The ending disappointed me a bit. Not only was it unexpected for me that it was so easy for them to get rid of Dracula, but it seemed too cliche for my liking. They killed him and all got happily married and lived happily ever after. But don't they bear some scars or emotional hardships from what they went through? Or they just fall back into their previous stages in life before any of this happened? Mina reverts to the perfect example of Victorian womanhood she was, no longer infused with any evil whatsoever, and most of the men that weren't already paired up found wives and moved on with their lives unscathed, (even Arthur Holmwood, whose fiance turned into a vampire and required his assistance in driving a stake through her heart as well as further mutilation of her corpse). It all seemed unrealistic to me (granted the story is about monsters and it is already unrealistic). I just feel like the way the plot details were wrapped up and a big ribbon plopped on top of them was disappointing and too similar to the ending of a fairy tale, which Dracula definitely was not.
As a whole, though, I enjoyed the novel. The overall feel I received of Victorian England was satisfying. Christine Ferguson discusses the culture and Victorian context more in depth in her article at http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/journals/elh/v071/71.1ferguson.html. The roles women and men were 'supposed' to play in that time period brought out the Victorian culture that I sought after learning about when I began reading this book. An article by Eric Kwan-Wai Yu sums up some more of the main themes and implications of the novel in detail; the link is http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/journal/texas_studies_in_literature_and_language/v048/48.2yu.html .
My expectations for Dracula himself and his coherence with the common image of Dracula I was used to hearing about were matched for the most part, although I did expect him to put up more of a fight at the end/throughout the novel. He didn't come off as the all-powerful being he was made out to be in the stories I'd heard. I guess the good guys finish first in this case.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Chapters XXII-XXVII (End of Book)
It turns out that Renfield was pressured by Dracula into obeying him, and he was not inherently aligned with Dracula as I had suspected. Dracula ends up killing him because of his incoherence with his wishes and his attempt to fight back.
Mina's superiority for a woman shines through again in her idea to have herself hypnotized in order for the men to get information about the whereabouts and plans of Dracula. This idea of Mina's leads the men to Dracula, like a horse being led to water. She is the main reason that their journey was successful. I think, in Mina, Stoker was creating the ideal woman of the Victorian time. He makes her loyal to the men and humankind throughout the novel, intelligent, and clever/able to work through problems. This is in contrast to the other woman character of the novel, Lucy, who was not independent-minded and who 'gave in' to evil more willingly than Mina seemed to.
The ship that I was confused about earlier in the blog entries happens to be the ship that Dracula uses again to try and make his escape from his pursuers. It turns out that the dog that ran off the ship before was in fact Dracula, who transformed himself into a dog for disguise, and he had killed all of the people on that boat, presumably for the sole reason that he was thirsty. It was a preview of the damage he was able to cause.
I enjoyed the part of the book where all of the pursuers split up and took different routes to Dracula's castle (train/carriage/foot, ship, horseback). It shows their ability to work cohesively and efficiently together and their intelligence in leaving no ground untended to. Stoker gathers suspense during the long journey of the band of people.
The scene where Dracula is finally destroyed is epic. The pursuers' timing is nearly perfect; they all arrive and are ready at nearly the same time as Dracula arrives. Also, the story ends in basically the same place it was begun; Dracula's castle in Transylvania. It is ironic and it adds intensity at the same time, because it draws up emotions in the reader that were present in the beginning of the book when the big looming castle is described. In this, it is obvious that this is the moment that Dracula's fate will be unveiled to us.
The band of friends prevailed in eliminating Dracula just in time. Unfortunately, Quincey Morris, one of Lucy's previous suitors and one of their helpers, died in the process. There is one more entry at the end that describes Mina and Jonathan's life seven years after the events; they had a child and named him Quincey. This is quite endearing but also very cliche. "And they lived happily ever after..."
