Introducing Bram Stoker's Dracula...with a side mention of Twilight
Check out this short introduction to the novel Dracula by British literature expert Roger Luckhurst:
Do you agree that Stoker's novel is a "fantastic read" even though we're living in the 21st century, rather than 1897? How does it compare in your mind with Stephenie Meyer's Twilight?
I like that he talked about "Twilight" as well as "True Blood" - - the vampires in "Twilight" are chaste and don't do anything sexual until after they're married, but that reflects the writer's religious beliefs since she is mormon. Vampires are supposed to give off this sexual appeal and I'm sure that's all to blame on Bram Stoker and those who wrote after him who took off with the sexual ideas and ran with it.
Thomas- I agree with Roger when he stated that the book Dracula had many hidden sexual content. I did not understand the sexual parts until he discussed them in his interview. I believe that the book Twilight also has hidden sexual messages that are hidden between the conflict of the two sides (vampires and wolves). I think that the book Dracula is a good book for this time period (today) because it not only is action packed (I feel), but the book also goes into the sexual content in which today's society has based many books and movies on. This is a book that still scares many people who read it even though it is fiction.
Josh- The thing that i like about Dracula so far is how it is just real. It doesn't really sugar coat stuff and just kinda tells you how things really were. It tells the truth of society and doesn't hide anything.
I am quite enjoying "Dracula." Technology changes, but personalities remain. It's the characters that matter here.
Referring back to what Hana said in class the other day, it's fascinating to find the "trash heap" of societies; it's easy to imagine the stuffy upper-class and "proper" conduct of ye olden days. Give me some grit! Readers like scandals; it's why tabloids get away with the things they do.
The one other read vampire novel I have to my name is Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire." I didn't pick up on it at the time, but I see now how one can read sexual subtext, particularly when Lestat and Louis set up house with Claudia as their doted-upon "daughter." It's been a few years since I read it, though...
And of course Meyer went and took the sexual attraction of the vampire up to eleven. I think making them chaste, as Brittany said, is a reflection of Meyer's religion more than anything else. I in fact hesitate to call them vampires; she took horrific, terrifying monsters, and -Bedazzled- them, for goodness' sake. About the only thing ultimately at stake for Bella is whether she ends up with a guy who wants to be her boyfriend whom she can actually tolerate. The main characters in "Dracula" have much more important things to worry about -- things like rapid dogs, missing children, getting out alive... Perspective?
It definitely seems as if reading the turn of the 19th Century Dan Brown. The writing isn't exquisite, the ideas are typically jumbled and Bram Stoker uses way too much detail to the point that it can get boring. The book itself is not the great part of the novel, the ideas and influence that come from it are what makes the novel great.
Starting with a disclaimer that states I do not read or watch gothic fiction, or basically anything with vampires or werewolves (Buffy excluded because she has witches and demons too), for my own enjoyment I hazard to say that Twilight and Dracula are essentially the same thing for their time period, if taken at face value. Dracula was written at a time when the people who could afford to read were wealthy and/or part of the aristocracy. The main characters range from lords, people who own entire sanitariums, people who own or inherit businesses, people who can expect to marry well (i.e. the lord) . Stoker wrote with these characters to appeal to his audience, only they weren’t quite interested in the romance so much as the danger and fear. Twilight is the story of a girl who is completely average (even though she reads Wuthering Heights for fun) and feels that she doesn’t fit in and is completely unattractive (even though she gets 3 invites to a dance?!? There is something wrong here…). Anyway, in our angst ridden society this is something that our main reading age group (youths from 12-22) can relate too. Then she gets to fall in love with a man who can fulfill all of her desires in life (rich, attractive, kind, completely addicted to her…). However, they are both pure fantasy that is easy to read. Neither situation is remotely feasible at the time they were written. Vampires are fantasy, and it was entertaining in Stokers time to read about how scary they are and what might happen. Similarly Twilight is a fantasy of the perfect romance according to Meyer of a beautiful man picking an average girl with no feeling of self-worth and telling her she is perfect. They are both fast easy reads though, they don’t distract with complicated wording, for the time they were written. I mean, I recognize that for our generation Dracula can be a little difficult, a little roundabout but then again we are used to seeing “k c u l8r ”, not “I shall call upon you at your convenience” but it’s not even close to how complicated The Jolly Corner is…*shudder*. Similarly Twilight is exactly what our generation can chew and swallow in practically no time at all. I read fast, I recognize that, but I just finished 100 pages of Twilight in a half-hour. It’s designed for us to read fast, just as Dracula was written simpler than other works to be pure entertainment. Essentially they are the same for differed times. ~Hana
I do think 'Dracula' is a fantastic read, but I also think that guy might have gone a bit overboard.
