I am a die hard Anne Rice fan, and an insurance executive. To pick up a book that purports to be written about her fans, and see only the bloodsuckers, goths and sub/doms was not a real picture of who her fans are.

Anne Rice's fans are moms and dads, teenagers, and goths. Her fans probably represent every single type of person in the world. She receives fan mail from Catholic priests, as well as those who want to become immortal. Doctors, lawyers and waitresses read Sleeping Beauty. Anne Rice has become mainstream - her work is not on the fringe of anything and neither are most of her fans.

So, my opinion was that the fans that were interviewed and published in the book attempted to put limits on a woman's work whose appeal is absolutely limitless.

This book gives an interesting glance into the world of Anne Rice fans; however, it may either affirm or disprove the notion that her fans are "weirdos." The book features college students, accountants, writers, exotic dancers, make-up artists, etc. While it features intriguing people from all walks of life, I don't believe it's an entirely accurate view of her fans, and I feel that the book still tries to perpetuate a certain fan stereotype, as though reading Anne Rice makes you estranged from the rest of society.

As a previous reviewer noted, Anne Rice is mainstream. Admitting you are a fan is not a taboo like declaring you are a dominatrix. There are fans who never made it to the ARVLFC balls when they were still going on; there are fans who have no interest in exploring New Orleans outside of the books; and there are fans who detest "Goth" culture but still devour every single book Rice releases. It would have been a far more representative book had it featured a larger diversity of fans. I have met prudes who are uneasy watching kissing scenes on television, yet they read the books over and over again without flinching. Now, if that isn't a testament of Rice's enormous talent and gift, I don't know what is.

However, the book is still wonderfully constructed. The photographs are nothing short of superb, the fan accounts a delight to read, and one really does walk away feeling that maybe those stereotypes are wrong.

Jana Marcus did Anne Rice fans a favor by putting this book together. She showed us that we are "normal" (even if the rest of society/literary world doesn't appreciate Anne Rice and her writings.) When the average reader thinks of Anne Rice fans, s/he has the image that the fans pagans, eccentrics and just plain weird. (Usually these are folks that only know the author by her reputation only.) In the Shadow of the Vampire dispells this myth is dispelled. In one book, Jana Marcus has been able to show there is a large cross section of society that calls itself "Anne Rice fans." These fans DO NOT fit neatly into a mold as others would prefer, rather they make their OWN mold. I know, I'm in the book.

I've enjoyed Katherine Ramsland's other works immensely so I'm greatly disappointed with this book. Applying scientific method to the legend of the vampire is a stretch at best, but applying it to the ever-evolving fictional vampire as well, is pointless. The book tends to be disorganized, moving from the subjects of science, vampire fiction, psychology and criminology in a space of a few pages. Too often I find myself reliving sophomore Bio-Chem during an explanation of how a vampire's metabolism/ brain/ nervous system must work. Too often I find myself re-reading accounts of blood drinking serial killers. Too often do I find myself putting the book down because I've lost interest. I'm just not finding anything new here. A much better analysis of the psychological aspects of vampires in pop culture was done in Maritn V. Riccardo's, "Liquid Dreams of Vampires." "The Science of Vampires" tends to beat the subject to death. The call-out text blocks were the last insult to continuity.

Ms. Ramsland is a wonderful writer and vastly intelligent forensic psychologist. However, I would recommend this book only for the absolute die-hard vampire enthusiasts. For others, I would advise skipping it altogether in favor of "Piercing the Darkness: Undercover with Vampires in America Today." This was a much more though analysis of the subject and offered much more information.

The biggest problem with Katherine Ramsland's treatise The Science of Vampires is that the author takes herself - and her subject matter - way too seriously. With this book, she tries to provide a modern explanation for vampires, all the while trying to discover whether or not vampires could really exist in today's world. That in itself isn't all that bad. It's when it comes to the validation of her arguments that the book falters into ludicracy.

