tell, the silver business seems to come from melting down crosses made of silver to make bullets and whatnot. As we know, silver is more traditionally the enemy of the werewolf, not the vampire -- tho about 99% of werewolf "legend" was invented out of the whole cloth by Curt Siodmak for the Lon Chaney movie "The Wolfman".
"What fascinates me is that a lot of the old legends of how to dispatch a vampire are nearly as heinous as the vampire itself! Just where did those God-fearing folk get the blood of a virgin anyway (and who qualified it as such, eh?)."
Dave, I think John was talking about resurrecting a Vampire (Hollywood/Hammer style) with this method, not dispatching one.
What little I have read indicates spreading ashes or burying the vampire at a crossroads. NOT because the crossroads represent the cross, but because the choices in paths will confuse the vampire.
There's a good book that just looks at the old Slavic mythologies at Barnes & Noble on sale. I need to go back and get it (and the Greek, Egyptian and Celtic books.
Shape changers...Wizards, Sorcerers, Shamans etc... a magic animal pelt belt was involved for the change.
The "Classic" werewolf legend was a movie invention...
as JB said.... There are as many different vampire legends as their are cultures in this world and they are all extremely different from one another.
A good fiction book series on Vampires is the Necroscope series by Brian Lumley..much better then the Goth trendy Ann Rice homo-erotic version that pop culture is stuck on today....
I've had absolutely no problem with JB's use of vampires in his Superman stories.
On the other hand, I thought the issue of SUPERMAN where he is bitten by Dracula, who is then destroyed by all the ultraviolet radiation in Superman's blood, was just plain dumb. 21 pages of set-up with a "clever" punchline on page 22. Definitely NOT one of Jeph Loeb's better works.
When it comes to the vampire lore, I tend to ignore most of the Hollywood stuff and stick closely to what Stoker established in his novel and the stuff I like from traditional folklore. I like vampires with supernatural powers, and I prefer them to be twisted, perverted, corrupted versions of the people they had been when they were alive. (I'm not a big fan of the "Buffy" and "Angel" demon-in-a-dead-human-body stuff, I'm afraid.)
I'm also a HUGE fan of Marvel's THE TOMB OF DRACULA series, and I feel it was the absolute best treatment of the character aside from the original novel.
If and when I write another Dracula project, I'll follow the "rules" of vampirism as established by Stoker, and the personality of Dracula as established by Marv Wolfman.
Glenn Greenberg
This message has been edited by GlennGreenberg on Mar 24, 2004 5:24 PM This message has been edited by GlennGreenberg on Mar 24, 2004 5:23 PM
Ahh, I've made the point elsewhere that not only is Superman a solar battery, but that every living thing on this planet is a solar battery.
All energy comes from the sun, whether we consume it second hand from the flesh of animals and plants, or whether it's absorbed through our skin as warmth. Superman may be more efficient as absorbing it, and carry a greater charge, but we all should have sunlight in our blood, if Superman does.
One of the things I enjoy about every new incarnation of Vampires is figuring out which selection the authors have made from the smorgasbord of myths and traits. I don't look for consistency between instances, just within the story.
____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.
. . . the personality of Dracula as established by Marv Wolfman.
********
Better check out the "Dracula" TV movie (1973), directed by Dan Curtis, written by Richard Matheson, and starring Jack Palance, before you hand too much credit to Marv.
It's interesting how malleable the belief systems of super heroes can be in comics. Most super heroes believe in aliens (heck, everyone from The Flash to Daredevil has fought em, not just Green Lantern and Superman). Yet many heroes seem more traditionally oriented when it comes to the supernatural. Heroes try to find explanations to justify "magic" (The Flash frequently figured out that it was futuristic technology of foes like Abra Kadabra or Mazdan or Professor Zoom that made something magical "appear" to happen; this was regularly the same routine with the JLA, who seemed to encounter lots of apparent witchcraft and magic which was later proven to be the work of aliens or villains using exotic weapons.)
I've always felt vampires fall under the rubric of the supernatural or occult, so it's interesting to see how superhero conventions seem to change when they are confronted by a truly supernatural villain like a vampire, as opposed to a charlatan.
