I am not going to go out of my way to address each and every jab people are throwing here, as I originally intended, but instead, in my own way, try to answer the question as best I can without dragging too far off topic. So forgive me if I cross a point already made or ignore those questions brought up since.
My first experience with the vampire "community" abroad took place about eleven years ago. I was already part of a circle in my local area prior to that, though our ideas as related to the subject were in need of refinement. Initially, I was not seeking enlightenment so much as pursuing playmates with whom I could congregate, sharing my personal philosophies, and seeking so-called donors. I wasn't the least bit interested in the opinions of other practitioners, until much to the surprise of my under-developed ego, I discovered that there were in fact some truly fascinating folks addressing the issues I'd wondered on for some time. As I recall, the conversations had back then were much the same as now as it relates to tribalism, and the idea that forming extensive networks was a thing to be desired, and ultimately, the thing to do. Granted, the networks already existed, but it wasn't enough for the more real-time types whom didn't have access to big cities, and I was certainly one of those unfortunates.
The Sanguinarium, for example, had already been established several years before this point and loads of information, tips, and general guidance in the form of essays and support boards were available to anyone with the desire to see them. Even before any of that came along, there were still published lists spread in the club scene and occult communities by which the like minded chose to connect as standard pen pals, yes, snail mail. And while I did not have the pleasure of being involved with that last bit, or the club scene until later on, I was still vastly intrigued by what had presented itself. It was on that note that I devoured every precious kilobyte of data I could stomach and began to absorb and evaluate, from a distance, what I was witnessing. I distilled what I could and applied it to my own practice, and impressed it on those within my own circle that cared to listen.
Meanwhile, as is ever the climate, more e-lists and groups were popping up than I knew what to do with, and nearly all of them spoke of the same thing: Family. The word was turned out more than a Spanish altar boy, and for a good while, I liked the direction. The idea that people so diverse might one day be so closely hinged together was a romantic one, but over the months and years that followed of watching people talk, and interacting where I could, the reality I began to see spoke to the contrary. Political in-fighting seems to be more popular than unity I guess, which just goes to show that all vampires truly are only human, after all. I don't need to go into great depth here, as any of the readers having an actual stake in this topic most likely already know what happened, and is still happening, to groups with ambitions of creating and maintaining togetherness and tradition - dropping like flies as they normally do. Mind you, I do not mean to imply that such an intent is necessarily an ill-conceived one, though it frequently turns out that way, but rather that I have no faith that those whom claim the title of vampire will be able to resolve their differences anytime soon outside the boundaries of isolated groups.
A main issue that seems to be a poisoning factor, the white elephant in any community board or network, is the diversity of definition to what each considers a vampire to be, or not to be, for that matter. Drawing lines in the sand has taken it's toll, and it happens in large part, because of the need to pigeonhole vampirism to the end that the definition might better serve and apply to individual assuming that title. Everyone wants the word tailored so that it includes them, and conversely, too loose a definition cheapens the feeling of exclusivity and undermines the surety that one is a vampire or even truly part of their chosen group to begin with, much less a Family.
It's a problem, but one that I never had much of an issue with since my definition of vampirism has nothing to do with being exclusive, and rests upon the foundation that it is a practice, not purely a condition, that all can aspire to and work with to the desired ends if properly instructed. I've always see vampirism as an occult technique, a branch of witchcraft, that can serve to cultivate a specific and special consciousness based on philosophic principles duly drawn from the archetype of the vampire. In attaining such a consciousness, I see it as then plausible to refer to oneself as a vampire and not just a dabbler, and that is as far as the cut off goes. The long and the short of it is, I don't have to like you to admit that you are a vampire, but I also reserve the right to reject a definition of vampirism that I view as too skewed, and thusly, reject you as a vampire as well. The point is, that while I acknowledge the validity of differing positions and believe in the need for objective standards, too harsh a glare becomes a gunshot to the foot in the tie-together game.
My proposition then, and it's purely a personal one, is that those with influence and an eye towards "community" be very careful with how they play with the word "vampire". For me, to define a vampire simply as someone whom engages in the ritualistic practice of vampirism is straight forward enough. To bring to the table of modernity the definitions and cues of ancient times is a flawed gesture at best, as the vampire-practitioner of this age has very little in common with the vampire of lore. Things change. Those having aspirations to draw others together for more than a private puppet show need to do away with the personal biases and urges to manipulate the basic format. Such modifications are welcome if you are purely a close-knit group leader, and even more useful if you are a solitary vampire, but the imposition of those personal ideas on others has no place in the repertoire of a successful unifier.
To tie it all up, I think the present state of the "community" resembles an overburdened welfare system. In attempting to be more open, and to take responsibility for how the world will see this subculture - which is noble and worthwhile - I fear that overexposure, no matter the motivation, has actually been a detriment to it. It has opened up networks, which were at one time reasonably guarded and well filtered, to emotional leeches only concerned with satisfying a phase, who effectively wast the time and energy of otherwise enthusiastic and productive community members, which does nothing but diminish the quality of output and intake over all. To me it seems better to not be so open about the information pertaining to affiliations, and to make those who want to be involved in such a community really work to be part of it. Sink or swim. If we are truly concerned with the future of these networks, than it is my opinion that while we must be cordial to onlookers and help where we can, that too much philanthropy in this regard will only serve to fuel the bandwagon mentality and lead to a further recession of the better qualities in those whom are sincere in what they seek for more than a couple weeks. To embrace egalitarianism in this would be a mistake, I think, so let's just let the water seek it's own level. It's just better to do what we can to make it good for the ones who are there, than to waste too much time trying to welcome all the newcomers. To those seekers that make it, then all my blessings, I wish them luck. However, if they do not, then I see no reason to sugarcoat the obvious fact that, as demonstrated though their own failure in action, they possibly shouldn't have been there to begin with.
There is much more in the way of issues that could be dealt with, but since the most prominent to me seemed the ones I've spoken of, I think I'll leave it at that as far as suggestions go. This is all just my opinion after skimming through, so I hope it was of some value.
- D