Mina's superiority for a woman shines through again in her idea to have herself hypnotized in order for the men to get information about the whereabouts and plans of Dracula. This idea of Mina's leads the men to Dracula, like a horse being led to water. She is the main reason that their journey was successful. I think, in Mina, Stoker was creating the ideal woman of the Victorian time. He makes her loyal to the men and humankind throughout the novel, intelligent, and clever/able to work through problems. This is in contrast to the other woman character of the novel, Lucy, who was not independent-minded and who 'gave in' to evil more willingly than Mina seemed to.
The ship that I was confused about earlier in the blog entries happens to be the ship that Dracula uses again to try and make his escape from his pursuers. It turns out that the dog that ran off the ship before was in fact Dracula, who transformed himself into a dog for disguise, and he had killed all of the people on that boat, presumably for the sole reason that he was thirsty. It was a preview of the damage he was able to cause.
I enjoyed the part of the book where all of the pursuers split up and took different routes to Dracula's castle (train/carriage/foot, ship, horseback). It shows their ability to work cohesively and efficiently together and their intelligence in leaving no ground untended to. Stoker gathers suspense during the long journey of the band of people.
The scene where Dracula is finally destroyed is epic. The pursuers' timing is nearly perfect; they all arrive and are ready at nearly the same time as Dracula arrives. Also, the story ends in basically the same place it was begun; Dracula's castle in Transylvania. It is ironic and it adds intensity at the same time, because it draws up emotions in the reader that were present in the beginning of the book when the big looming castle is described. In this, it is obvious that this is the moment that Dracula's fate will be unveiled to us.
The band of friends prevailed in eliminating Dracula just in time. Unfortunately, Quincey Morris, one of Lucy's previous suitors and one of their helpers, died in the process. There is one more entry at the end that describes Mina and Jonathan's life seven years after the events; they had a child and named him Quincey. This is quite endearing but also very cliche. "And they lived happily ever after..."
Chapters XV-XXI
There is an instance where all of the men are trying to 'release Lucy's soul' by putting the stake in her heart and cutting her head off, so they are waiting around her tomb for the right moment. On one of the earlier nights, when it is just Dr. Seward and Van Helsing there, they witness Lucy returning to her tomb with a child and dropping it when she sees them. My point by directing you to this scene is to elaborate on the fact that I was appalled at the conduct of the two men at this moment in the novel. They know what she has done to the child (or at least Van Helsing does for sure) but they leave it on the side of the road to be found. It seems to me that, despite their fear of being blamed for the incident, a human life should be more important, and at least one of them should have stayed with the baby to make sure it was okay. This is not a major issue in the novel, but it struck me particularly.
Within these chapters, the problems of gender roles surfaced to an extreme high. The first place that I noticed it was in Lucy's preying on children. Why did she choose innocent children rather than adults? There is the obvious and superficial reasoning that could be applied to this and that is that she is 'new' to vampirism and must start out small, with victims that pose no threat to her. But my inclination is that Stoker had a more specific idea in mind when doing this. It challenges the woman's typical gender roles. Lucy, as a woman, is commonly expected to be nurturing and sensitive to children, but in this case she falls at the opposite extreme; she is actually causing pain in children and feeding off of them (rather than vice versa; where the woman provides food for the infant, whether it be breast milk or other food in general).
Mina's role as a woman is different as well. Seward and the other men constantly reiterate her value to them in that she keeps the records by typing out the diary entries and the papers. They keep her within the gender limits, though, by basically saying that she is very useful to them for a woman and attempting to take on the typical male roles of protecting her by keeping her uninformed about the central action or happenings of their pursuit of Dracula. An essay by John Allen Stevenson called "A Vampire in the Mirror: Sexuality in Dracula" elaborates more fully on these gender role challenges.( http://www.jstor.org/stable/462430 )
However, Dracula drastically mixes up these gender roles in the scene where Mina is drinking blood from his breast (as if drinking milk from the breast of the mother). Jonathan is unable to assert his power because he is trapped in sleep, presumably by something that Dracula did to keep him out of the way. This scene puts Dracula in the role of the mother and Mina in the role of the child feeding from him. At the same time, Dracula is asserting his power by forcing the blood of Mina and himself to be transferred back and forth, therefore joining them together as if in intercourse. At this point he is staying true to his threat to make Jonathan's dear Mina belong to him forever. He is taking on the role of benefactor as well as lover to Mina and this confuses the gender relations in the novel for the time being.