On the other hand, Superman frequently seems to have to deal with supernatural or "magical" villains, like Mxylxptlk (sp?) and never gives them another thought. Perhaps he's so powerful it has been difficult for writers over the years to properly challenge him without invoking that supernatural or magical element more often.
Anyway, that's really neither here nor there regarding my list, but I wrote it anyway.
1) Tomb of Dracula by Wolfman / Colan / Palmer. So many great issues, I submit this one collectively.
2) Baron Blood in Captain America 253, 254. Simple tale, elegantly told. Marvelous Byrne art.
3) Detective 455. Atypically creepy one-shot Denny O'neil tale, Batman versus a vampire (Gustav Decobra) and only about 12 pages, if memory serves. Grell art captures the scary atmosphere and angles of a haunted house and vampire story unlike any Batman I've read. While Batman is usually a lot more scientific and less prone to supernatural and occult-related beliefs, this story just dives in to vampire mythos and Batman doesn't spend a minute trying to disprove Decobra is really a vampire (probably more a function of the story's short length.)
4) Dell Dracula (circa 1964) The crude story and art played well on this youngster's eyes (and imagination...I checked under my bed for months).
5) X-Men 157 (I think). Claremont and Bill S. tackle Dracula tackling the X-Men. Not perfect, but the sequence where Kitty finds everyone's neck bitten was memorable.
6) Conan The Barbarian 101-103. Big John Buscema's more naturalistic (but untraditional) take on the vampire legend in Cimmerian times is mesmerizing and different.
7) About a million EC comics... one of my faves, though, is the story where a vampire unknowingly falls in love with a ghoul, leading to...interesting...results.
That was the problem I always had with Scully on "X-Files". This woman was raped by Leprechauns and she still greeted Mulder's every notion with disdain. That's not a skeptic -- that's an imbecile!
<<Some have written vampires as "virus infections", which can work if we narrow the definition and eliminate about 99% of the supernatural trappings (turning into bats, mist, wolves, not being able to cross running water or cast a reflection).>>
Just to be a pest, I reiterate that Garfield Logan is proof positive that viral infections can indeed give you the ability to turn into bats or wolves. QED
Yeah, I know that this particular character is not a supernatural vampire, but, he's one of my favorites. Morbius The Living Vampire, one of Spider-Man's best foes.
Sorry, I'm not able to upload an image at the moment.
That was the problem I always had with Scully on "X-Files". This woman was raped by Leprechauns and she still greeted Mulder's every notion with disdain. That's not a skeptic -- that's an imbecile!
---------------------------------
Just to be a pest, I reiterate that Garfield Logan is proof positive that viral infections can indeed give you the ability to turn into bats or wolves. QED
My favorite version of Vampires is the ones in the Anne Rice books. Lestat is the coolest vampire ever. As for the Vampire in the JLA book I wish people would stop looking at the past and just focus on the story that is being told right in front of them. I guess some people like to find fault in everything.
As for the Vampire in the JLA book I wish people would stop looking at the past and just focus on the story that is being told right in front of them.
*******
It's not so much the focusing on the past that annoys me, it's the way they focus selectively . As I noted, there is much griping that my story apparently ignores the Superman/Dracula story, but not much griping that the Superman/Dracula story ignored the Skeeter story.
Apparently "ignoring the past" is bad only when I do it. . .
They're not. Not even close. Best to just coast along with each story as it comes, and coast along with the next one in its turn.
Continuity, as I have often said, means Superman is from Krypton and should always be from Krypton, not that Superman dresses left because he seemed to dress left in a story done in 1946.
JB: "Better check out the "Dracula" TV movie (1973), directed by Dan Curtis, written by Richard Matheson, and starring Jack Palance, before you hand too much credit to Marv."
I did watch that, at the suggestion of Tom Palmer, about 10 years ago. I was pretty bored by it, to be honest--in fact, I think I dozed off at one point.
I didn't see much correlation between Palance's Dracula and Marv's, although I know that Gene Colan based his visual for Dracula on Palance's face--and this was two years BEFORE Palance was even cast in the role! Who knew Colan was so good at casting? :-)
Anyway, I'm happy to give Marv the credit--he wrote Dracula for almost 10 years and I feel he developed the character in ways that had not been done before or since.
