In the "True Vampirism" thread still currently active, the question is posed what our opinions are regarding the actual definiiton of this term. Many there, especially those claiming to be "true vampires," have opined that the definition is entirely relative to the individual "vampire," that so long as the vampire metaphor is somehow involved of "feeding" from others in some way, the term "vampire" is just as valid as any other. For them, whatever works that can still allow you to be identified as such in your own mind is all that counts. Never mind that the same definition for a fictional "vampire" also states first and foremost that you must first be ... dead. This, they say, doesn't really matter as they choose not to "own" that part of the definition.
Of course by this same logic of needing only the emulation of a single trait to qualify one as something they're not, we can make some very interesting arguments. By such logic applied to, say, the definition of a "Star Wars" wookie, anyone with a long beard could conceivably call themselves such. And anyone who can intone the word "moo," can likewise call themselves a cow. I mean, if emulating only a single trait of the definition of a fictional vampire is sufficient to creat of the Human a "true vampire," of what point is there to attempting to define a "vampire" at all?
I guess what I'm really asking is simply this: Should a desire to be viewed as a "vampire" justify the willing reinvention and redefinition of the term "vampire" itself so as to have it conform to Human parameters such that anyone willing to drink a little blood and/or presume psychic ability can so label themselves? Should such arguably self-serving narcissism be permitted to prevail over and wholly obfuscate actual historical scrutiny and scholarship into who and what the actual "vampire" of history might have been... and might still be?
Looking forward to others' views on this.
- Upir'