Within these chapters, the problems of gender roles surfaced to an extreme high. The first place that I noticed it was in Lucy's preying on children. Why did she choose innocent children rather than adults? There is the obvious and superficial reasoning that could be applied to this and that is that she is 'new' to vampirism and must start out small, with victims that pose no threat to her. But my inclination is that Stoker had a more specific idea in mind when doing this. It challenges the woman's typical gender roles. Lucy, as a woman, is commonly expected to be nurturing and sensitive to children, but in this case she falls at the opposite extreme; she is actually causing pain in children and feeding off of them (rather than vice versa; where the woman provides food for the infant, whether it be breast milk or other food in general).
Mina's role as a woman is different as well. Seward and the other men constantly reiterate her value to them in that she keeps the records by typing out the diary entries and the papers. They keep her within the gender limits, though, by basically saying that she is very useful to them for a woman and attempting to take on the typical male roles of protecting her by keeping her uninformed about the central action or happenings of their pursuit of Dracula. An essay by John Allen Stevenson called "A Vampire in the Mirror: Sexuality in Dracula" elaborates more fully on these gender role challenges.( http://www.jstor.org/stable/462430 )
However, Dracula drastically mixes up these gender roles in the scene where Mina is drinking blood from his breast (as if drinking milk from the breast of the mother). Jonathan is unable to assert his power because he is trapped in sleep, presumably by something that Dracula did to keep him out of the way. This scene puts Dracula in the role of the mother and Mina in the role of the child feeding from him. At the same time, Dracula is asserting his power by forcing the blood of Mina and himself to be transferred back and forth, therefore joining them together as if in intercourse. At this point he is staying true to his threat to make Jonathan's dear Mina belong to him forever. He is taking on the role of benefactor as well as lover to Mina and this confuses the gender relations in the novel for the time being.
Chapters VIII-XIV
The way the scene where Lucy is on the bench when Dracula first attacks her is written leaves me with a very eerie feeling. It was the most frightening scene of the book so far. The way Stoker describes Dracula's red eyes as he looks up and stares at Mina is quite terrifying. I think he did a great job incorporating the feeling of horror into this scene. I do not understand one thing about it, though. Why does Dracula choose Lucy? Why not Mina or even Lucy's mother, for instance? I expected him to go straight for Mina, since she is Jonathan's sweetheart and all. My guess is that he was using Lucy to frighten Mina first, because Mina is the one he really wants.
Also, after reading these two chapters, I am now sure that the patient Renfield is in some correlation with Dracula himself. He runs and falls at the door at Carfax (the house Dracula buys) and talks about his 'master' (presumably Dracula). He is so desperate to escape because his "master is at hand". This leaves barely any doubt in my mind that Renfield is some kind of slave to Dracula. But how and why did Dracula get to him? Does Renfield's previous psychological condition have anything to do with it?
This novel is not purely horror, however. I think that there are many reasons as to why vampires are commonly associated with passionate love today presented even in this book. Stoker incorporates elements of purity in romance that are completely separate from the terrors of Dracula. For instance, Jonathan Harker was believed to be on his death bed with brain fever and he and Mina insisted that they marry immediately. He was supposedly about to die, but they persisted with the marriage. It is quite heart-wrenching that they are so passionately in love and it was touching to see them 'seal the deal' despite all that was going on. Another instance where romance was incorporated were when all three of the men gave Lucy their blood for her to live. They commented that “No man knows, till he experiences it, what it is to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the veins of the woman he loves,” and they also didn't tell her fiance Arthur that they gave her their blood as well for fear that it would seem inappropriate. It was like they believed that the fact that they all gave Lucy their blood was similar to polygamy. The scene with the three women vampires that attack Harker was filled with references to eroticism. There are countless points in the novel where romance is evident, and this may have been the seed for the excessive romanticism of vampires today.