Glenn Greenberg
This message has been edited by GlennGreenberg on Mar 24, 2004 10:56 PM
Many have touted "Bram Stoker's Dracula" as the most faithful film version of Stoker's novel. I often wonder if these people read the same novel I did. The Count in the novel I read was never a romantic figure and the whole "vampire meets ancient lover reincarnated in modern day" has been rehashed in so many vampire films I am surprised Coppola even resorted to that bit. In the first part of the Coppola film, we have a Count who feeds babies to his brides and cackles over it, then later he is a romantic lead? Feh!
I think the whole "love never dies" motif in the Coppola film may be a touch of BWS (Biological Webshooter Syndrome): "I know this wasn't part of the source material but I think......"
Sigh.
I would recommend a film titled simply "Count Dracula" and starred Christopher Lee as the count (not to be confused with his Hammer performances as the count) which was fairly faithful to the novel as I remember it.
I would hold "Count Dracula" up to "Bram Stoker's Dracula" in much the same way one might hold "A Night To Remember" up to Cameron's "Titanic"
"Many have touted "Bram Stoker's Dracula" as the most faithful film version of Stoker's novel. I often wonder if these people read the same novel I did. The Count in the novel I read was never a romantic figure and the whole "vampire meets ancient lover reincarnated in modern day" has been rehashed in so many vampire films I am surprised Coppola even resorted to that bit. In the first part of the Coppola film, we have a Count who feeds babies to his brides and cackles over it, then later he is a romantic lead?"
I think the whole "love never dies" motif in the Coppola film may be a touch of BWS (Biological Webshooter Syndrome): "I know this wasn't part of the source material but I think......"
-------------------------------------------
You may find this interesting. Back in 1997, I attended a Dracula seminar in celebration of the novel's 100th anniversary, and the speakers included James V. Hart and Leonard Wolf, the screenwriter and technical advisor, respectively, for Coppola's film.
I spoke to each of them individually at one point or another, and told them (respectfully, of course) that I strongly disagreed with the decision to turn Dracula into a tragic, romantic figure instead of the personification of evil that he was in the novel.
Wolf told me that he completely agreed with me, that he felt that Dracula should always be portrayed as evil and NOT a heroic character. But he was just the technical advisor and had no real say over the script.
Even Hart seemed to agree with me! He said, "I understand where you're coming from. But if we didn't do it the way we did, there wouldn't have been any film! The studio's position was, 'Dracula has been done dozens of times already--why would we want to remake it?' So we had to tell the story in a NEW way (while staying as faithful to the novel as we could)."
I know, I know--a lot of what was done in the Coppola version had already been done in the Palance version. But I wasn't going to tell him that. I was already letting him know that I didn't like his film, I didn't want to hit him over the head with it by insinuating that he was just ripping off another film. He seemed to be a really nice guy.
"I would recommend a film titled simply "Count Dracula" and starred Christopher Lee as the count (not to be confused with his Hammer performances as the count) which was fairly faithful to the novel as I remember it."
--------------------------------------------
It was faithful to the novel for the first 20 minutes or so, and then proceeded to jump right off the rails--just as much as the first Hammer film did, as I recall.
It was a VERY low budget film, directed by notorious schlockmeister (and occasional pornographer) Jess Franco.
"Dracula" is a classic example of how one medium so often cannot successfully convert to another. One of the creepiest moments in the book is when Harker, looking down from his window, sees Dracula emerge from a similar opening further down the side of the castle, and proceed head first down the wall much as a bat might. In the book the scen gave me the willies like few scenes ever have -- but the couple of times I've seen it filmed, the count comes off as a half-assed Spider-Man.
As is so often the case, Hollywood fails when it literalizes.
I finally got my copy of JLA 94 today. Very fun stuff. I must ask JB. Who came up with the name Crucifer? Just when I thought the really good character names were all used up, here comes a brand new classic. It's been a VERY long time since a character name alone gave me the creeps!