It's a good book and I really enjoy it, but there are definitely flaws. I mean, the characters are pretty static, the cliches abound, Stoker falls into some of the typical difficulties that you have when writing from that pov (who puts those details in their journal? c'mon). But it is FUN! Van Helsing is great, the characters are interesting, in spite of how formulaic they are, the plot makes for a fun ride. It's really ok to like a novel that isn't much more than entertainment and a look at another time/culture, just like it's ok that movies aren't always aimed at intelligent audiences.
I watch anything from Japanese cinema to John Carpenter slasher flicks, Quentin Tarantino to Coppola (not that I forgive him for HIS Dracula....*shudders*) and I enjoy all these immensely, just on different levels.
Some nights I want to watch West Wing or Star Trek, other nights it's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog or He-Man. (Yeah. He-Man. I have no shame.)
Regarding the comparison: To me though, because of it's huge influence and some truly horrible themes, Twilight is more than just a cheap thrill or a popcorn movie. It's an indication that in our society if a man is sexy enough he can actually be a pedophile. And that's cool. Why is that ok?!?
You know what Dracula's not? A chimo. And even if he WAS? He's the villain! He's totally allowed to be a creeper!
But I digress.
Dracula and Twilight have similarities but I'm going to say Dracula is better written, more interesting and a more moral book. Sorry, Oscar Wilde, they exist. :P
I hope to GOD that people aren't reading 'Twilight' a couple hundred years later...but who knows, maybe people felt the same about Dracula? XD
I like that he talked about "Twilight" as well as "True Blood" - - the vampires in "Twilight" are chaste and don't do anything sexual until after they're married, but that reflects the writer's religious beliefs since she is mormon. Vampires are supposed to give off this sexual appeal and I'm sure that's all to blame on Bram Stoker and those who wrote after him who took off with the sexual ideas and ran with it.
ReplyDeleteThomas-
ReplyDeleteI agree with Roger when he stated that the book Dracula had many hidden sexual content. I did not understand the sexual parts until he discussed them in his interview. I believe that the book Twilight also has hidden sexual messages that are hidden between the conflict of the two sides (vampires and wolves).
I think that the book Dracula is a good book for this time period (today) because it not only is action packed (I feel), but the book also goes into the sexual content in which today's society has based many books and movies on. This is a book that still scares many people who read it even though it is fiction.
Josh-
ReplyDeleteThe thing that i like about Dracula so far is how it is just real. It doesn't really sugar coat stuff and just kinda tells you how things really were. It tells the truth of society and doesn't hide anything.
I am quite enjoying "Dracula." Technology changes, but personalities remain. It's the characters that matter here.
ReplyDeleteReferring back to what Hana said in class the other day, it's fascinating to find the "trash heap" of societies; it's easy to imagine the stuffy upper-class and "proper" conduct of ye olden days. Give me some grit! Readers like scandals; it's why tabloids get away with the things they do.
The one other read vampire novel I have to my name is Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire." I didn't pick up on it at the time, but I see now how one can read sexual subtext, particularly when Lestat and Louis set up house with Claudia as their doted-upon "daughter." It's been a few years since I read it, though...
And of course Meyer went and took the sexual attraction of the vampire up to eleven. I think making them chaste, as Brittany said, is a reflection of Meyer's religion more than anything else. I in fact hesitate to call them vampires; she took horrific, terrifying monsters, and -Bedazzled- them, for goodness' sake. About the only thing ultimately at stake for Bella is whether she ends up with a guy who wants to be her boyfriend whom she can actually tolerate. The main characters in "Dracula" have much more important things to worry about -- things like rapid dogs, missing children, getting out alive... Perspective?
