Dracula

[DarkDude1423828]

I'm into vampire stuff and someone recommended this one to me. I read it and just yelled "This sucks!". And it seriously does! How am I supposed to relate to some stupid 1000 year-old coot? I mean, there wasn't anything good about that!:mad5:

[JBI]

Are you trolling or serious? I do not personally like the novel, but it is hard to take your assessment seriously. But then again, that Jane Austen woman, I like romances, but how am I supposed to relate to some 2000 year old hag.

I like adventure, but Stevenson, seriously, how am I supposed to relate to some 500 year old wanker, etc.


It is hard to sympathize with such an assessment, the fact that he has made it this "1000 years" if you will would gesture to some not sharing your opinion. Now, if you want to rip on Frankenstein, I would more than happily oblige.

[Haunted]

Are you talking about Bram Stoke's Dracula? The language may sound archaic and the book doesn't have that kind of graphic sensationalism as we expect in contemporary writing. But it's a classic much like Shakespeare and it's greatly responsible for making vampires an enduring theme in novels and movies. The plot is quite suspenseful and there were times that I couldn't put it down. The archetypical concept of death it deals with transcends time and makes it relevant to this day.

[JCamilo]

He is talking about Dracula, the old stiking monster who you are not supposed to relate. There was a time vampires are monsters and not just juvenile teen bands that shine in the dark like the Faery Tooth.

[Haunted]

yeah even then Bram Stokes Dracula is totally romantic.

[JCamilo]

How so?

[dfloyd]

Renfield?

[themiddleprince]

I'd agree with a few of the comments here that Bram Stoker's Dracula is somewhat archaic, perhaps a little quaint, and certainly not what people expect of their "horror" today. Personally, I love the film Apocalypse Now, but I found Conrad's Heart of Darkness dreadfully dull and inatmospheric to boot (though thankfully not because it lacked helicopter gunships).

Christopher Lee remains adamant there still hasn't been a film that captures the power of the original book, and he said that after Francis Ford Coppola's movie, which many consider pretty seminal. There was a TV version in Britain in the 1960s or early 70s that tried to stick to the original, and being grainy and black and white was fairly successful, but ultimately it's dramatising people's diary entries (in case you haven't read it, that's how it's structured) and that's never an easy thing to do.

Basically, the book spawned an industry that has run far beyond the original: Henry Ford revolutionalized car production and industry generally, but they're not about to put the Model T back into production. While we might prefer less aggressive language, we have to accept that many or even most readers today would not be able to engage with Bram Stoker's novel.

What is shocking though is the "1000 year-old coot" comment: the one cliche the current crop of teen-angst undead peddling has in common, from Interview With The Vampire to Buffy to the current crop of whey-faced mooners in Twighlight, is the eternal life gift/curse, a theme (or cliche now) carried on through Highlander, Dr Who etc etc etc. They all have a 100 year-old coot of some measure or description. That's why I think the post is indeed a bit of harmless trolling...

The Middle Prince mentioned on my signature, incidentally, is a telling of the life of the actual Vlad of Wallachia, "no vampires, no werewolves, no mercy" as one of my tag lines has it. So I do have an interest in the prince in question.

Cheers.

[Jassy Melson]

Coppola's film had little to do with Stoker's book. Stoker's character of Dracula is in no way a romantic figure, and Stoker's Dracula is not a love story.

[JCamilo]

I'd agree with a few of the comments here that Bram Stoker's Dracula is somewhat archaic, perhaps a little quaint, and certainly not what people expect of their "horror" today. Personally, I love the film Apocalypse Now, but I found Conrad's Heart of Darkness dreadfully dull and inatmospheric to boot (though thankfully not because it lacked helicopter gunships).

Christopher Lee remains adamant there still hasn't been a film that captures the power of the original book, and he said that after Francis Ford Coppola's movie, which many consider pretty seminal. There was a TV version in Britain in the 1960s or early 70s that tried to stick to the original, and being grainy and black and white was fairly successful, but ultimately it's dramatising people's diary entries (in case you haven't read it, that's how it's structured) and that's never an easy thing to do.

Basically, the book spawned an industry that has run far beyond the original: Henry Ford revolutionalized car production and industry generally, but they're not about to put the Model T back into production. While we might prefer less aggressive language, we have to accept that many or even most readers today would not be able to engage with Bram Stoker's novel.

What is shocking though is the "1000 year-old coot" comment: the one cliche the current crop of teen-angst undead peddling has in common, from Interview With The Vampire to Buffy to the current crop of whey-faced mooners in Twighlight, is the eternal life gift/curse, a theme (or cliche now) carried on through Highlander, Dr Who etc etc etc. They all have a 100 year-old coot of some measure or description. That's why I think the post is indeed a bit of harmless trolling...

The Middle Prince mentioned on my signature, incidentally, is a telling of the life of the actual Vlad of Wallachia, "no vampires, no werewolves, no mercy" as one of my tag lines has it. So I do have an interest in the prince in question.

Cheers.

Well, it is not like the book is perfect. It is too big, could help some editing. Stoker has very good chapters mixed with very dull chapters. Script wise, Copolla movie goes near the book, removing the long London's pursuit scenes and adding the prologue with Vlad's fiance. The atmosphere and dialogues changed to create a love story - Dracula is a stinking monster and basically a hidden creature in the book. His perspective is not what guides Stoker.

The real Vlad in Stoker is just a reference that Stoker added in the book. He used some traveling guides and imprecise sources by luck. By them, Vlad Tepes was virtually unknown, so he could say anything (there is even a slightly geographical mistake by Stoker).

The thing is that 100 years before Stoker, vampires are completely secundary monsters in european mind, the Gothic romance focused in ghosts and the celtic lonely lady or lord motif. Vampires are basically those "dark" lords or faeries, perhaps more adequate to urban enviroments. This is what Dracula manages well (Vlad is buying houses after well).

[themiddleprince]

Fair enough - for "seminal" read "it includes a character called Mina..."

[JCamilo]

That is very lucid commentary :D

[themiddleprince]

Thank you. You did mean me? Lucid? How did that happen?

Anyway. I think we all agree that whether it's to our personal taste or not, Stoker's Dracula is a classic that opened a path for a lot of followers, of varying qualities.

And the original post in this thread was a bit scary.

[JCamilo]

I like it, more good things than flaw and the capacity of creating atmosphere and hiding the horror that a good narrative must have. Plus, like I said, Stoker found the solution while transforming Dracula in a rich landlord coming from a misty past and distant country (most of former vampires are quite close to the victims, or their area.). It is a definitive turning point.

[themiddleprince]

I liked it, my wife hated it (and she's a big reader of pre-20th century classics) and my dear old mother loved it and found it really frightening, giving her nightmares etc. Whitby is three hours drive from us, so when we were able to take my parents to the Seamans' church on the hilltop, where the empty graves are as described in the book, it pretty much did her in.

Kind of loving son I am...

[Vlad Dracula]

As literature, the general opinion is that the novel Dracula is moderate. As fiction story...it depends how every reader understand it. It is a mental matter, I think.

[ralfyman]

My view is the opposite: Conrad's book is impressive while Coppola's film is over-the-top. There are some things notable in the film, such as the books on Kurtz's cupboard, and the same can be said for Dracula (such as Dracula's short response to the three female vampires regarding love), but if one wants more, consider Conrad's work. For the Gothic, there's Hawthorne and a few others.