Has anyone seen the TV film with Louis Jourdan(sp?)? As far as I recall, it was very faithful to the book(except for Jourdan's appearance...although he did have his nails cut to a point, and hairy palms...don't laugh..LOL)...it also, actually gave me the willies in some spots.
On a similar note, when the Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for the wolf releases into Yellowstone National Park, one of the research topics for the EIS was "were-wolves." Of course, everyone knew it was crap, but the Dept. of the Interior wanted to have every base covered because the issue was so controversial. Funny. I'm trying to track down the report, and will post if I can find it.
"The only artists I have ever known, who are personally delightful, are bad artists. Good artists exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are."--Lord Henry Wotton
The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
by Gabriel Ronway is a pretty nifty examination of vampire lore, ritual and how it was formulated throughout time and place. A big focus in the book is Elisabeth Bathory, who had a big influence on shaping the myth.
My favorite vampire novel: CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT by Dan Simmons...the scientific take on the legend.
"One of the creepiest moments in the book is when Harker, looking down from his window, sees Dracula emerge from a similar opening further down the side of the castle, and proceed head first down the wall much as a bat might. In the book the scen gave me the willies like few scenes ever have..."
(((shudders involuntarily))) I remember that part. Truly a good example of when good filmography cannot match good literature and wordsmithing.
Stokers novel does have some truly creepy parts. The sections of the book that always freaked me out were the sections with Renfield in the asylum and his ritualistic diet.
I noted over in the JLA thread that there's a good reference book on all things vampire, 'The Vampire Encyclopedia' by Matthew Bunson. Not sure if it's still in print, but it does go a long way to showing that vampires aren't just a European or Hollywood thing.
. . . vampires aren't just a European or Hollywood thing.
*******
Indeed they are not! The Far East has some of the creepiest vampires conjoured by the human imagination -- tho since they do not fit the Dracula mold I guess they are "wrong", huh?
That was the problem I always had with Scully on "X-Files". This woman was raped by Leprechauns and she still greeted Mulder's every notion with disdain. That's not a skeptic -- that's an imbecile!
=====================
For me The X-Files is a classic example of something outliving its basic premises. It began with a Quest: would Mulder prove the existence of aliens? and as a counterpoint, would Scully's disbelief be overcome? Well before the end of the second season we (and they) had seen enough to settle both questions, and the show really had nowhere left to go.
This message has been edited by juswuh on Mar 25, 2004 8:07 AM
The X-Files is a classic example of something outliving its basic premises. It began with a Quest: would Mulder prove the existence of aliens? and as a counterpoint, would Scully's disbelief be overcome? Well before the end of the second season we (and they) had seen enough to settle both questions, and the show really had nowhere left to go.
******
Curiously, tho, I was never aware of a lot of "X-Files" fans complaining about this lack of "growth".
Hmmm, all this talk of vampires and not one mention of "Dark Shadows" yet..? Well, until now that is.
That was my first exposure to vampires and things that go bump in the night. (And I'm talking of the original soap, not the idiotic remake a few years back.) Yes, it was cheesy, but it was still fun and suitably creepy. At least to an impressionable 7 year old in 1970....
That show, more than just straight sci-fi or anything else, probably helped to shape what I enjoy reading in terms of novels. Not just the horror aspect, but the entire fantasy genre, so to speak. (And, yes, comics helped tremendously as well.) It was also my first exposure to "time travel" when they set storylines hundreds of years in the past that were tied to the present.
The X-Files is a classic example of something outliving its basic premises. It began with a Quest: would Mulder prove the existence of aliens? and as a counterpoint, would Scully's disbelief be overcome? Well before the end of the second season we (and they) had seen enough to settle both questions, and the show really had nowhere left to go.
******
Curiously, tho, I was never aware of a lot of "X-Files" fans complaining about this lack of "growth".
>>
I wish there were "lack of growth." We did get too much plot advancement (honestly, the quest to discover if alien life could go on for years, not be proven conclusively within a year or so).It's similar to to when Marvel killed Spider-Man. A teen hero who lives with his elderly aunt and can never sustain a relationship because of his alter ego is a different character from an adult who lives with a gorgeous woman who serves as his confidante.
