Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2016-10-30 03:57 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2016-10-30 03:57 pm
[ SECRET POST #3588 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3588 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 62 secrets from Secret Submission Post #513.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!
I've read this book several times, the first when I was just a teenager. But it's been some years, I think I last read it in maybe 2009? So coming back to it, with the stuff I know and think about now, as the person I am now, has been interesting, particularly since while I remember the basic narrative beats, I'd forgotten much of the details.
The first thing that strikes me about the book was the Victorian-era gender politics. It's EVERYWHERE -- but especially in the 2nd half of the book where it actively puts Mina in danger (and they STILL try to exclude her "for her protection." It's only towards the end, when she can be useful, that they take her along after she insists.
The obvious roots in Gothic fiction are there, though the first four chapters are definitely a subversion of how Gothic fiction usually works out, given that Harker is male (though, funny enough, he seems to be written as youthful and not strong by masculine standards of the day.) Though I wonder what pushed Stoker to write this book; it's not like Dracula was the first book of its kind. Popular literature such as Carmilla had introduced vampires as early as the 1870s, and Gothic literature itself had been around for most of the century (and arguably the genre was on its way out.) Ultimately it feels like Stoker pulled together some of the old superstitious lore behind vampires and centered it loosely around the legend of Vlad the Impaler. I read somewhere that he only chose the name Dracula because he read that "Dracula" meant "devil." He could have based the character on anybody, or nobody at all.
Based on how we see vampires in modern times with things like Twilight and True Blood, it's fun to go back and look at how Dracula seemed to establish the rules, including several that seem to be generally ignored nowadays, such as anything to do with running water. Interestingly enough, ol' D doesn't actually die in sunlight, which strikes me as odd given how that's one of the most long-standing and observed "rule" in popular vampire media. What's most striking, though, is how Dracula himself is killed not by a stake to the heart, but by a bowie knife. But that actually fits with the legends -- that silver or steel harm vampires just as they might werewolves.
The characters themselves are quite interesting in their own right. Mina makes for a good lead, especially since she does stuff, but it's obvious that Stoker was using her to push back against things like the New Woman movement and newfangled ideas about feminism. Lucy makes for an interesting contrast, as she's got that whole "purity and innocence" vibe and was therefore doomed -- her later debasement as a vampire was clearly intended to be all the more shocking for that. Harker probably serves as an adequate "everyman" character -- he's male, but well-learned and not exactly the strongest guy around, and he gets menaced in true Gothic fashion by the scary foreign nobleman in a subversion of Victorian-era gender politics. I feel like Dr. Seward is for all intents and purposes the main character; it's through him and Lucy that the rest of the cast is pulled in, and he has the most page time. And as a doctor, he represents Victorian science and skepticism standing in the face of the supernatural (a tactic HP Lovecraft would use to good effect in his own work 20-30 years later) and serves as a good contrast to Van Helsing, who is also a doctor, but much more knowledgeable and more open-minded. Van Helsing himself is perhaps the most entertaining member of the cast, with his stilted English and fatherly role to the others, as well as his willingness to believe in the unbelievable.
However, I was kind of annoyed at how Quincy and Arthur were mostly minor characters, especially Quincy who was almost barely peripheral at points. Arthur gets very little focus beyond his relationship to Lucy and his status as nobility; Quincy seems mostly to exist to round out the cast and perform as an exaggerated American stereotype (which promptly disappears after the first third of the book and he sounds as British as everyone else) and then he dies -- which is especially annoying because there's no buildup and we're barely made to care about him.
I can definitely tell that Stoker had a background in theatre -- the longwinded speeches by many of the characters (especially Van Helsing, good lord) definitely seem better suited to a stage play. The few added moments of levity feel like a Shakespearean joke too -- my personal favorite being Harker attempting to deal with people who can't spell "deputy."
Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!
Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!
OMG, yes. Especially since you could kinda see it coming, when they started to exclude her and she almost immediately started to show signs of vampire attack, but didn't want to confide in them because they were ~so busy and also because she felt these barriers of communication (iirc she directly related her reasoning for not sharing with their secrecy about plans, even if that doesn't make sense).
though, funny enough, he seems to be written as youthful and not strong by masculine standards of the day.
Maybe that's why he appealed to me a little more than the other young male leads :P (though the real reason probably has to do more with reading his perspective in Dracula's castle which just made him more interesting overall, plus my love of his relationship with Mina)
such as anything to do with running water.
This is super interesting to me because while I haven't seen this in other vampire lit I've read (admittedly not very many books, but there've been a few) but I HAVE seen it in more than one other fantasy books with other villainous creatures, and I have to wonder if it was borrowed from vampire lore. In The Wheel of Time, Shadowspawn (various evil creatures spawned from the lands of the Big Bad, many inspired by various evil creature tropes) either cannot cross running water or will do so only reluctantly and need to be driven by more powerful creatures or human leaders. WoT does have a vampire-inspired creature, the Dragkhar, which is sort of like a cross between a vampire and a Dementor, but they can fly so I'm not sure the running water rule applies to them. The Abhorsen trilogy by Garth Nix involves the dead, basically zombies (dead corpses raised by necromancers that behave in many ways like zombies but aren't infectuous) and they are unable to cross running water. Tangent, sorry! Just think it's interesting.
But that actually fits with the legends -- that silver or steel harm vampires just as they might werewolves.
So I've heard the silver thing, for vamps and werewolves, but that didn't seem to apply here. Dracula himself was holding a silver...something (a lamp I think?) at the beginning of the book. But maybe it only counts if it enters their body (i.e. a silver knife) and doesn't harm their skin? Hm.
but it's obvious that Stoker was using her to push back against things like the New Woman movement and newfangled ideas about feminism.
I guess I haven't read enough Victorian literature to know if this was different genderwise than most other Victorian novels; it didn't occur to me that it might be other than normal lol. I guess it was pretty preachy about its gender essentialism though. :/
I wish they'd done more with Quincy but I found Arthur to be really pretty boring, so I didn't care as much about him. tbh I found Seward boring too but his journals were still interesting inasmuch as they pertained to Renfield. He and Arthur pretty much didn't have any unique character development to me though, except Seward's relationship with Van Helsing.
Agree completely about lack of buildup to Quincey's death. :(
And Van Helsing's monologues reminded me of Shakespeare lol. I've read enough in school to be familiar with the monologue that said little with many words. I don't remember very many specific quotes though (maybe not any...) so I didn't pick up on the actual references lol.
Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!
(Anonymous) 2016-10-31 02:19 pm (UTC)(link)We have all this technology, science, psychology, simultaneous xenophobia and exoticism stuff, all coupled with repressive morality and religiosity.
And we have the monsters, who are so beautifully suited to showcase an era's underbelly. Because it's not about simple fear or hatred. It's fear mixed with unholy desire.