![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nuranarI read Dracula for the third time over the the trip last week. I guess maybe it's time to buy my own copy instead of frequenting the library, no?
OK, I think the words are exhausted for tonight. I know I will be, come 5:30 ack emma...
This is not a genre I seek out. Dracula is the extent of my exposure, excepting some OTR episodes I was unwary enought to listen to. And although I like the book; in fact it kept me up until I got scarcely five hours of sleep Thursday night; it has taken me this long to decide to buy it. I'm not sure why; when I like something, usually I can't get enough of it. Like trying to satisfy a sweet tooth. I want it to go on and on. But when I finish Dracula I put it down, sigh, and move on to something else not too cheery. Would I want to read more if I knew there was a way to satisfy that desire? Like when I discover a new OTR series and go on a massive Google search for more episodes? No; Where Eagles Dare is still one of my all-time favorite books and each time I finish it I want more; but nothing else comes close, not even the same author's other work. (The Guns of Navarone is similar and I like it, but it seems much grimmer to me.) And The Lord of the Rings creates in me a fierce longing for something more, and nothing can compare to it. So the desire is not directly related to its likelihood of fulfillment.
Back on topic. Perhaps I come back to Dracula just because of the shock value, the "thriller" effect on one who's relatively unexposed to the genre. I know it's at least partially the writing skill and style, although there are inconsistencies that bother me there. The subject matter is so genuinely serious and horrifying that it justifies language and style that would be overblown and melodramatic in another book. And yet, the entire book is first-person letters and journal entries that I can't help but feel ought to be more conversational. Of course I find myself using quite elevated language even on the rare times I write exclusively personal entries; but even so, after a while the protagonists were deliberately creating a record of their hunt for the Count. I'm not criticizing Bram Stoker's decision in using first-person accounts, merely observing that it creates tension in my mind with the style of writing.
Did I say I would be back on topic? I do think the "thriller" effect has a bit to do with it. I'm leery of trying anything else partially because I don't want to analyze it too much; I don't want to lose the fascination. Yes, "fascination" is a good word. The story fascinates me. Which leads me to an observation, the main reason I actually started writing this entry:
In opposition to Count Dracula, there are six protagonists. (For now I refuse to name the Count protagonist; he is the antagonist.) These characters are by no means fully developed, although some are more fully delineated than others. Although perhaps a shortcoming in writing, this seems quite realistic from a journal-writing point of view. There are some journals I've been reading for at least a year. Unless the journaler makes a definite effort to describe and create a person for me, I don't know the people he writes about. That's simply the nature of journaling: It's writing what usually needs no further explanation to its reader(s). Perhaps Stoker deliberately wrote this way to accentuate the journal effect. I would like to know his characters better, but perhaps then the story itself wouldn't be so powerful.
What really stands out to me is how good these six protagonists are, and how I feel no irritation of their goodness. None whatsoever. Even while I was reading it this third time, when things that I blurred over the first few times ought to begin to grate. But they didn't. I have a decided aversion to perfect characters, to Mary Sues, to sweet little angels. (Come to think of it, the examples I think of are all girls or women; I can't think of men.) But these guys, these five men and one woman, are all so admirable; all different, even if subtly rendered; and I really do care about them. Perhaps it's because there needs to be something very good in opposition to something so evil. I know I find stories with a whole cast of unpleasant characters very wearying; there's no relief of selflessness anywhere.
Professor Van Helsing does most of the talking after a while (not most of the journaling), and I do get a bit of an understanding for him; perhaps more of Dr. Seward, though, because he writes so much. Mina Harker, of course, is altogether admirable; her transformation from an entirely ordinary young woman to a tragic heroine is very effective. And yet of all of them, I think Jonathan Harker's character is the most clearly revealed. It is of course his initial experiences at the Castle of Dracula that grab the attention. His journaling is by far the most personal. He is absolutely alone in his situation, and the way he writes and conducts himself is very revealing. That guy's got guts! Later, at several points Dr. Seward describes his initial recovery, his willing involvement in the effort, then his transformation into an inexorable avenger. He is a dynamic character, but Dr. Seward indicates that circumstances revealed what was already within him. Would that make him a truly dynamic character? (By the way, I almost always pick a favorite character in any book I read. In Dracula, Jonathan Harker has been that favorite from the very first.)
Re: vampires in the book, what struck me was how very Catholic it all was. Especially the scar on Mina's forehead. Would a God of grace do such a thing? (Vi, I mean no disrespect, and this wasn't an irritant to me; I just found it very interesting.)