She argues that Dracula must have been a real person because there is a lot of "proof" in the book that supports this argument? What kind of proof? Well, it is never really explained, as Ramsland loses focus and starts rambling on about all the different components of vampires. This is the question that opens the book, and that question is never answered.

She also tries to pin every societal ill on the vampire culture. Sadomasochism, murder, sadism, violence, skin and blood diseases... all of them end up linked to vampires. She also calls many infamous serial killers vampires. Who knew that Dahmer was a vampire! Who knew that Jack The Ripper was a vampire! Who knew that Ed Gein was a vampire!

Ramsland'S scope is much too wide, and she tries to incoroporate way too much here. Instead of keeping her research narrow and basing herself on literature and the so-called real-life historical vampires like Elizabeth Bathory and Vlad Tsepesh (who were both the inspiration for Stoker's Dracula, no matter what Ramsland tries to make you believe!), she keeps it so broad that she too often loses herself in the process.

As a pop-cultre analysis, the book does shed some light on some of the questions one could ask himself about the vampire legend. The book's best moments comes when she discusses Anne Rice's novels, or Bram Stoker and his Dracula, or the different books/movies/television shows that were either part of or influenced by the vampire culture. As a pop-culture analysis, the book does have some legitimacy.

If you are looking for solid facts and answers, you won't find them in this book. I can't say that I enjoyed reading The Science of Vampires, and I don't think you will either.

I thought this book was very insightful and original compare to the other horrible vampire books out there. It's a great idea to put the "science" into one of the oldest myths of mankind. Great job!

I will admit that this book was hard to put down, but this was only due to the fact that i wanted some answers that i unfortunately never got. The book keeps you on your toes with far-fetched ghost tales and interviews with the dead, but then drags you along with numerous history lessons that are used for page fillers. Although there are some very interesting happenings during her story, its like the author is very repetitive in what she is saying, feeding the reader the same stories, only telling them using different words. If i would have known how the book ended i would have never read it.

The book was pretty good. The end was disappointing. I was hoping to get some answers
but they never came. But I had a lot of fun reading the book.
Katherine gets a ring from Wraith. Wraith is supposed to be a vampire. He says
that Christian a ghost is attached to the ring. Christian is supposed to be evil. Throughout
the book she tries to find out how Christian died and if he really evil. She visits a lot of
ghost towns to find answers. She visits a lot of mediums who supposedly can talk with
ghosts. They tell her all different things. She goes to ghost hunter meetings and learns a
lot. She learns how to communicate with ghosts. It does not always work and the answers
are not always clear. But little by little she gets more information.
I don¡¦t know if I believe in ghosts or not, but I had a lot of fun reading this book.
Some parts where really scary. The language was pretty easy with some difficult words.
The most words I didn¡¦t understand where equipment they used for ghost hunting.
The only person that is really good developed is Katherine. There a lot of people
in this book you know nothing or little about. The whole book is focused on the Ghost
Christian and you never really find out what his character is. Because Katherine is trying
to find out the character of Christian she also finds a lot out about herself.
Like I said before I¡¦m not sure if I believe in ghosts. And still the book comes
over real. If you believe in ghosts it is real for you, if you don¡¦t you might have doubts.
For me it¡¦s pretty real but I have a fear for ghosts anyway.
The end I didn¡¦t like because It didn¡¦t give me the answers I wanted to have. But maybe
you don¡¦t mind. I think she made a good end for the information she had. But it was kind
of disappointed.
If you like to just read about ghosts and find some practical stuff out you should read it.
But if you wand answers on the questions I would not read it because you will get
disappointed.

I had never read any books on ghosts or ghost hunting, I really wasn't expecting much. I was blown away. You really start to feel for Katherine, and you feel like you are right there with her. I really liked the fact that she gives names of other authors and ghost hunters, so you could find out more information on ghosts and ghost hunters.
I am definately going to look into more of Katherine's books!

This book is interesting to read, but it is *not* an accurate representation of real vampires. It's far more representative of the "vampyre lifestyle", nightclub and "party scene", BDSM and dark fetish, and flamboyant, attention-seeking people who are only vampires in their own minds.