It definitely seems as if reading the turn of the 19th Century Dan Brown. The writing isn't exquisite, the ideas are typically jumbled and Bram Stoker uses way too much detail to the point that it can get boring. The book itself is not the great part of the novel, the ideas and influence that come from it are what makes the novel great.
ReplyDeleteStarting with a disclaimer that states I do not read or watch gothic fiction, or basically anything with vampires or werewolves (Buffy excluded because she has witches and demons too), for my own enjoyment I hazard to say that Twilight and Dracula are essentially the same thing for their time period, if taken at face value.
ReplyDeleteDracula was written at a time when the people who could afford to read were wealthy and/or part of the aristocracy. The main characters range from lords, people who own entire sanitariums, people who own or inherit businesses, people who can expect to marry well (i.e. the lord) . Stoker wrote with these characters to appeal to his audience, only they weren’t quite interested in the romance so much as the danger and fear.
Twilight is the story of a girl who is completely average (even though she reads Wuthering Heights for fun) and feels that she doesn’t fit in and is completely unattractive (even though she gets 3 invites to a dance?!? There is something wrong here…). Anyway, in our angst ridden society this is something that our main reading age group (youths from 12-22) can relate too. Then she gets to fall in love with a man who can fulfill all of her desires in life (rich, attractive, kind, completely addicted to her…).
However, they are both pure fantasy that is easy to read. Neither situation is remotely feasible at the time they were written. Vampires are fantasy, and it was entertaining in Stokers time to read about how scary they are and what might happen. Similarly Twilight is a fantasy of the perfect romance according to Meyer of a beautiful man picking an average girl with no feeling of self-worth and telling her she is perfect. They are both fast easy reads though, they don’t distract with complicated wording, for the time they were written.
I mean, I recognize that for our generation Dracula can be a little difficult, a little roundabout but then again we are used to seeing “k c u l8r ”, not “I shall call upon you at your convenience” but it’s not even close to how complicated The Jolly Corner is…*shudder*. Similarly Twilight is exactly what our generation can chew and swallow in practically no time at all. I read fast, I recognize that, but I just finished 100 pages of Twilight in a half-hour. It’s designed for us to read fast, just as Dracula was written simpler than other works to be pure entertainment. Essentially they are the same for differed times.
~Hana
I do think 'Dracula' is a fantastic read, but I also think that guy might have gone a bit overboard.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good book and I really enjoy it, but there are definitely flaws. I mean, the characters are pretty static, the cliches abound, Stoker falls into some of the typical difficulties that you have when writing from that pov (who puts those details in their journal? c'mon). But it is FUN! Van Helsing is great, the characters are interesting, in spite of how formulaic they are, the plot makes for a fun ride. It's really ok to like a novel that isn't much more than entertainment and a look at another time/culture, just like it's ok that movies aren't always aimed at intelligent audiences.
I watch anything from Japanese cinema to John Carpenter slasher flicks, Quentin Tarantino to Coppola (not that I forgive him for HIS Dracula....*shudders*) and I enjoy all these immensely, just on different levels.
Some nights I want to watch West Wing or Star Trek, other nights it's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog or He-Man. (Yeah. He-Man. I have no shame.)
Regarding the comparison:
To me though, because of it's huge influence and some truly horrible themes, Twilight is more than just a cheap thrill or a popcorn movie. It's an indication that in our society if a man is sexy enough he can actually be a pedophile. And that's cool. Why is that ok?!?
You know what Dracula's not? A chimo. And even if he WAS? He's the villain! He's totally allowed to be a creeper!
But I digress.
Dracula and Twilight have similarities but I'm going to say Dracula is better written, more interesting and a more moral book. Sorry, Oscar Wilde, they exist. :P
I hope to GOD that people aren't reading 'Twilight' a couple hundred years later...but who knows, maybe people felt the same about Dracula? XD