And why, of all of them, was the Texan the one who died?!
Back on topic. Perhaps I come back to Dracula just because of the shock value, the "thriller" effect on one who's relatively unexposed to the genre. I know it's at least partially the writing skill and style, although there are inconsistencies that bother me there. The subject matter is so genuinely serious and horrifying that it justifies language and style that would be overblown and melodramatic in another book. And yet, the entire book is first-person letters and journal entries that I can't help but feel ought to be more conversational. Of course I find myself using quite elevated language even on the rare times I write exclusively personal entries; but even so, after a while the protagonists were deliberately creating a record of their hunt for the Count. I'm not criticizing Bram Stoker's decision in using first-person accounts, merely observing that it creates tension in my mind with the style of writing.
Did I say I would be back on topic? I do think the "thriller" effect has a bit to do with it. I'm leery of trying anything else partially because I don't want to analyze it too much; I don't want to lose the fascination. Yes, "fascination" is a good word. The story fascinates me. Which leads me to an observation, the main reason I actually started writing this entry:
In opposition to Count Dracula, there are six protagonists. (For now I refuse to name the Count protagonist; he is the antagonist.) These characters are by no means fully developed, although some are more fully delineated than others. Although perhaps a shortcoming in writing, this seems quite realistic from a journal-writing point of view. There are some journals I've been reading for at least a year. Unless the journaler makes a definite effort to describe and create a person for me, I don't know the people he writes about. That's simply the nature of journaling: It's writing what usually needs no further explanation to its reader(s). Perhaps Stoker deliberately wrote this way to accentuate the journal effect. I would like to know his characters better, but perhaps then the story itself wouldn't be so powerful.
What really stands out to me is how good these six protagonists are, and how I feel no irritation of their goodness. None whatsoever. Even while I was reading it this third time, when things that I blurred over the first few times ought to begin to grate. But they didn't. I have a decided aversion to perfect characters, to Mary Sues, to sweet little angels. (Come to think of it, the examples I think of are all girls or women; I can't think of men.) But these guys, these five men and one woman, are all so admirable; all different, even if subtly rendered; and I really do care about them. Perhaps it's because there needs to be something very good in opposition to something so evil. I know I find stories with a whole cast of unpleasant characters very wearying; there's no relief of selflessness anywhere.
Professor Van Helsing does most of the talking after a while (not most of the journaling), and I do get a bit of an understanding for him; perhaps more of Dr. Seward, though, because he writes so much. Mina Harker, of course, is altogether admirable; her transformation from an entirely ordinary young woman to a tragic heroine is very effective. And yet of all of them, I think Jonathan Harker's character is the most clearly revealed. It is of course his initial experiences at the Castle of Dracula that grab the attention. His journaling is by far the most personal. He is absolutely alone in his situation, and the way he writes and conducts himself is very revealing. That guy's got guts! Later, at several points Dr. Seward describes his initial recovery, his willing involvement in the effort, then his transformation into an inexorable avenger. He is a dynamic character, but Dr. Seward indicates that circumstances revealed what was already within him. Would that make him a truly dynamic character? (By the way, I almost always pick a favorite character in any book I read. In Dracula, Jonathan Harker has been that favorite from the very first.)
Re: vampires in the book, what struck me was how very Catholic it all was. Especially the scar on Mina's forehead. Would a God of grace do such a thing? (Vi, I mean no disrespect, and this wasn't an irritant to me; I just found it very interesting.)
And why, of all of them, was the Texan the one who died?!
OK, I think the words are exhausted for tonight. I know I will be, come 5:30 ack emma...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 03:42 am (UTC)I also had to comment and use my Marianne "Sensibility" user icon because yours has Elinor in it. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 12:53 pm (UTC)I love Elinor. I'm so much like her, even the way she looks sad and pessimistic a lot! Even if I'm not feeling that way, that's how I look sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 05:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 03:49 am (UTC)I think you touched on what I love about "Dracula"--it's about a group of friends who genuinely and deeply care about each other, and also happen to be fighting against evil. Friendship + heroism is a winning formula with me, and when you throw in an element of the macabre (classic horror being *my* favorite genre), I'm one happy reader/viewer.
I'm glad you appreciate who the real protagonists are, too. There's a tendency in modern culture to glorify Dracula, while portraying the heroes as wimps or loons and Mina as willingly seduced. In short, they make everything the total opposite of what Stoker depicts in the book, and it drives me CRAZY.
