Bibliography II

[Fable Wright]

Actually it is more the reverse. In the traditional mythologies of different cultures, there weren't really any vampires (well, I think there was one called a vampire or something close to it, but it was rather different than what is modernly considered to be one). There were however many myths in which creatures drained humans. However, the modern image of a vampire is something of a bastardization of a wide variety of those creatures. As such , when discussing traditional vampires, almost any such creatures could be referenced as being one (in fact almost every culture has some kind of creature considered a vampire in its mythology). Even so, many of those creatures have maintained their own identity in public knowledge, thus generally causing them to be considered different.

Owrtho

Ok, so... you're saying that there's no such thing as a vampire in Bibliography. Glad we got that settled.

Since we established that vampires now no longer exist, instead being succubi/incubi/ghuls/whatever, vampires are now a distinct made up race, with their origins based off the other myths. However, as a whole, they are completely separate from their progenitor species. One of the first references to actual vampires as we see them now, and that continues to shape our belief in vampires, is dracula, possibly the first vampire of the codex. Thus, all of our knowledge stemming off him is an accurate description of the vampire codex, instead of the other codices.