By the way, I am beginning to appreciate the style of the novel in diary entries now. It is interesting to see most of the points of view of the characters in the book and also the compilation is creative, in my opinion. For example, there is the newspaper article about the missing children and the Bloofer Lady (after Lucy's death) they keep claiming they see at night. Letters to each other are also incorporated. It makes the book seem more real because these are actual artifacts from the events as they happened. It's growing on me.
Also, after reading these two chapters, I am now sure that the patient Renfield is in some correlation with Dracula himself. He runs and falls at the door at Carfax (the house Dracula buys) and talks about his 'master' (presumably Dracula). He is so desperate to escape because his "master is at hand". This leaves barely any doubt in my mind that Renfield is some kind of slave to Dracula. But how and why did Dracula get to him? Does Renfield's previous psychological condition have anything to do with it?
This novel is not purely horror, however. I think that there are many reasons as to why vampires are commonly associated with passionate love today presented even in this book. Stoker incorporates elements of purity in romance that are completely separate from the terrors of Dracula. For instance, Jonathan Harker was believed to be on his death bed with brain fever and he and Mina insisted that they marry immediately. He was supposedly about to die, but they persisted with the marriage. It is quite heart-wrenching that they are so passionately in love and it was touching to see them 'seal the deal' despite all that was going on. Another instance where romance was incorporated were when all three of the men gave Lucy their blood for her to live. They commented that “No man knows, till he experiences it, what it is to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the veins of the woman he loves,” and they also didn't tell her fiance Arthur that they gave her their blood as well for fear that it would seem inappropriate. It was like they believed that the fact that they all gave Lucy their blood was similar to polygamy. The scene with the three women vampires that attack Harker was filled with references to eroticism. There are countless points in the novel where romance is evident, and this may have been the seed for the excessive romanticism of vampires today.
By the way, I am beginning to appreciate the style of the novel in diary entries now. It is interesting to see most of the points of view of the characters in the book and also the compilation is creative, in my opinion. For example, there is the newspaper article about the missing children and the Bloofer Lady (after Lucy's death) they keep claiming they see at night. Letters to each other are also incorporated. It makes the book seem more real because these are actual artifacts from the events as they happened. It's growing on me.
A further question that arose in my mind while reading this bulk of chapters was that of Van Helsing's motives. Was there something in it for him? To learn more about the political motives of not only Van Helsing, but the rest of the characters of the novel, check out this article by Richard Wasson called "The Politics of Dracula": it can be found at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/elt/summary/v009/9.1.wasson.html. I was confused as to why he would keep his suspicions about vampirism a secret. Obviously that was what he suspected because he ordered all of that garlic and made obscure hints toward it to the other characters but never quite came out and told them what he thought was going on. Why wouldn't he just keep them up to date and keep them informed? Also, it seemed peculiar to me that at the drop of a hat, when Seward called him to help with Lucy, he dropped all of his duties at home and threw himself headfirst into this affair. He seemed overly devoted to healing Lucy and fighting whatever has inflicted that pain upon her. But then my mind was changed. His sacrifice of his own blood to Lucy was proof enough that his motives were innocent. He would not have gone as far as to put himself in danger if he was in it for the wrong reasons. I am no longer suspicious of Van Helsing.
Van Helsing from the 2004 Stephen Sommers film.
One short note about Renfield: his licking of Seward's blood from the floor made it concrete in my mind that he is in liaison with Dracula. Now the important thing is to find out how. I am anxious to seeing how this all ties together.
Van Helsing from the 2004 Stephen Sommers film.
