Ha, the dude who became synonym for vampire is
here! The count who can shapeshift, who is sly and cunning, who can control
people and creep into your room without you even realizing, that’s a vamp.
I
dare you to find at least ten differences between him and the vampires who walk
the pages of contemporary fiction. Please, write them down, induce, deduce,
analyze, synthesize etc. and come back and comment.
I know, as far as the storyline goes, there are
many weak spots. This whole diary/letter (in snobby circles it’s called
epistolary) structure makes it slow to read. I mean, the whole correspondence
between Lucy and Mina is full of useless crap. Who cares what the ladies think
since it brings no new twists to the story (or maybe it does, depending what metaphor you are following with your analysis)?! Mr Dracula himself isn’t the best
example of the dominant boyar he boasts to be (given the fact he flees the country instead of fighting back). There are many contradictions in
his character but heck, if you have no access to television (like the original readers of this story), you may actually appreciate
it all and get spooked, too.
Stoker even explains all things vampire through the badass character of Van Helsing so that the reader can tell a vampire from a poser who just pretends to be one while sparkling in the sun.
If you are a thinker than just a consumer you sure will like the typical dilemma of rebelling against our fathers and ladies taking charge of the situation (AKA the new woman is here, so you better watch out!).
One must appreciate the gothic scenery, too. The
castles, the old shabby things, the benches under the bright moon... Oh, yes,
it can have its appeal even to the contemporary reader. Just sit back, ignore
the crap and just marvel at the grotesque yet alluring mood of the centuries
past.
GENRE: classic at its best
FANGS OUT: you must bow before the legendFANGS RETRACTING: from today’s point of view it’s not so hot action-wise
TOTAL SCORE:
No comments:
Post a Comment