As for why Quincey was killed off, I don't know... but I've brought him back as a vampire himself in a roleplaying game I'm currently running. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 01:07 pm (UTC)Huzzah for true, genuine friendship and the fight against evil! I know exactly what you mean about a winning formula. Another for me is action/adventure + a generous leavening of humor. That combination just puts my enjoyment through the roof.
Yeah, what's up with making Dracula the hero? Good grief! I suppose it's possible if you'd abandon all Christian origins and overtones, and Count Dracula is simply making a quirky lifestyle choice. *gag* I'm a huge stickler for authenticity, for keeping true to an original, for characters acting consistently and true to human nature - Oh, let's put it the short way: I'm in love with TRUTH and what's not TRUE angers me more than anything else.
Quincey as a vampire?! Nooooooo! Must 'splain yourself! :D
no subject
Date: 2006-10-04 03:24 am (UTC)The original 1931 "Dracula" is one of my favorite films ever. It is the definitive classic horror film of all time. Marvelously atmospheric. Bela Lugosi's performance is legendary, of course, but I love the supporting players as well. Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing is, I think, as true to the book as anyone will ever play him (and I find him somehow just amazingly cool). And Dwight Frye as Renfield is a mad delight.
Then there are the Hammer films from Britain: first "Horror of Dracula" starring Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, and then "Brides of Dracula"--a misnomer as Dracula isn't in it, but Cushing reprises his role against a different vampire. The films themselves are beautifully gothic. Cushing's Van Helsing is really not the literary character--he's younger and physically very dynamic--but he has an incredible sense of the spirituality of good versus evil.
The roleplaying game is a sort of sequel to the "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" film, and my vampiric Quincey is one of the good guys. The premise is that when he killed Dracula, the wounds the gypsies inflicted on him were contaminated with the Count's blood, thus infecting him with vampirism. For reasons Van Helsing (yes, I play him too) hasn't figured out yet--perhaps because he's never bitten a human--Quincey has a "benign" form of vampirism that hasn't corrupted his soul.
Most bizarre of all, my physical model for Quincey is James Cagney's character in the western "The Oklahoma Kid". *g*
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 01:13 am (UTC)What do you think about the LXG film anyway? I haven't seen it, and I've heard that it's an awesome idea that somehow didn't work. I know Mina is in it; how true is she to the book?
Your RPG sounds pretty interesting. I'll have to pop on over and check it out! As long as Quincey is still a good guy, I'm happy. :)
"The Oklahoma Kid," eh? I have a not-always-sneaking fondness for westerns. Chalk up another one!
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 03:30 am (UTC)I'm... conflicted about the LXG film, I guess. I'm either indifferent to or rather dislike half of the characters, Mina included (*Mina* as a vampire is just wrong wrong wrong)--yet I do enjoy the film and have written fanfiction based on it. The two characters I genuinely like are Doctor Jekyll and Rodney Skinner (the Invisible Man). Bringing together Victorian superheroes is one of the most wonderful concepts ever; I just would have picked some very different ones. Which frustration I have appeased by doing it my way in my RPG. ;)
"Oklahoma Kid" is one of the three films Cagney and Bogart made together, so it's sort of a gangster film on horseback. James is adorable in his cowboy outfit. *g*
no subject
Date: 2006-10-13 10:34 pm (UTC)Mina as a vampire? WRONG is the word. Completely and utterly againt the whole point. Which ones would you have picked, in addition to Dr. Jekyll and Rodney Skinner? (I've read both, btw. *looks smug* ) Van Helsing, perhaps? :D
Gangster film on horseback! Must see!!
no subject
Date: 2006-10-14 02:25 am (UTC)If you or any friend of yours have TCM, "Oklahoma Kid" is going to air on the 23rd at 6am Eastern.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-18 12:28 am (UTC)Come to think of it, I think I go more for the older, smarter guys as well. I want a guy who knows what he's doing and why he's doing it. I know you don't like westerns, but I do like a lot of the attributes of the heroes in Louis L'Amour books. These guys know what they're doing and they're very capable. I like a little more humor, though, too. Like *cough* Richard Diamond.
Remember when you were speculating about whether you could make a match with a guy like Cagney? Well, I speculated the same about me and Diamond. Conclusion: No incompatibility. Really and truly. Isn't that crazy?
Thanks for the tip! I'll be asking around.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-18 01:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-18 01:38 am (UTC)