One short note about Renfield: his licking of Seward's blood from the floor made it concrete in my mind that he is in liaison with Dracula. Now the important thing is to find out how. I am anxious to seeing how this all ties together.
Chapters V-VII
Chapter V begins an exchange between Mina Murray and Lucy Westenra. It is refreshing to be involved in the thoughts of women for the first time in the novel; it makes me feel more in my element to hear their animated stories about men and gossip. The fact that Lucy got proposed to by three men was interesting to me and the way she reveled in it even more so. I know there must be a reason for these three characters and they will probably show their larger purposes later in the novel. Also, the elderly man that Mina and Lucy talked to on the bench was quite endearing. They seemed just as infatuated with him as I was. I think his purpose in the novel was to 'teach them a lesson' (what with his wisdom from age and all) about death and that it is nothing to fear.
Reinfeld is a baffle of a character for me. I found myself trying to look online and figure out who this man was and how he came into the story. He eats living things, so I can imagine this will play a larger role later in the book. I can't help but take a stab at the meaning myself; he seems to be a parallel to Dracula, feeding off of the life of others, only Reinfeld does it in a different way. I predict we will find out that he is not just crazy and has some sort of connection with the rest of the story.
The ship with the man tied to the front and the dog that runs out of it does not fit into the story for me. I am very confused as to what significance this has. I understand that it must have had to do with Dracula judging by the crucifix the dead man held, but I still don't comprehend who the man is or where the boat is from or any of the other details. I'm sure this will be later patched up for me.
Reinfeld is a baffle of a character for me. I found myself trying to look online and figure out who this man was and how he came into the story. He eats living things, so I can imagine this will play a larger role later in the book. I can't help but take a stab at the meaning myself; he seems to be a parallel to Dracula, feeding off of the life of others, only Reinfeld does it in a different way. I predict we will find out that he is not just crazy and has some sort of connection with the rest of the story.
The ship with the man tied to the front and the dog that runs out of it does not fit into the story for me. I am very confused as to what significance this has. I understand that it must have had to do with Dracula judging by the crucifix the dead man held, but I still don't comprehend who the man is or where the boat is from or any of the other details. I'm sure this will be later patched up for me.
Chapters II-IV
At the beginning of chapter II, Dracula is finally introduced. He is described to look a lot differently than I had expected him to. He has white hair. My mind said, "Where did that come from?" I always pictured him as a young, suave guy. Other than that, the pale skin, sharp teeth, widows peak, and stiff demeanor all seemed pretty characteristic.
One of the first things I noticed upon Harker's stay in the castle is the amount of attention and pampering he is given. If Dracula is just planning on killing him, why would he go to such lengths to make him comfortable. He is given meals that sound delectable and plentiful. Maybe Dracula is trying to 'fatten him up' and keep him extra healthy so that when he drinks his blood it is a more gratifying experience. That is the conclusion I came to.
A small personal detail I would like to point out: I want to be in Dracula's library! The one with the shelves and shelves of books and the maps and the countless books on London and England. It would make me ecstatic because I am infatuated with learning about England, not to mention my sheer love of books. Transport me into that library now please. It would be a dream come true.
I can add one check to the list of things about Dracula that do fit into my traditional image of him. The first true evidence that Harker finds that there is something creepy going on is that he never saw Dracula behind him in the mirror that he was shaving in. The mirror myth was 'true'.
Back to my aversion of the style of the book (journal entries): it makes me feel like I'm not getting the whole story. This proved true to me in that Jonathan's part of the story ends abruptly (although I don't know yet if he will later tell me), and I don't know how or if he even got out of the castle. If he didn't, I wouldn't know because he would be dead and unable to write a journal entry. If he did, I would be very curious as to know whether he ran into any obstacles or exactly what happened. We will see if these questions are answered for me later in the novel.
One of the first things I noticed upon Harker's stay in the castle is the amount of attention and pampering he is given. If Dracula is just planning on killing him, why would he go to such lengths to make him comfortable. He is given meals that sound delectable and plentiful. Maybe Dracula is trying to 'fatten him up' and keep him extra healthy so that when he drinks his blood it is a more gratifying experience. That is the conclusion I came to.