"Vampirism is not a world. It's not a lifestyle. It's not a fetishism. It's something you are born as. Drinking blood doesn't make you a Vampire, nor does acting like one and being "vampyric". -- Quote from an elist.

I've had it with so-called non-fiction writings about real vampires and vampirism which do not portray an accurate representation of the life or individuals. Of course, it's the attention-seekers who are the ones who always get into these writings (as well as talk shows). I wish people would start making an effort to give an accurate account of such things.

We don't need any more outsiders looking in.

I'd say this book is way overrated. I would not recommend it unless you're someone who doesn't really care about learning anything real about the vampire community and just want to read something for entertainment. If you want facts, do a web search for real vampires. There are plenty of good sites with accurate information from those who KNOW what they are talking about because they are a part of it.

I'd seen ads for this book for a while, playing up the fact that it was a 'True Crime' book. If you want to read it for that reason, skip it. Ramsland starts of looking for a missing reporter, but then goes in a completely different direction. At times over a hundred pages go by without a single mention of the missing woman. Ramsland doesn't turn up any new information. When a person disappears in New York you don't end up in San Francisco, Paris, New Orleans, etc unless there was something pointing you there.

Now, what the book actually is is a interesting look into parts of the Vampire subculture. She talks to quite a number of interesting people, though the section on "Wraith" was much too long.

One complaint about the book: you would think that in her home Ramsland has an altar to Anne Rice. Rice's name gets dropped every few pages. Yes, we know you are close to Rice. You've written her biography, multiple books about her books. You don't have to keep bringing her up, no matter how much she has comtributed to the culture. What is the point in going to a conference, mentioning the famous people attending, then specifically mentioning that Rice woldn't be attending? So what?

A decent book, and it lets you see some insight in a subculture many would never realize it is there, let along get to see.

Ramsland's name should be familiar to fans of Anne Rice; she's the author of THE VAMPIRE COMPANION and PRISM OF THE NIGHT: A BIOGRAPHY OF ANNE RICE among others. In PIERCING THE DARKNESS, though, Ramsland moves somewhat beyond her academic interest in the Great Mother of the Vampires into the shadowy world of "real" vampires in America. And if a fault can be found with this book, I believe it's here at the most fundamental level, when Ramsland fails to define her terms to a degree which I could find satisfying. Ostensibly she has chosen to follow in the footsteps of another journalist, Susan Walsh, who disappeared in 1996 while investigating vampire cults in Manhattan. However it seems clear to me that Walsh is something of an excuse for Ramsland, and understandably so, since Walsh's story is a cautionary one. Using it as a foundation for her own investigation would be an aid in walking the fine line between investigative journalism and actually becoming involved in the subculture of America's vampires. Unfortunately it's hard to get a fix on Ramsland, and perhaps that's not a bad thing for a journalist in her position who should remain professionally non-judgmental, but I found it disturbing never to know quite what her position was in terms of what constitutes a "real" vampire as opposed to a poseur. Indeed, she has a discussion along these lines with another investigator, but I found no answer there either.

Never mind all that, though, because the book itself is eminently readable and the subject matter fascinating to anyone who enjoys vampires in film and literature. I would strongly caution readers with delicate sensibilities to give this book a pass, though, since it deals with some very disturbing subject matter: descriptions of blood-letting, sexuality which some consider highly deviant, accounts of body modification and the like all serve to make this book a walk on the dark side. Ramsland is innately honest and doesn't flinch from the grotesque or bloody, nor from describing it, though without recourse to sensationalism. And she writes sympathetically about the people she encounters, never putting herself above or beyond them in any way. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the book is her own responses to what she uncovers, her fascination with and willingness to enter this milieu.

For those who find the subject worth investigating further, Ramsland provides a good bibliography, and an excellent list of vampire resources both on and off the net. For my money this book is a fascinating read and well worth your time if you're a vampire aficionado. Highly recommended.