X-Files reminds me of a lot of comics that "killed the golden egg." As a sort of anthology series in which these two FBI agents investigate the paranormal each week, it had the potential to be the next Law & Order (and could have even survived a cast change). However, it became so much of a soap opera that it just fell apart upon itself (and what exactly did the aliens want again?). It's interesting that, when I watch old episodes, I much prefer the standalones to the conspiracy episodes.
Oh, and I do think it's interesting that what happened to Scully was not paranormal. Wasn't it stated conclusively that the government abducted her? Not aliens?
That was my first exposure to vampires and things that go bump in the night. (And I'm talking of the original soap, not the idiotic remake a few years back.)
One man's "idiotic remake" is another man's gold. I loved the sadly-canceled-before-it's-time early 90s remake of DARK SHADOWS. I'm a big fan of the original as well. I don't think you have to denigrate one to prove you're a real fan of the other.
That said, if you're not a fan of remakes then stear clear of The WB's remake of DARK SHADOWS this fall:
I really enjoyed the Anne Rice take on the vampire society. "Interview with a Vamppire", "The Vampire Lestat", "Queen of the Damned" and "The Body Thief" presented a very structured and I thought, well done community of Vampyre. It was a new take for me when I read it and i found I enjoyed this brand of Vampire more than any other. I'm curious to see where John takes the JLA vamps. I was also disappointed when the second issue didn't come out yesterday, I thought it was every two weeks...-Rick
I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a show now? Because I enjoyed the original as much as I did, I watched every episode of the remake, despite the fact I didn't like it. I kept hoping it would improve and it unfortunately didn't. I called it "idiotic" because, as far as I'm concerned, it felt to me as if they "dumbed it down" as compared to what the original was like... Again, that's just my opinion. If you liked the show, fine. I'm glad someone did.
As for the upcoming remake, I'm definitely going to watch it and I'll form an opinion after watching at least a year's worth of episodes.
I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a show now? Because I enjoyed the original as much as I did, I watched every episode of the remake, despite the fact I didn't like it. I kept hoping it would improve and it unfortunately didn't. I called it "idiotic" because, as far as I'm concerned, it felt to me as if they "dumbed it down" as compared to what the original was like... Again, that's just my opinion. If you liked the show, fine. I'm glad someone did.
I guess I was only one of a handful of people that liked it, 'cause it was canceled so quickly!
I've got no problem with opinions, obviously. I just thought tagging the 90s remake/update with "idiotic" was a tad harsh. It didn't feel dumbed down at all to me. The story was still there, the production value was incredible, and the acting was superb. It might have found an audience if it had aired after THE X-FILES and BUFFY found its niche.
I also enjoyed the remake of Dark Shadows. The whole family gathered every week to watch it together. Just as we had watched the reruns of the original after school everyday. I like them both and hope the new version does well.
Indeed they are not! The Far East has some of the creepiest vampires conjoured by the human imagination -- tho since they do not fit the Dracula mold I guess they are "wrong", huh?
Has there ever been a comic book story depicting any of these Asian-type vampires? Maybe with the Korean "agashi" featured in JLA, an Asian vampire-hunting expedition is in order...
Not many years ago, a friend of mine, gave as a gift a hardcover Dracula novel, I read it and I savour it page by page every night right before to sleep, always with my bedroom’s door closed. The morning after finished the novel, I was suddenly awaked... There was a bat in the house and it was in my parent’s bedroom, in fact, it chooses my mother’s back as landing platform. Later that day after being sure nobody was bitted or scratched by the bat I realized, if that little thing had been in my bedroom...
Victor Manuel Fernandez Patiño
Somewhere in Mexico city (but close enough to small caves)
Detective 455. Atypically creepy one-shot Denny O'neil tale, Batman versus a vampire (Gustav Decobra) and only about 12 pages, if memory serves. Grell art captures the scary atmosphere and angles of a haunted house and vampire story unlike any Batman I've read. While Batman is usually a lot more scientific and less prone to supernatural and occult-related beliefs, this story just dives in to vampire mythos and Batman doesn't spend a minute trying to disprove Decobra is really a vampire (probably more a function of the story's short length.) 
Well, until now that is.