A small personal detail I would like to point out: I want to be in Dracula's library! The one with the shelves and shelves of books and the maps and the countless books on London and England. It would make me ecstatic because I am infatuated with learning about England, not to mention my sheer love of books. Transport me into that library now please. It would be a dream come true.
I can add one check to the list of things about Dracula that do fit into my traditional image of him. The first true evidence that Harker finds that there is something creepy going on is that he never saw Dracula behind him in the mirror that he was shaving in. The mirror myth was 'true'.
Back to my aversion of the style of the book (journal entries): it makes me feel like I'm not getting the whole story. This proved true to me in that Jonathan's part of the story ends abruptly (although I don't know yet if he will later tell me), and I don't know how or if he even got out of the castle. If he didn't, I wouldn't know because he would be dead and unable to write a journal entry. If he did, I would be very curious as to know whether he ran into any obstacles or exactly what happened. We will see if these questions are answered for me later in the novel.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Chapter I
I most likely will not be writing an entry on every chapter, but it is only natural that the most questions and personal ideas about a text pop up during the first few pages.
I was faced with a surprise on the very first page of the book, and I am still not sure if it is a pleasant one or not. I had always assumed the story would be told from the point of view of Dracula himself, following him along through his days of endless blood-sucking and cryptic ventures. When I realized that it was a journal entry of a real-estate agent, I was somewhat disappointed. The fact that I had never even heard of a Jonathon Harker in my life and the only character of the story I had been familiar with was Dracula himself was probably the reason it was so unexpected. I'm guessing I was disappointed because it does not seem like I will be in the center of the action or it might not be as interesting or something. I'm not so sure if I am thrilled about the style journal entries that formulate the book, either. It seems like this might create the feeling for me of dancing or tip-toeing around the central issue, when I think I would much rather dive headfirst into the matter at hand. There is only one way to find out if my predictions are true or not, though, and that is to continue reading.
The first question that crept up on me in my reading was that of Harker's motivations. What was the big deal? I mean, I understand he wants to make a buck, but really I don't think that if the entire town was blessing me and holding up crosses with their fingers at me I would feel very compelled to continue with my journey. That might create a bit of hesitance in anyone else, would it not? Nevertheless, he pushes on, and I'm looking forward to seeing whether or not there are other motives or stronger reasons as to why he did not back out of the whole ordeal.
The part of this chapter that really hit home for me was his trek by carriage through the countrysides of Europe. The descriptions of the homey inns and the beautiful landscapes and mountains made me quite eager to do some traveling of my own. Stoker does a great job of describing the sights appealingly when they're meant to be appealing and frighteningly when they're meant to be frightening. At one point in particular (pg. 37-38), the idea is for the imagery to be foreboding, and I read it with that sense the first time around. But I found myself stopping afterward to take an objective view on it and re-reading it. "Soon we were hemmed in with trees, which in places arched right over the roadway till we passed as through a tunnel... It grew colder and colder still, and fine, powdery snow began to fall, so that soon we, and all around us were covered with a white blanket." I imagined it looking something like this:
and I felt a sudden urge to be there on that carriage with Jonathan Harker, despite the obvious impending doom.
I was faced with a surprise on the very first page of the book, and I am still not sure if it is a pleasant one or not. I had always assumed the story would be told from the point of view of Dracula himself, following him along through his days of endless blood-sucking and cryptic ventures. When I realized that it was a journal entry of a real-estate agent, I was somewhat disappointed. The fact that I had never even heard of a Jonathon Harker in my life and the only character of the story I had been familiar with was Dracula himself was probably the reason it was so unexpected. I'm guessing I was disappointed because it does not seem like I will be in the center of the action or it might not be as interesting or something. I'm not so sure if I am thrilled about the style journal entries that formulate the book, either. It seems like this might create the feeling for me of dancing or tip-toeing around the central issue, when I think I would much rather dive headfirst into the matter at hand. There is only one way to find out if my predictions are true or not, though, and that is to continue reading.
The first question that crept up on me in my reading was that of Harker's motivations. What was the big deal? I mean, I understand he wants to make a buck, but really I don't think that if the entire town was blessing me and holding up crosses with their fingers at me I would feel very compelled to continue with my journey. That might create a bit of hesitance in anyone else, would it not? Nevertheless, he pushes on, and I'm looking forward to seeing whether or not there are other motives or stronger reasons as to why he did not back out of the whole ordeal.
The part of this chapter that really hit home for me was his trek by carriage through the countrysides of Europe. The descriptions of the homey inns and the beautiful landscapes and mountains made me quite eager to do some traveling of my own. Stoker does a great job of describing the sights appealingly when they're meant to be appealing and frighteningly when they're meant to be frightening. At one point in particular (pg. 37-38), the idea is for the imagery to be foreboding, and I read it with that sense the first time around. But I found myself stopping afterward to take an objective view on it and re-reading it. "Soon we were hemmed in with trees, which in places arched right over the roadway till we passed as through a tunnel... It grew colder and colder still, and fine, powdery snow began to fall, so that soon we, and all around us were covered with a white blanket." I imagined it looking something like this:
and I felt a sudden urge to be there on that carriage with Jonathan Harker, despite the obvious impending doom.
My Expectations
Before I begin Dracula by Bram Stoker and taking you along with me in my thoughts and reflections as I read, I'd like to foreground with some of what I know and what I expect on the subject of Dracula and out of this book.
My understanding of vampires is very elementary as of now. I have the inevitable pop culture experience that is oh-so popular today; picture perfect model-types play the part of the vampire, and I have the Halloween version; the ones you see on bags of candy and dressed up for the kids saying, "I vant to drink your blood!" They are afraid of garlic, crucifixes, mirrors, etc. I regret to inform you that, yes, I have read all of the Twilight books and seen all the movies to date. I will tell you though, that I do not buy the whole 'vampires sparkling in the sun' ordeal. Since I was little, the commonly held belief was that vampires could not see the sun or they would cringe and die. That's the image I'm going to stick with; it just seems more classic. When I think of Dracula, I think of something along the lines of a human version of this,
Stoker's version is also quite popular, but in a different way. You can see what makes Dracula so popular in this article by David Glover: http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v043/43.4br_glover.html .
My understanding of vampires is very elementary as of now. I have the inevitable pop culture experience that is oh-so popular today; picture perfect model-types play the part of the vampire, and I have the Halloween version; the ones you see on bags of candy and dressed up for the kids saying, "I vant to drink your blood!" They are afraid of garlic, crucifixes, mirrors, etc. I regret to inform you that, yes, I have read all of the Twilight books and seen all the movies to date. I will tell you though, that I do not buy the whole 'vampires sparkling in the sun' ordeal. Since I was little, the commonly held belief was that vampires could not see the sun or they would cringe and die. That's the image I'm going to stick with; it just seems more classic. When I think of Dracula, I think of something along the lines of a human version of this,
despite what pop culture has been suggesting, which is this.
Stoker's version is also quite popular, but in a different way. You can see what makes Dracula so popular in this article by David Glover: http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v043/43.4br_glover.html .
Now, seeing as Bram Stoker's version is widely conceived as 'the original' Dracula, I expect the characters NOT to remind of Twilight's the Cullen family or the characters from True Blood. I'm picturing this Dracula looking something like Bela Lugosi with large fangs. I'm interested to see how true to the common image/story the actual book turns out to be, and I'm excited to see how much of what Dracula is conceived of today is warped from what it started out as.
To see reasons why Bram Stoker's Dracula withstood the test of time, see the article called "Dracula, Tradition, Modernism" by Rosemary Jann, which can be found at this website.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)